Government Surveillance and Why Defining Privacy Matters in a Post-Snowden World

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    14 Citations (Scopus)
    120 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    There is a long-running debate as to whether privacy is a matter of control or access. This has become more important following revelations made by Edward Snowden in 2013 regarding the collection of vast swathes of data from the internet by signals intelligence agencies such as NSA and GCHQ. The nature of this collection is such that if the control account is correct then there has been a significant invasion of people’s privacy. If, though, the access account is correct then there has not been an invasion of privacy on the scale suggested by the control account.

    I argue that the control account of privacy is mistaken. However, the consequences of this are not that the seizing control of personal information is unproblematic. I argue that the control account, while mistaken, seems plausible for two reasons. The first is that a loss of control over my information entails harm to rights and interests that privacy protects. The second is that a loss of control over my information increases the risk that my information will be accessed and that my privacy will be violated. Seizing control of another’s information is harmful, even though it may not entail a violation of privacy. Indeed, seizing control of another’s information may be more harmful than actually violating their privacy.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)417-432
    JournalJournal of Applied Philosophy
    Volume35
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2016

    Keywords

    • Privacy
    • Control
    • Access
    • Inness
    • Security
    • Hermansson
    • Hansson
    • Wolff
    • GCHQ
    • NSA

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Government Surveillance and Why Defining Privacy Matters in a Post-Snowden World'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this