The Price of Privacy

The latest wave of terrorist attacks in various places has prompted governments around the globe to pass sweeping surveillance laws that curtail individual privacy in the name of national security.

This has raised the critical question of how much privacy we, as citizens, are willing to trade off for the sake of our own security. To put it bluntly, what is the price of privacy?

The prevalent view now is that — much like what happened in the US after 9/11 — the people generally value protection from terrorism over civil liberties and privacy.

To make nations more secure from threats both external and internal, it is common for governments, from time to time, to intervene and restrict some freedoms. However, when it comes to the need for security versus the right to privacy, the pendulum does sometimes swing too far to one side or the other.

The classic example would be the revelation, not too long ago, that the Obama administration had secretly collected phone records and accessed the internet activity of millions of Americans. This shocking disclosure has since sparked concerns over the government overreaching and intruding on people’s privacy.

Last month, however, the US Congress and President Barack Obama signed into law the new CISA Surveillance bill. CISA stands for Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act. From the name, one would assume that it is about cyber security, but in reality, it is basically a surveillance law.

According to some civil rights advocates, CISA creates a massive legal loophole that allows the National Security Agency (NSA) to circumvent privacy laws. This means US companies can now share ANY information with the US government, bypassing privacy laws without legal consequences. Furthermore, all of this information is automatically shared with the NSA and there are no restrictions on how the agency can use the data.

One would think that it is only the NSA and its UK counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), that are spying on the people. But in reality, many governments around the world do the same.

In Malaysia, the government has denied spying on the people. But the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012, the replacement for the now repealed Internal Security Act, allows a public prosecutor to intercept suspect postal letters, instant messaging, email and so on.

Some legal experts suggest that the state can require communications providers like Maxis, Telekom and Digi.Com to intercept and retain data. Given that everything passes through the internet service providers, they will have quite a comprehensive picture of a suspect’s online activity. Such activities merely have to be approved by a public prosecutor, and not by a court, if he or she “considers it is likely that it may contain any information in relation to a security offence”.

Make no mistake — following the recent Jakarta attack that injured 24 and killed seven lives, Malaysians are worried about their safety and security.

Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar assured the public that the police have raised the alert level to the highest degree and increased security measures in public places. Extra precautionary steps will be taken to prevent the infiltration of the country’s borders by terrorist elements, he had added.

Deputy Home Minister Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed has also gone on record as saying that Malaysia’s security laws can adequately deal with terror threats against the country and do not need to be amended for now.

He cited the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Security Offences (Special Measures) Act, Prevention Of Crime Act and a law against money laundering and terrorism financing as some of the preventive laws available to help the authorities fight terrorism.

To effectively tackle terror threats, Nur Jazlan said prevention is key, citing as compulsory methods, physical surveillance and the monitoring of online communications.

No doubt all these assurances by the government have given the people a certain sense of security and peace of mind, at least for now.

Yet, the fact remains that sooner or later, we will be confronted with the question about the proper balance between privacy rights and security concerns. The public has never liked the idea of the government monitoring personal phone calls or email because the idea of allowing the state to snoop on our private lives is, terrifying, to say the least.

More importantly, if we wish to reduce political extremism, then we should address the root of the problem directly — eradicating poverty, bridging the inequality gap between the haves and have-nots, and encouraging open and honest interfaith dialogue, rather than banning certain content online or spying on the people.

In answering the critical question of how much privacy that we, as citizens, are willing to trade off for the sake of our security, we should always keep in mind the following words from Benjamin Franklin: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

And what is the price of privacy? It is simply, priceless.

Khaw Veon Szu, a former executive director of a local think tank, is a practising lawyer. Opinions expressed in this article are his own.

*This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly, on January 25 - 31, 2016.