Online privacy: Is the government really your biggest threat?

Speaking at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies on 20 November, Eric Schmidt expressed genuine belief that in ten years governments would no longer be able to intrude on their citizens.

Google’s Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt’s recent views on internet privacy are optimistic to say the least and perhaps fantastical in their Western naivety.

“First they try to block you; second, they try to infiltrate you; and third, you win. I really think that’s how it works. Because the power is shifted,” he said , with an almost revolutionary nuance right out of a climactic scene in an action drama.

Surprising since Schmidt is known to have taken a rather different stance in the past - when he spoke at a New American Foundation event in New York, offering a proxy defense of the American NSA’s spying. “There’s been spying for years, there’s been surveillance for years, and so forth, I’m not going to pass judgment on that, it’s the nature of our society,” he said.

More from News & Analysis

What is the US HIRE Bill and why is India’s $250-billion IT sector worried? Is the internet dead? What's this theory that OpenAI's Sam Altman says might be true?

Taking a radical turn from his erstwhile neutral views on government surveillance, he admitted that citizens are caught in a “game of cat and mouse” that keeps seeing internet user’s efforts to protect their privacy being thwarted by Big Brother’s technological advantage.

[caption id=“attachment_1182811” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Google logo is seen in this file photo. Reuters[/caption]

In this instance we can assume Big Brother would be the government since he did not clarify if the actions of corporations that violate user privacy were also of concern.

He expressed hope in newer encryption techniques as being the saving grace of privacy, stating: “With sufficiently long keys and changing the keys all the time, it turns out it’s very, very difficult for the interloper of any kind to go in and do [break encryption].”

A long time proponent of the open and transparent internet, Schmidt resolutely spoke on the need for users to protect their privacy in the face of the government surveillance. And in spite of having dealt with the fallout of Google’s own intrusion of citizen’s privacy, Schmidt said that in the race between the government’s need to know and user’s attempts to secure their privacy: “I think the censors will lose, and I think that people would be empowered.”

In stark contrast to his rebellious claims, there is another in Google’s own camp who takes a more even handed look towards the privacy element of online existence.

Vint Cerf, Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist and “Father of the Internet”, spoke about online privacy at a US Federal Trade Commission workshop on 19 November, he said it “may actually be an anomaly”.

Expressing the opinion that before the advent of networked technology, privacy was not a major feature of natural rights, and only in the technological age have people come to expect a sense of privacy, when really it doesn’t exist.

Citing the natural inclination of individuals on the digital platform to share personal details, photographs and videos, the blame cannot lie squarely with the system. The attempts at privacy in the age of interconnected devices and a constant stream of real time shared information, it is hard to imagine a completely secure private life for anyone. The first responsibility lies in the hands of the users.

“Privacy is over-rated”, jokes Siddharth Parwatay, Features Editor, Digit Magazine.“I wouldn’t go so far as saying its dead. Our way of thinking about privacy has certainly changed. Soon [users will] readjust their minds to this new paradigm and continue using the service. Maybe the next time they want to communicate something especially sensitive (business secrets, financial data, love affairs whatever) a few of them will backspace what they’ve typed and prefer to call or I don’t know use homing pigeons. But that’s a small minority. And there’s no escape.”

Illustrating the ground user reality, Parwatay pointed out the case of an Indian telecom provider who is leasing and selling user demographic data with a mobile ad network. Invoking journalistic ethics and restraining from disclosing the name of the company he said, “I won’t name them until I’m sure of specifics but this information might be horrifying for some or just shrug-worthy for others. Privacy advocacy groups and whistleblowers are the only faction that keeps corporations, at least, in check. These are guys who pour over each and every word of EULAs, create awareness, catch breaches etc.”

In India however the issues of online privacy and government surveillance are not quiet the same as in other countries.

The Information Technology Act includes a decryption order whereby as per section 69 and section 29, the Controller of Certifying Authorities may direct any Government agency access to networks, hardware or any decryption tool necessary to access data deemed necessary.Read in detail here.

The broad and wide sweeping act strips a lot of control from ISP providers and network administrators forcing them to bow down under government pressures or else suffer consequences that can restrict licenses and run them out of business.

But despite this legal gelding of autonomy the importing of cryptography software isn’t restricted, only monitored. And Schmidt’s dream of encryption driven privacy may actually be possible unless there is a bigger decryption movement happening that we’re not aware of now.

“Both encryption and decryption requires tons of raw compute power and governments have substantial resources at their disposal to make it happen,” says Siddharth Parwatay. “Imagine endless super computer farms whirring away to brute force the latest AES standard. We just cannot underestimate the capabilities of government surveillance agencies especially after the Snowden exposures.”

The ongoing friction between individual tendencies of social over-sharing and government surveillance leaves issues of privacy and censorship in a flux.

Gautam John, former lawyer, Head of Akshara Foundation and TED fellow, believes that despite the individually tendency to damage their own privacy by sharing things publicly any steps taken by governments to breach the public-private barrier in absence of legal due process and legislative remedy is an appalling move.

So even as Schmidt proclaims that encryption is the way Google, Facebook and the rest of the internet giants can protect user’s data from evil government actions, perhaps we need to take a closer look at how corporations are actually the ones who have most to lose and gain by playing around with citizen’s privacy.