Unreasonable is a relative standard

Here is what I would regard as a vigorous and intelligent critique of the “surveillance state” from Mikko Hypponen, a Finnish computer security expert:

The most basic point here is the one he quotes from Dilma Roussef:

In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy. In the absence of the respect for sovereignty, there is no basis for the relationship among Nations.

This isn’t completely wrong, but the issues are relative, not absolute. The fact that the National Security Agency (NSA) has the capability to collect everything I write or say via the internet does not mean I am not free. After all, the many companies providing my internet services already have everything.  What do they do with it?  Mostly send me ads, which is annoying but certainly not infringing on my freedom (only my patience).

The vital issue is this: to what use does NSA put the information it collects?  And what information does it need to achieve the purposes we can all agree on?  A Dutch traffic camera caught me running a red light (unintentionally) last summer.  I’d have a serious objection to their using that photo to zap me with a Hellfire missile from a drone.  But all they’ve done is try to collect what I perceive as an exorbitant fine.  I know people who also object in principle to that use of traffic cameras, but most of us don’t.

I’ve got no reason to believe that NSA is doing anything with 99.999…% of what they are collecting.  They may have the computers to store it, but they don’t have the human capability to listen to it or read it.  I have more evidence that Google knows what to do with the contents of my emails.

The question then is who decides what an appropriate use is, and isn’t.  On this score, I can’t give NSA high marks.  The court that nominally controls its behavior seems never to disapprove of anything.  And NSA was careless with its own secrets, allowing Edward Snowden to abscond with them.  How careful are they being with mine?

Yesterday’s US District Court for the District of Columbia decision on the constitutionality of NSA surveillance revolved around whether NSA behavior constituted unreasonable search and seizure, prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.  It seems fairly clear that had the US government been able to demonstrate conclusively that its use of the material was necessary to protection of public safety, the court decision could have gone the other way.  It failed to meet its burden of proof in this round.  They’ll try again on appeal.

I marvel that some people worry a great deal about their own privacy but think their government should have none.  What I want from the government is assurance that surveillance is used for protecting the public.  That’s what the traffic camera does.  That is also what the constitution requires:  unreasonable is a relative standard, not an absolute one.