Information Age: Privacy, Security, and Terrorism

Does it concern you that someone, somewhere, may know that you’re reading this article?

In recent years, government cyber surveillance and exposed civilian spying programs have brought about heated debate. Is privacy a right? Can we put a price on our safety? Who is going to see that video of me twerking during Freshers week?

The panel discussion hosted by the Carnegie Club as a part of their IDEAS lecture series, and chaired by our own principal Dr. Louise Richardson, discussed these issues and various others. With an experientially diverse panel, the perspectives held were eclectic and often contrasting, resulting in a candid and thoroughly balanced dialogue.

Dr. Kenneth Geers, an Atlantic Council senior fellow with vast experience in espionage, offered an equitable stance on many of the issues of government spying that were raised. Dr. Geers remarked on his time in Estonia and more recently Ukraine, wooing the audience with his experience of the manipulation of social media and the “lies of Moscow”. Having a long résumé with many years spent at the NSA, Dr. Geers contributed valuable insight from a governmental perspective to the discussion.

A different point of view came from Mr. Eduardo Ustaran, a partner at Hogan Lovells International LLP in the Global Privacy and Information practice. With a background of data protection in the EU, Ustaran gave the perspective of the citizen and their rights. He noted that a democracy which gives all of it’s liberty in the pursuit of security may end up with neither. Ustaran emphasized the consequences of domestic spying and the erosion of privacy, a proponent of striking a balance between the two.

The final panel member was Mr. John Reid, CEO and Founder of RepKnight, an open source data monitoring company. From a business perspective, Reid was perhaps the most polarized viewpoint on the panel. Reid made, to the other panel members and many members of the audience, contentious claims that prioritized the well-being of the public over their privacy. He spoke of the necessity of secrecy for effectiveness of spying programs, noting that if the target of surveillance is known, the surveillance is entirely useless.

All in all, the discussion was varied, balanced, and riveting. The ability of users to submit questions and vote on them digitally was conducive to an interactive discussion and ensured audience members left the event satisfied. Furthermore, the selection of a well-balanced panel and chair fostered rich debate that was not dominated by any one perspective. The discussion left the audience with a fuller understanding of digital surveillance, and perhaps a new way of thinking about the balance of privacy and security.