OPINION: Freedom vs. Control in the Digital Era: Balancing Privacy and Security
Anushka Dole
STAFF WRITER
Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram, a secure messaging app, was arrested on August 24 in France under allegations of allowing terrorist activities and other abuses to take place on the platform. The arrest has had a ripple effect across the globe, as Durov was an openly pro-privacy figure who is being penalized for it like many before him.
Privacy was a cornerstone of Telegram, which protects user’s privacy by not sharing user data to third parties and enabling end-to-end encryption for certain chats. Durov’s arrest has led to collective anxiety about what can be shared online—even in a simple phone call or text to a friend—and has opened up conversations at AHS about online freedom. To protect our freedoms, we must completely reform the legal system to accommodate for the digital era and encourage companies to moderate content with algorithms rather than immediately handing data over to the government.
Digital freedom and privacy of data is especially important for teenagers, as we live much of our lives online. Since we are free to communicate in person without fear of the government listening in and regulating our conversations, then it shouldn’t be any different online. However, government surveillance of the internet has been prevalent since its inception—this is not necessarily a bad thing, because government intervention is necessary in criminal activity, but there is a line between protecting user safety and infringing on their privacy.
Junior Milena Tiernan said she thinks, “It is our liberty to be able to communicate privately with each other, but [the government] should be able to see if people are trying to hurt other people in the real world.”
Senior Aaryan Deshwal expressed similar views. “There should be a balance between free speech and using speech to incite violence and crime,” he said. “Free speech should not be regulated at all unless there are clear indications of bad intention.”
In Massachusetts, and the overall United States, COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act) is set in place to protect children’s data from being exploited online, but the act only protects people 13 and under. High schoolers—even adults—are still vulnerable and impressionable, and if they make a mistake or fall in with the wrong digital crowd, their digital footprint will condemn them for the rest of their life. Making a mistake online directly escalates to law enforcement, something that has not been seen in the past.
In the past, even for adults who had their own home and privacy, the reliance on others in order to be able to send communications provided checks and balances on misdeeds. The mailman noticing a questionable package or neighbors noticing suspicious activity from the house next door served as informal obstructions to those who would attempt to perform illegal activity.
Today, parents find it difficult to police their children’s content due to the sheer volume of production. And for the community surrounding the perpetrator? It’s very difficult to find signs of unlawful activity when there is no access to physical records or patterns of behavior to examine.
Law enforcement has simply not caught up to the leaps that technology has made. The systems that are currently in place to safeguard us are built on a shaky foundation and are far too outdated. Algorithmic analysis of content could be a necessary intermediary—like neighbors or mailmen—to keep the balance between total anarchy and total surveillance.
Sophomore Arnav Josh had similar thoughts. “Tech companies should have basic, non-invasive filters meant to accurately recognize obvious illegal activity… it would be a huge breach of privacy for companies to be able to look at every conversation between people,” he said.
“You would need some sort of think tank, philosophers, people across the political spectrum, privacy experts, legal experts… You need a whole 360-degree view of people who can talk this through,” Bezaire added. “You need people from different walks of life, different education, different backgrounds to be able to put together a new ‘tech bill of rights’ that protects people but also helps keep us safe.”
Durov’s arrest may leave more questions than answers. And that’s okay—these are deep, complex issues that strike at the very core of humanity. Resolving them will require much more thought, countless conversations, and inevitably, even more questions. The tension between privacy and security will always be challenging to navigate, but it’s a balance we must find. The future of our society depends on it.
