Open for debate

June 2, 2016

I wish to address five misconceptions in Ron Iphofen’s feature “Safety is more important than privacy” (28 April):

1. Human rights concerns hobble anti-terrorist surveillance
There is no evidence that recent terrorist attacks could have been prevented were it not for “privacy-related ‘obstacles’”. Intelligence and security agencies have considerable surveillance capabilities, but the challenge lies in selecting on whom to target their resources and in communicating across agencies and borders.

2. Technology will fix the problem for us
Technologies that could spot individuals wearing only one glove would likely drown security agencies with a huge number of false positives. Terrorists are adaptable, and it’s unlikely that such an indicator would work in the future.

3. The Snowden revelations made terrorists more aware of surveillance
Osama bin Laden stopped using his satellite phone in 1998 and relied on couriers, and nine years before Edward Snowden’s revelations, Al Qaeda published a 152-page document on US intelligence agencies. At the same time, many jihadists post comments on social media and use mobile phones from which intelligence agencies can collect metadata.

4. Encryption signifies that human rights concerns have trumped security concerns
The Apple v FBI case was sparked by an FBI agent mistakenly locking an iPhone. Encryption is used not only for individuals’ privacy but also to protect financial transactions. Besides, the US National Security Agency employs 40,000 people dedicated to finding new ways of intercepting electronic communications, and they adapt as old techniques fail. There are increasing opportunities for them ranging from our mobile devices to the Internet of Things.

5. Human rights campaigns are a threat to appropriate levels of surveillance
Intelligence and security agencies seem to belatedly accept that they should have begun this debate earlier as their work in a democratic society is based on informed public consent and a proper legal footing. Activists and journalists are a vital part of the checks and balances in a democratic society: we wouldn’t know of the Metropolitan Police’s Special Demonstration Squad without them. A key issue with surveillance is proportionality. I think most people would agree that working undercover for so long that several SDS officers had children with activists just to gain advance information about a few demonstrations is wholly disproportionate.

David Harper
Reader in clinical psychology
University of East London

Send to

Letters should be sent to:
Letters for publication in Times Higher Education should arrive by 9am Monday.
View terms and conditions.

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Related articles

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

PhD Scholar in Medicine

University Of Queensland

Manager, Research Systems and Performance

Auckland University Of Technology

Lecturer in Aboriginal Allied Health

University Of South Australia

Lecturer, School of Nursing & Midwifery

Western Sydney University

College General Manager, SHE

La Trobe University
See all jobs

Most Commented

women leapfrog. Vintage

Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O’Gorman offer advice on climbing the career ladder

Woman pulling blind down over an eye
Liz Morrish reflects on why she chose to tackle the failings of the neoliberal academy from the outside
White cliffs of Dover

From Australia to Singapore, David Matthews and John Elmes weigh the pros and cons of likely destinations

Mitch Blunt illustration (23 March 2017)

Without more conservative perspectives in the academy, lawmakers will increasingly ignore and potentially defund social science, says Musa al-Gharbi

Michael Parkin illustration (9 March 2017)

Cramming study into the shortest possible time will impoverish the student experience and drive an even greater wedge between research-enabled permanent staff and the growing underclass of flexible teaching staff, says Tom Cutterham