-
The basic tenet of the Internet is openness: you don’t need to forfeit all privacy, but if you want to protect it, don’t post publicly. The debate about quitting Facebook certainly takes on a different hue when exposure, not secrecy, becomes the critical fight. In the past few weeks, both Pakistan and Bangladesh shut down Facebook in response to the group Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, because it is considered blasphemous to create images of the prophet. Facebook has been slammed by clerics in Egypt and Syria for being a gateway to adultery; and a woman was shot in Saudi Arabia after her father discovered her chatting online with a man she met on the site. Increasingly, the idea that everyone should be able to log on, publish, upload, download, update, or tweet at will—and whim—seems vital.
This argument does not match the title. Privacy is a form of freedom, not the opposite of freedom. Part of being free to say what you want means being free FROM snooping and people who shouldn’t be hearing what you have to say not being able to.
We have a whole area of rights around this - the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. It’s why the government can’t read our mail in most free countries. When sites like Facebook make it hard to keep your doings private, you put yourself at greater risk of discovery. This has a chilling effect on your speech.
In the world where “if you want to protect it, don’t post publicly” holds sway, the woman in Saudi Arabia has two choices: get shot for for chatting with men or don’t talk to men at all. That’s not freedom. The thing that could have freed her from her father’s insane grip is secrecy; she lives and is free only insofar as she is able to keep her private life away from his murderous gaze.
Julia Baird, “Freedom Should Trump Privacy Online” (via newsweek)
Posted on June 6, 2010 via Newsweek