Last updated:

November 6, 2024

“Balancing Security and Privacy: Lessons from Iran’s Surveillance Tactics / Alireza Goodarzi”

The real world is not like a movie or a novel. In the real world, there are no spies with small devices taking pictures from behind tall walls, and no “big brother” watching inside our homes, lest someone have secret notes. At least our imagination is that we have not yet reached that point. But our privacy is like a hair tie: Google knows our traffic patterns and what music we like, the government knows “which bakery we buy from,” (1) online stores know what we buy in which month, and so on.

Our information is collected by various individuals, one of which is the government. There are also other governments, of course. The security concerns that led to the blocking of the “Waze” navigation app were from this same source. Governments want to be the sole holders of their citizens’ information and not have anyone else involved. This perspective can also be seen in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe. But do all of these information that governments collect from their own citizens and others really serve their purpose? The answer is most likely no. I have a history in the education sector where I attended elementary school. Educational and health records of individuals from the past are also likely to exist somewhere. If it is necessary for government planning to improve education or health services, what’s the harm? But is this massive amount of data really being used for decision-making? The answer is most likely no. The volume of such big data is so large that the government cannot even use it. However

If we assume based on social contract, humans have made a compromise to give up a certain amount of their freedom in exchange for being part of society, today we are giving up a portion of our privacy to use the internet and feel safe in society. Personally, I accept this compromise. However, a few weeks ago in my hometown, a terrorist attack (perhaps the largest in Iran’s history?) occurred. I have to equip my house with cameras and alarms and be worried about every sound of an engine behind me. I don’t know how much security exists or how much worse the situation could have been, but in this compromise, I have given up my privacy and do not feel a sense of security.

There are also other cases where this exists. The surveillance camera takes the license plate number of the car with a veiled passenger and sends a text message to them at a certain time. But do surveillance cameras also monitor stolen cars? I don’t know. In any case, our cities are filled with small and large violent crimes. I hear and see on social networks that wallets, phones, and cars are stolen and armed individuals with large spears (more like swords) demand a fight in the cities. The compromise between privacy and security seems to have failed. One can imagine someone feeling like “Joseph was sold for a few coins.” In any case, the security of society is more threatened by terrorist incidents, violent crimes, and serial poisoning in schools than by veiling. However, security cameras are more sensitive to the latter case.

American writer Henry David Thoreau once said that he did not want to use government services and therefore did not want to pay taxes. The government’s hand is long and it collects overdue taxes from writers by threatening them with prison. The possibility of living in the woods to have security and receive the gifts of human society (in fact, the government) no longer exists today. To provide for the minimum necessities of life, whether through farming, hunting, or gathering, we need various government permits. Since Thoreau’s time, the government’s hand has become even longer. As Saadi said, “They say go ahead, he won’t let me.” Wherever we are and wherever we buy bread, we must be under the government’s supervision. But to prevent theft, we must spend money and buy cameras and alarms. It is better not to use our mobile phones on the street at night and our valuable assets are not even safe in secure boxes at the national bank.

The authors of the Constitution did not have a concept of privacy violation in the digital age. Article 25 prohibited actions such as eavesdropping and espionage, but left a clause stating that these actions are permissible under the law. Even if we consider filming the faces of passersby in the subway as a violation of privacy, where is the authority of the law to stop this? For a parliament that considers not wearing a hijab as a serious crime, it is not difficult for them to come up with a legal solution to restrict filmmakers.

I would be happy if one day I find out that I have made a mistake and these cameras have truly been used for security purposes. The security of individuals in society is not a joking matter. Freedom and privacy of citizens also do not come at a small cost. Striking a balance between the two can protect society from insecurity and citizens from exploitation. At this moment, it does not seem like such a balance exists. What is understood from security is the security of the government, not the citizens. Citizens pay for the government’s security and then have to think about their own security as well. If we see the compromise between privacy and security as a social contract, then this contract has failed today.

Footnote:
1- Minister of Economy: Today we can say which person has bought bread from which bakery.

Mehr News Agency.

September 4th, 2022.

Created By: Alireza Goodarzi
January 21, 2024

Tags

Alireza Goodarzi Bakery Freedom of speech Monthly Peace Line Magazine peace line Peace Line 153 Privacy Supervision Surveillance camera