Evolving Privacy and the NSA

Despite never even sneaking its way onto the Bill of Rights, the word "privacy" is considered paramount to living the ideal "American" life of liberty and freedom. It allows us to operate outside of the allegedly oppressive footprint of the government and experience freedom once and for all. With the recent revelations regarding extensive NSA wiretapping, and the federal government's scramble to respond, "privacy" is back in the news. The ACLU claims that this data collection confirms their "greatest fears" about government power and tyranny, I am here to provide comfort in this time of supposed crisis. As noted by Martha Acklesberg and Mary Shanley, privacy is not an intrinsic value, and is instead a social construction. As a society, we have the ability to define what is private and reclaim our phone records and possibly credit card data from the supposedly tyrannical hands of the public sphere.

Common discourse places the attacks of 9/11 as the tipping point for privacy in our lives. There are endless charts on the internet profiling the ways our life has changed since those tragic attacks. From the Patriot Act to the Terrorism Prevention Act, the "private" sphere of US citizens has narrowed. Every time you cross a border or fly on an airplane, you are reminded of the shifting line of privacy. Now everything you carry on your person in an airport is defined as a public act, rather than a private act as in the past. However, it is beginning to look like every time we pick up a phone or make an online purchase we should again be reminded. The NSA has redefined these acts as being of public interest, vigilantly monitoring for any connection to terrorist agencies or extremist groups. This is a slope that looks awfully slippery. If our private phone chats have become public information, what is next? Are warrants becoming obsolete? Will citizens retain any private space before all is said and done?

Despite the uproar surrounding these restrictions to privacy, nothing new is really going on. Going back hundreds of years, the public conception of "privacy" has been in flux. Women were once considered the "private" property of their husbands. This allowed them to be beaten, raped, and effectively controlled without fear of police intervention. Now, domestic abuse hotlines and battered women's shelters are available across the US. Similarly, family life was considered private. This gave parents the right to raise their children as they see fit. Child abuse went unpunished. Now, as a result of child-rearing entering the public sphere, Child Protective Services will show up at your door if they suspect a child is being abused or not appropriately cared for. These "invasions of privacy" by government services have left the world a safer place for abused spouses and defenseless children.

The same phenomenon occurs in the economic sector. Each new consumer protection law is met with cries of "socialism". Really what these alarmists are trying to refute is the Marxist concept that the economy resides in the "public" domain. Public regulation of the economy has brought us,  for example, the EPA in 1970, providing business regulation that created uniform standards of emissions to preserve the environment. These and other regulatory bodies have promoted safety for citizens from unsafe business practices.

The real point of this brief history lesson is that what is "private" and what is "public" is constantly evolving. More importantly, the changes listed that were controversial in the past have brought tangible benefits to the present. Someday we may look back and scoff that it was considered a "private" concern if we wanted to buy bomb making equipment with our credit card online, or ride on a plane without a cavity scan. With this in mind, take the panic over expanding NSA powers with a grain of salt. Just because the "private" sphere is shrinking doesn't mean tyranny is inevitable. In fact, I would assert that shrinking privacy has been on the whole a good thing in American history.