JOEP DERKSEN
Is it wise to sacrifice
privacy for the sake of fighting terrorism? Even if you know that out
of 17 million inhabitants only 140 persons have gone to fight with
ISIS? Is it not the governments themselves who are responsible for
terrorist attacks? When you interfere in local fighting, it is just a
matter of time before the warring parties turn on you as well. The
Dutch government wants to introduce a law to intrude on peoples
privacy. But this far reaching action will not help fighting
terrorism. It will only give the impression of security, but may
unleash a 'Big Brother Beast' which we cannot yet comprehend.
Terrorist attacks in
Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Paris, Brussels. The violence seems to creep
ever closer to our 'peaceful' country. Never mind, a country which is
one of the leading nations in the weapons industry. Aeroplanes, bombs
and military infrastructure are sent to the Middle East. Are we so
peaceful? Let's go back to high school, the prime example of life in
a nutshell. When two children are fighting, they will sort it out
themselves. But what if one of these two is supported by a teacher,
who provides boxing gloves? Then the other child will turn on the
teacher as well and seek for revenge. For instance by slashing the
tires of the teachers' bicycle. The teacher responds to this act by
checking the mobile phones, emails and website visits of all pupils.
How reasonable is that?
'Je suis Paris, je suis
Bruxelles, je suis Ankara.' After the attacks on Charlie Ebdo the
phrase 'Je suis Paris' seemed to be so powerful. But one year later
it turns out to be an idle and feeble sentence. Just like the comment
of Prime Minister Mark Rutte after the Brussels attack: 'We are with
more people'. Yeah right: more people who don't do anything and live
their everyday life. Who sympathise with terrorist victims by
clicking a button on their laptop and then move on to the daily
chores.
It is easy to be cynical
to the incapability of the Dutch government to take a stand against
terrorism, but that's not the intention of this article. Because
incapability is not the main problem, it is the danger that the
government is taking emotional decisions regarding the preservation
of privacy. Decision made because of attacks in a Brussels airfield
and metro station. Executed by friends of an arrested terrorist, who
had said that he would talk about his connections in return for a
less severe term of imprisonment.
Since 2014 the civil
servants of the Ministry of Safety and Justice have been working on
an action programme against jihadism. Minister Ard van der Steur will
present this report in April and expectations are that police and the
AIVD (General Intelligence and Security Service) will get far
reaching opportunities to check all sorts of communication devices.
Until now, a court order is needed to obtain this right, but if the
Tweede Kamer and Eerste Kamer approve this proposal, any police
officer may be able to check on the private communications of his
neighbours with their spouses. Or Tinder friends, for that matter.
All in the name of national security of course.
But such far reaching
breaches of privacy are not helpful at all to fight terrorism. Don't
take my word for it, but the supervisory report written by the CTIVD
(Committee for Supervision on the Intelligence and Safety Services)
on 11 January 2016. Based on a law from 2002, the AIVD is already
licensed to eavesdrop on telecommunication; not only regarding the
information of who is communicating with who, but also what is said
and written between the various parties. The CTIVD states in her
report: 'These two jurisdictions form a major part of the work of the
AIVD and, when used, form a far reaching breach of privacy.' Even
though, in general, the AIVD uses its authorities in a proper manner,
the outcome is far from impressive. A conclusion of the TCIVD says:
'The turnout of the use of the selection authority of Sigint (Signals
Intelligence; part of the AIVD, JD) seems limited. This poses
questions regarding the effectiveness and therefore the
proportionality of this means. The results on the area of meta data
requires further investigation.'
In other words, it is
pretty useless to collect massive data from all over the place.
Allowing the police and other (government) institutions to do the
same, does not help at all in fighting terrorism. It only increases
the chance that information is abused. Of course there are
politicians who state that nobody should be an opponent to giving up
one's privacy. Because if you do, you have something to hide. And if
you have something to hide, it is most likely illegal. I call on all
these politicians to install cameras in their working places and
houses. And let the walk around with cameras on their suits, with
live internet connections, so the world will know what they are
doing. Because, for sure, they don't have anything to hide, do they?
0 Comments:
Een reactie posten
<< Home