Dear Editor: 

Over the last decades, the issue of privacy has been a trending topic of discussion in America. This is partly due to rapid advancements in technology that have led to globalization's acceleration and left our government to play a game of catch-up. To the citizens' ears, the policies that have been framed as parameters necessary to protect our society from the other have given the government unprecedented power over our privacy. Here I question the limitation imposed on the public by the government and the motives that allow the government to justify its mass surveillance of its citizens.

Last month, the question of privacy was once again brought into the spotlight during a Senate Congressional Hearing. Current FBI Director Christopher Wary took the senate floor to address his concerns regarding National Security. Wary opened by addressing the incident that occurred on Capitol Hill earlier this year. He assured the Senate that his institution is working diligently to prosecute those involved in the incident to secure the American People's well-being and uphold our nation's constitution. This served as a segue to address the FBI's Top Terrorist Threats, which Wary declared was most important to the Bureau.

Among the list of potential terrorist threat groups, both domestic and foreign, the Director declared Domestic Violent Extremist (DVE) as one of the FBI's top priorities. His statement was directed towards both the Capitol Hill Rioters and the protestors who incited violence during the series of protests in the summer of 2020. Wary blamed the lack of counter-measures taken due to "law enforcement agencies' inability to access electronic evidence," as technology companies are not working with agencies to provide them with information on their users.

Wary depicted encryption software, like that of "user-only-access" and "end-to-end encryption," as an obstruction to justice, as they prevent government authorities from the ability to gather the information that could potentially stop an attack. Wary attacked Apple for its uses "user-only-access" and the company's lack of cooperation, comparing it to that of Facebook, which ironically has been under fire over the past couple of years for its series of privacy violations and collection of user data. This message was not solely directed at Apple but directed at applications like the Signal messaging application, which uses "end-to-end encryption," only allowing the sender and receiver to view information.

Given the history of our nation's policy towards promoting privacy rights, Wary's cry for cooperation is laughable. The government has done far more than its fair share to undo its transparency and volatile privacy rights.

Ironically, this year will mark the 54th anniversary of the Freedom of Informations Act (FOIA). The FOIA was put in place to promote the growth of our nation's democracy and government transparency. Later, the Privacy act of 1974 would be added as a clause that prohibited government agencies from disclosing the individual's information. It allowed citizens the right to review documents under their names. Although these provisions, enacted for the good of the citizens, were seemingly short-lived.

In 2001, in the months following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush and Congress would pass the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act would dramatically increase government surveillance, allowing it to access information on its citizens without any legal restrictions or repercussions, all done as an effort to prevent future terrorist attacks. The passing of this act best illustrates the government shift in attitude towards privacy and its acceptance of massive data collection. Thankfully, as of June 2020, the Patriot Act officially expired and is no longer active.

As a government official, one would assume that Wary would understand the importance of upholding our rights. Yet, Wary believes that companies should work with the government to provide the tools to access our information. The cooperation he is asking from tech companies is known as the "backdoor" tool. This software system is put into place by the company that allows a secondary user to access the primary user's information. Suppose Wary genuinely wants to uphold our nation's constitution. Why would he plead to Congress to encroach on our privacy rights?

What is the future of privacy? And what obligations does the company have to the government? It is hard to say where the line should be drawn, especially when dealing with complex topics like national security and citizens' rights. On the one hand, Wary's argument for national security shouldn't be taken lightly, given the events earlier this year. However, in doing so, I fear that we run the risk yet again to be subject to mass surveillance programs that once again will violate our rights as U.S citizens.

Jorge Guerrero 
Downey