Tech firms want privacy, the government wants security. The public is unsure The internet has provided us with many wonderful things: a vast wealth of information at our fingertips, infinite knowledge beyond […]

The internet has provided us with many wonderful things: a vast wealth of information at our fingertips, infinite knowledge beyond our ancestors’ wildest dreams and a portal into other cultures, countries and democracies. It has also effectively facilitated mass surveillance on an unprecedented scale, creating entire industries built around tracking your every movement, trying to sell you nonsense and tricking you into clicking.

In the past, advertisers would hold extensive focus groups to try and work out how to encourage the discerning shopper to buy whatever they were peddling. Now, the payoff for the wealth of amazing free software like Google and Google Mail at our disposal is that the companies harvest your data and use it to sell adverts back to you – hence why you start seeing adverts for wedding dresses immediately after Googling them (a dead giveaway). Your phone can reveal everything from your most-listened to music and daily commute route to your passport and debit card details and tastes in pornography.

The top 20 British postcodes where stolen identities are for sale on the web The i newsletter cut through the noise Email address is invalid Email address is invalid Thank you for subscribing! Sorry, there was a problem with your subscription.

The repercussions of living and, more importantly, documenting our lives online alongside the rise of social media run far deeper than our shopping habits. To grossly simplify the ongoing encryption debate, tech firms such as Google, Amazon and Facebook may happily harness user data for their own means, but they’re adamant governments and other authorities shouldn’t be allowed to access your devices, even in an effort to thwart terrorist activity.

The Investigatory Powers Act, known colloquially as the Snoopers’ Charter, compelled telecoms and internet service providers to keep extensive records of phone calls made, websites accessed, apps used and messages sent for 12 months, alongside permitting authorities to remotely hack into and bug civilians’ smartphones and computers. It was, unsurprisingly, met with extreme opposition from tech giants and privacy campaigners, with Edward Snowden labelling it “the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy”.

Whether you’re reassured or horrified by this depends largely on your perception of the amount of power law enforcement should allowed to wield, chalking it down to either the price you pay for security in an age of terror or a violation of your human rights.

There is a kernel of logical truth with the ‘Nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ argument, but lest we forget, that phrase is generally attributed to Joseph Goebbels. A reluctance to share private data with the state should not be automatically mistaken for an admission of guilt: the right to privacy is a fundamental one, which not everyone is entitled to the way we are in the UK. Trading information for use of services is an irritating compromise, but it’s a choice. The Snoopers’ Charter destroys all trace of opting in or out, and gives the police the right to sift through your electronic devices, guilty or not guilty. But does the public really care? It’s debatable.

A survey conducted in the US shortly after 9/11 by the Pew Research Centre found 70 per cent of adults favoured adults being made to carry national ID cards, but also voiced displeasure at government email and phone call monitoring. Shortly after the Snowden revelations in July 2013, 50 per cent of US adults said they favoured the US government’s collection of telephone and internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts, while 44 per cent disapproved. Just 6 months later, approval had fallen to 40 per cent, while disapproval had risen to 53 per cent.

Public attitude to surveillance/security is inconsistent, and varies (perhaps understandably) depending on the perceived severity of threat at any one time. The tech companies have been keen to announce the various measures and tools they are implementing to help weed out terrorist activity (see Facebook and YouTube’s algorithms), but they’re risk a public backlash from not being seen to take a robust-enough stance in the future. The toss-up between privacy and security will continue to rage for many years, but both sides need to prioritise what matters most – keeping the public safe – over cheap point scoring or political nastiness.