Privacy Nihilism: Our next election will prove we need to trust technology
Sometimes, I wonder what it would take to save democracy. If we do not trust the apparatus that supports our voting system, that is the tread that will lead to the disintegration of the coat that once was. Half the country still disputes the last presidential election. There is a way that we can conduct elections whose results could be indisputable. We would have to give up our right to privacy.
Privacy nihilism is the idea that, in our digital age, it is pointless to continue protecting privacy. This is due to our pervasive surveillance society. Data collection practices by companies, law enforcement, and our government are growing exponentially. We are overwhelmed by the ambiguity of the information we use and share on various platforms. We are being tracked, analyzed, and stored on servers worldwide. To a privacy nihilist, this is why all is futile.
There is concern about the implications of privacy nihilism. Instead of spreading hopelessness and discontent, action is needed to encourage engagement instead of apathy. A proactive approach is necessary to our relationship with protecting our data.
Action and engagement is the hope, at least. However, the reality is that many feel the nature of surveillance and data collection is growing unchecked, and that no average citizen can do anything about it. The complexities of digital technology and its support systems are not understandable to the average citizen. It is almost impossible to make informed privacy decisions. The solutions are not effective. We have yet to see much progress in implementing any solutions, now or in the immediate future. Legal and regulatory measures have yet to work thus far.
China has led the way in technology, enabling tracking and analyzing people. The difference between China and places that hold democratic elections is that in our democracies, the same technologies are used by law enforcement, businesses, and the government. The surveilled state is surrounding and creeping up on us, seeping into our society, as opposed to China’s more open transparency on why they are surveilling their citizens.
Even though China is practicing with the very tools that are making people apathetic and turning to privacy nihilism, China itself is not for that type of mindset. China prioritizes collective interest (as defined by the state) over individual rights. In other words, the individual has no rights. China’s top goal is national security, and the rights of individuals get trampled in that pursuit. China would not dream of sharing information in an open data society. Their data collection is strictly for government use only.
And what, in the hypothetical world, if we practiced privacy nihilism, what would the world look like? There would be no expectation of privacy in any context — increased surveillance for private and governmental agencies. Blurred personal boundaries will develop, affecting societal changes at home and work. Personal data would become an open commodity, trading and exploited more than today. Ethical situations must be reconsidered, as well as personal autonomy. If we knew we were all being watched or monitored, freedom of thought and expression would erode. The excellent news will be that we can have a transparent and accurate election. The bad news is that by then, our social and economic stature would be such that there is no need for an election.
We have to speak to these privacy nihilists and convince them that we are in a time where there are actual solutions to trust in our digital voting systems. We have technical solutions. For example, blockchain-based voting’s main feature, decentralization, makes it very appealing. It allows for transparency and verifiability. Voters and auditors can verify votes without identifying the individual. The decentralization makes hacking difficult (but nothing is impossible), and advanced cryptographic techniques are used to ensure anonymity and privacy.
Americans will not trade privacy for a more secure voting system. Our entire lives have prided privacy, which is part of the American identity. Any significant change in that identity is unimaginable but possible. But with trust in our present government and technology, divisions will dig deeper in our society. Where will we be if we cannot prove and verify our elections unambiguously in the next national elections?
The integrity of the voting system is the most essential technological problem we must solve. If we don’t give this problem the attention it asks for, we risk having the meaning of data and elections disappear. Both sides will only tell their side of the story. Nihilism and those against truth will win. The technology needed to make voting results definitive already exists. We should not believe in technology as if it is a religion, but we should trust in technology. The proof is all around us.
