Privacy is more important than security

Security threats are typically temporary and specific—a terrorist plot, a criminal investigation, a period of social unrest. But privacy invasions create permanent vulnerabilities that outlast their original justification. Consider how emergency surveillance powers granted after 9/11 became routine two decades later, or how location data collected for COVID-19 contact tracing was later accessed by law enforcement for unrelated purposes. Once privacy is surrendered to address a security concern, it rarely returns. The infrastructure of surveillance remains, the data persists, and what was exceptional becomes normalized. While security threats evolve and eventually pass, the erosion of privacy creates lasting structural changes to the relationship between individuals and institutions, fundamentally altering the balance of power in society.

Privacy is the foundation of democratic participation and dissent. Without privacy, citizens cannot freely organize opposition movements, communicate dissenting views, or challenge government overreach. History shows that authoritarian regimes consistently exploit security justifications to monitor and suppress political opposition—from East Germany's Stasi to modern surveillance states. When governments can monitor all communications, track all movements, and analyze all associations, they gain the power to identify and neutralize threats to their authority before they materialize. A society that prioritizes security over privacy inevitably becomes less free, as the tools of protection become instruments of control. Democracy requires space for unpopular ideas, controversial organizing, and criticism of those in power—all of which wither under comprehensive surveillance.

Security measures disproportionately target and harm vulnerable populations—racial minorities, immigrants, religious groups, and LGBTQ+ individuals face heightened surveillance and enforcement. The Japanese internment during WWII, McCarthy-era persecution of suspected communists, and post-9/11 profiling of Muslims all demonstrate how security apparatus becomes weaponized against those deemed "different." Without privacy protections, these communities cannot safely exist, organize for their rights, or even maintain their cultural practices. Algorithmic surveillance amplifies these biases, creating feedback loops where increased monitoring of certain groups generates more "suspicious" data, justifying further intrusion. Privacy isn't just about hiding wrongdoing—it's about protecting the fundamental right of minorities to exist without constant scrutiny from a majority that may view their very identity as threatening.

Privacy is essential for innovation and economic progress because it creates the psychological safety necessary for experimentation, risk-taking, and creative thinking. When individuals know their communications, research, and early-stage ideas are being monitored, they self-censor and avoid pursuing unconventional or potentially controversial innovations. Silicon Valley's rise coincided with strong privacy norms that allowed entrepreneurs to develop disruptive technologies without fear of premature exposure or interference. Surveillance-heavy societies consistently lag in innovation metrics. Companies won't invest in breakthrough research if competitors or governments can access their proprietary information, and individuals won't share the honest feedback and wild ideas that drive progress. The chilling effect of pervasive monitoring creates conformity and risk-aversion that undermines the creative destruction necessary for technological and social advancement.