Because there are two separate — yet often entangled — ideologies in our discourse about the surveillance state: The first is the individualistic conception of cyber-hygiene: how you should behave to secure your own communications, protect your own data, and avoid your own tracking. The second is the notion of tech-centric solutionism (a term popularized by Evgeny Morozov): what tech hack, device, or app can I turn to for a quick fix to my privacy troubles?
The problem is that focusing on one or both of these approaches distracts from the much-needed political reform and societal pushback necessary to dig up a surveillance state at its root.
The fundamental belief in technology’s ability to “fix” everything ignores the fact that not everything needs to be fixed in the first place. And it gives birth to questions such as what if Trayvon Martin wore Google Glass? Sure, technology could help — but such questions (and answers!) miss the larger social and cultural context that needs to be addressed here.
In fact, taking the tech-centric route can lead to even more severe, unintended consequences. There’s a feedback loop between solutionist tendencies and the growth of a surveillance state: The rapid spread and use of technologies ironically laid the very foundation for it to engulf more and more aspects of our lives. Governments around the world must be saying a prayer of thanks because most of us willingly carry, at all times, a location tracker, listening bug, camera, internet hunter-gatherer, and more in the form of a smartphone.
It will require “coordinated dissent” from individuals, advocacy groups, and, yes, technology companies. Smart people like Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) warn that our inaction opens the door for such surveillance to become an irreversible and regrettable part of our society, but the hard truth is that citizens need to muster incredible will to demand or enact sorely needed privacy protections.
