Media coverage of whistleblower Edward Snowden exposed misuse of authority by democratic governments around the globe.

The Snowden controversy illuminated the fact that governments of the free world were overstepping their legal and moral bounds. Governments were spying on their own citizens. They were monitoring the activities of civilians who were not on any alert list, who had no criminal record, who were hardworking, tax paying, law abiding citizens.

Let me just say it: they were spying on you and me, folks, and I for one am not okay with it.

Snowden revealed a dangerous lack of oversight and transparency of governments who claim to be by and for the people.

Adding to the controversy, these news stories provoked U.S. government officials to publicly criticize the writers who broke the story, claiming it was a “rush to publish” and “irresponsible and hyperbolic” journalism. Some journalists were warned by their lawyers that if they published this story they risked arrest or subpoena. Clearly, this was an important story to release to the public quickly. This early outing led to much needed public outcry and possibly saved Snowden’s life. The scandal led to dramatic policy changes for the NSA and the CIA.

Still, three years later, questions remain: Did we go far enough to protect the privacy of citizens from their own government? Is Snowden a hero or a traitor? Is there more to the story?

As we race toward our technological future, our right to privacy warrants far more discussion. A movie about the Snowden story is due to be released in September of 2016. While the movie may overdramatize the events, hopefully it will bring this topic back to where it needs to be: in the forefront of people’s minds.

The Snowden story is important because it speaks to the right to privacy debate, an issue that will challenge us for decades. This problem is compounded by the fact that technology has been increasing exponentially since 1965 and is expected to continue at this rate for decades. According to futurist Ray Kurzweil, we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21^st century—it will be more like 20,000 years. Kurzweil goes on to say that the implications of exponential growth are something we won’t be able to easily manage; it’s not intuitive.

Astonishing things are in store for us. In his book, Physics of the Future,  Dr. Michio Kaku devotes an entire chapter into giving us a peek at the world in 2100. He enters the labs of over 300 scientists worldwide who are esteemed in their fields of research spanning the gamut of artificial intelligence, biotechnology, nanotechnology, energy production, robotics and space travel. Dr. Kaku goes on to explain what he believes is in store for us as we make our way to 2100 and beyond.

It truly is the stuff of science fiction and it’s not that far away.

While it is exciting and fantastic to peer into these cutting edge technologies, it’s also unsettling in that Dr. Kaku plainly states that the bulk of the research for these state-of-the-art technologies and labs are funded by government. More often than not, Dr. Kaku was given special security clearance to be allowed into these labs. Even the internet started out under the military umbrella. He goes on to say that one of the best decisions ever made was to make the internet accessible to all.

Although the definition is fluid in today’s world, currently privacy is defined as the right to be left alone and free from surveillance and unreasonable personal intrusions. However, privacy can be interpreted quite broadly. Court rulings have determined that the right to privacy is not absolute and must be balanced against the needs of society. We see an example of this with electronic surveillance used in banks, stores, streets and other businesses and places that people frequent.

Dr. Kaku acknowledges that privacy issues will be one of the great controversies of the future. He goes on to assuage our concerns by claiming that since the National Foundation of Science converted the internet from solely a military network to one that networks the entire world, we needn’t worry about an Orwellian future.

Ironically, the Snowden story broke just a few short years after Dr. Kaku’s book was published. Clearly, the open-to-the-public internet did not—cannot—answer to privacy concerns which are proving more problematic as time goes on.

Many scientists, including Kaku and Kurzweil, speak of putting systems in place to counter the very real dangers of exponential growth. There is this naive belief that government will collaborate with scientists and high tech companies for the benefit of the people. The Snowden controversy should be an early warning beacon to us all that if we are to survive as a species, there needs to be unparalleled transparency of the institutions that serve us.

While there are great and wondrous breakthroughs predicted on the horizon, we, as humans, need to be questioning every exponential step of the way. We need to ask ourselves: Who is determining our future? Is it the scientists? Is it the government? Or is it all of us?

Going forward, I can only hope that we safeguard our personal liberties and freedoms with as much fervor as our government unabashedly ran roughshod over them.

~

Author: Melanie Jackson

Image: Jhaymesisviphotography/Flickr 

Apprentice Editor: Melinda Matthews; Editor: Emily Bartran