Since its publication in 1949, George Orwell’s prophetic novel ‘1984’ posed a disturbing caution to society: ‘Big Brother is watching.’ Fast forward to the present, the reality of this dystopian prophecy palpably materializes in America, causing one to wonder if Big Brother has indeed arrived. Many debate the perils of private organizations retaining personal data, yet the ominous forewarning of ‘1984’ was rather the amalgamation of government agencies overseeing our data. Of late, the Trump administration bestowed a contract on Palantir, enlisting them with the task of potentially unifying all existing federal data into a single comprehensive database, funded by more than $100 million tax-payers’ money.
This directive is designed to satisfy the mandate of an executive order established in March titled ‘Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos.’ But despite the noble facade of increased governmental efficiency, the repercussions of this directive have far-reaching implications that extend well beyond its stated goal. A more concerning likely outcome is the breach of our already fragile privacy laws tasked with shielding individuals from the misuse of personal data.
The massive amount of individual data amassed by various federal agencies is staggering – all gathered under one umbrella, it would include, but not be limited to, tax records, health history, and voting behavior. As such, legislation was passed in 1974 to protect against any potential misuse of this wealth of personal information. Aptly titled the Privacy Act, it was specifically devised to compartmentalize the diverse categories of data that the government possesses about its citizens.
The Privacy Act is an essential safeguard that prohibits agencies from distributing personal data they acquire about an individual, to other agencies or entities, without the express consent of the individual concerned. With Palantir at the helm, however, it’s very aim to unify all data inherently contradicts the very essence of the Act. Bernard Chao, an esteemed law professor specializing in data privacy at the University of Denver, described the situation expressing how this directive could disrupt the original intentions of the Privacy Act.
Chao explains that the Privacy Act was drafted to keep our personal data compartmentalized, with each sector obtaining only the data they require – so the IRS accesses your tax records while Health and Human Services access your health records for Medicaid and Medicare, but these records don’t intersect. The Palantir project, in contrast, theoretically endows the government with the ability to consolidate all this data.
Chao’s comments reveal a looming threat: the Palantir project isn’t contending with inherent glitches in governmental systems but challenging the very data privacy mechanisms deliberately established within these systems to guard Americans from their personal information being exploited by federal agencies. While the Trump administration’s aim — increasing government efficiency — is commendable, it does prompt the following questions: what sort of efficiency are we seeking, and at what expense?
True efficiency should enhance the delivery of core governmental services, reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, and curb wasteful practices. It should not lead to the emergence of a central system that puts the fundamental rights of privacy, as preserved under the Fourth Amendment, in jeopardy. Defenders of reform that endangers American civil liberties are quick to use the catchphrase: ‘If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.’ Yet, such a viewpoint fundamentally misinterprets the principal values of a free society.
Privacy is not merely a tool for concealing illicit activities; it underpins our fundamental right to live without constant anxiety that our actions might be under surveillance, documented, or misjudged by the state inappropriately and without due process. As Edward Snowden, the notable whistleblower, aptly countered, saying: ‘I don’t care about the right to privacy because I have nothing to hide is akin to saying I don’t care about the freedom of speech because I have nothing to say,’.
Snowden further emphasized that all constitutional rights are essential and deserve our protection. These were instituted consciously and intentionally to secure the freedom for not only our current generation but for future generations as well. Hence, preventing the creation of the Palantir database becomes an issue of paramount importance for the preservation of our privacy.
There’s no necessity for a choice between an efficient government and a free society. The critical factor is that we must always prioritize our democratic principles, remembering what takes precedence in a government that is meant to be of the people, for the people, and by the people. If we sacrifice these protections of privacy for the sake of convenience, we might propel ourselves towards a version of Orwellian dystopia; a reality that’s more non-fiction than fiction.
In our data-driven era, privacy must be fortified, not eroded. Orwell’s legacy should drive us to challenge and combat attempts that threaten our freedoms. As we stand on the brink of creating a Palantir database that could centralize our personal data, we must remember Orwell’s words and take active steps to resist.
The government’s current trajectory puts us at risk of descending into a surveillance state, where every citizen’s private details can be accessed and potentially misused. In the face of this, it’s crucial we reassess the ‘efficiency’ we seek and question how it could impact our fundamental liberties.
Existing privacy laws were established with purpose and foresight to shield individuals from potential misuse and protect us from excesses of the state. Any move that undermines these protections should be viewed skeptically and confronted squarely.
As citizens, it is our shared responsibility to strike a balance between the demands of an efficient government and the need to safeguard our personal freedoms. We don’t need to compromise our foundational societal norms for said efficiency, but it is, on the contrary, incumbent upon us to fiercely protect them against potential encroachments.
We need to be ever-vigilant, casting a skeptical eye on arguments that, under the disguise of ‘efficiency,’ threaten our fundamental rights. If we remain complacent, we risk letting our lives become an open book, devoid of any privacy.
In heeding Orwell’s dystopian warning, it is clear that the potentially dystopian future he envisioned is closer to our reality than we’d like to admit. We must learn from his words of caution, as it grows imperative to ensure that our personal freedoms are not trodden under the guise of efficiency, and to prevent the prospective Palantir database from bringing Orwell’s 1984 to real life.
The post The Parallels between Orwell’s ‘1984’ and America’s Future: A Palantir Database appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
