Sign In

Communications of the ACM

From the president

Freedom and the Social Contract


View as: Print Mobile App ACM Digital Library Full Text (PDF) In the Digital Edition Share: Send by email Share on reddit Share on StumbleUpon Share on Hacker News Share on Tweeter Share on Facebook
Vinton G. Cerf

ACM Past President and Google Inc. Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist Vinton G. Cerf

The last several weeks (as of this writing) have been filled with disclosures of intelligence practices in the U.S. and elsewhere. Edward Snowden's unauthorized release of highly classified information has stirred a great deal of debate about national security and the means used to preserve it.

In the midst of all this, I looked to Jean-Jacques Rousseau's well-known 18th-century writings on the Social Contract (Du Contrat Social, Ou Principes du Droit Politique) for insight. Distilled and interpreted through my perspective, I took away several notions. One is that in a society, to achieve a degree of safety and stability, we as individuals give up some absolute freedom of action to what Rousseau called the sovereign will of the people. He did not equate this to government, which he argued was distinct and derived its power from the sovereign people.

I think it may be fair to say that most of us would not want to live in a society that had no limits to individual behavior. In such a society, there would be no limit to the potential harm an individual could visit upon others. In exchange for some measure of stability and safety, we voluntarily give up absolute freedom in exchange for the rule of law. In Rousseau's terms, however, the laws must come from the sovereign people, not from the government. We approximate this in most modern societies creating representative government using public elections to populate the key parts of the government.

I think it is also likely to be widely agreed that a society in which there was no privacy and every action or plan was visible to everyone might not be a place in which most of us might like to live. I am reminded, however, of my life in a small village of about 3,000 people in Germany. In the 1960s, no one had phones at home (well, very few). You went to the post office to mail letters, pick up mail, and make or receive phone calls. In some sense, the Postmaster was the most well-informed person about the doings of the town. He saw who was calling or writing to whom. There was not a lot of privacy. The modern notion of privacy may in part have derived from the growth of large urban concentrations in which few people know one another.

In today's world, threats to our safety and threats to national security come from many directions and not all or even many of them originate from state actors. If I can use the term "cyber-safety" to suggest safety while making use of the content and tools of the Internet, World Wide Web, and computing devices in general, it seems fair to say the expansion of these services and systems has been accompanied by a growth in their abuse. Moreover, it has been frequently observed that there is an asymmetry in the degree of abuse and harm that individuals can perpetrate on citizens, and on the varied infrastructure of our society. Vast harm and damage may be inflicted with only modest investment in resources. Whether we speak of damage and harm using computer-based tools or damage from lethal, homemade explosives, the asymmetry is apparent. While there remain serious potential threats to the well-being of citizens from entities we call nation- states, there are similarly serious potential threats originating with individuals and small groups.

Presuming we have accepted the theory that safety is partly found through voluntarily following law, we must also recognize that there are parties domestic and otherwise who wish us individual and collective harm. The societal response to this is to provide for law enforcement and intelligence gathering (domestic and non-domestic) in an attempt to detect and thwart harmful plans from becoming harmful reality. We do not always succeed.

The tension we feel between preserving privacy and a desire to be protected from harm feeds the debate about the extent to which we are willing to trade one for the other. Not everyone, nor every culture, will find the same point of equilibrium. Moreover, as technology and society evolve, the equilibrium points may shift. It has been said that "security" is not found in apprehending a guilty party but in preventing the harm from occurring. While this notion can surely be overextended, it can also be understood to justify a certain degree of intelligence gathering in the service of safety and security.

There is some irony in the fact that our privacy is more difficult than ever to preserve, given the advent of smartphones, tablets, laptops, the Web and the Internet, but that the threats against our safety and security use the same infrastructure to achieve nefarious ends. Our discipline, computer science, is deeply involved in the many dimensions of this conundrum and we owe it to our fellow citizens to be thoughtful in response and to contribute to reasoned consideration of the balance our society needs between potential policy extremes.

Vinton G. Cerf, ACM PRESIDENT


©2013 ACM  0001-0782/13/09

Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page. Copyright for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or fee. Request permission to publish from [email protected] or fax (212) 869-0481.

The Digital Library is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright © 2013 ACM, Inc.


Comments


George Michaelson

An important element of the social contract is always consent. We consent to be governed, and accept the rule of law because of the benefits it confers. When those who govern fail to seek and renew consent, we enter difficult spaces.

I feel more uncertain that in any real sense, consent was sought, or has been maintained across the shifts in policy regarding privacy. I know that in your economy, privacy rights have defences in the constitution. Alas, as a non-national and a resident of other economies, it appears my rights have no defence in your laws. And indeed, language used by the president and others, suggests their view of actions taken in the defence of the United States, were acceptable since if any rights were breached, they were not American rights.[1] This instantly created a world of 'us' and 'them' -and I write as one who has been placed in the 'them' group not by choice, but apparently as a matter of state.

Were the Internet purely a matter of one economy, one political and legal environment none of this sub-issue need matter, but since it is not, it becomes very important. As one of 'them' I find myself feeling increasingly polarised about what the 'us' are doing to 'our' network. And as a practicing computer scientist, I find myself drawn to the role models of people who built my discipline into what it has become. I find that the ones who attract me had courage: courage to declare that acts of state exploiting their science did not have their consent. Norbert Wiener comes to mind.

And since, His name has now been raised, this also takes us to John Von Neumann, who stands in complete contrast, in terms of his own decisions in the same time, on the same matters.

I am lucky enough to be a second generation Computer Scientist. I find myself asking what my father, who helped found this discipline in the UK would have made of this matter. What his feelings on the consent of the users would be. I suspect they would have been quite firm. Without consent, you have not achieved a just society.

I wonder if I will have the courage to make similar determinations? I wonder if we collectively, have the same courage that nuclear physicists had, when they started down the road to "pugwash"

[1] This has subsequently turned out to possibly, arguably, not be the case, and I suspect there will be discussions about what, if any rights, have in fact been breached.


Acm Member-3

Test comment - blenderbox


Displaying all 2 comments

Sign In for Full Access
» Forgot Password? » Create an ACM Web Account
Article Contents:
  • Article