Theorell 1

Matthew Theorell

Dr. Melina Martin

English 1101

4 December 2018

The Reach of the Leviathan

As Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan, “knowledge itself is power.” That aphorism is

ever truer as available information increases at an exponential rate thanks to computers and the

internet. We the people continue to use technology to our advantage at the cost of information

being gathered about us. From home cameras to shopping habits, our digital profiles are held by

the companies that run these services. This information can be used to protect people and deliver

justice if it is used properly and has limitations on its acquisition. The government should have

the right to demand users’ data from companies if the demand for the data is backed by a court

issued warrant, the subject of the companies’ user data is in the bounds of government

jurisdiction, and that the information gathered is respectful of the privacy of the owners whose

data is being obtained.

In contrast, some would say that the government should never have access to user data.

“Data could be misused by governments, especially repressive regimes that could use them as

backdoors to conduct mass surveillance on a planetary scale” (Leetaru, 4). Such access

engenders power and leverage. Thus, whenever the chance is given, the government will try to

gather information. An example of this is Project SHAMROCK, which was an operation started

in the 1940’s by the NSA to secretly collect and read telegraph messages without a warrant that

passed through the cable that ran under the Atlantic Ocean. This operation went on for decades

until it was shut down after it was exposed by the Church Committee in the 1970’s (Daskal, 11).
 Theorell 2

Similarly, such information gathering was occurring at the same time on a smaller scale. Ralph

Van Deman was a U.S army officer who, using various means of spying and observation,

committed tens of thousands of acts of subversion against union workers in California on the

behalf of industrialists (Daskal, 9). Although the motives of both information gathering activities

were widely different, both sought to use information as leverage. The private companies used

Deman’s information to undermine attempts of union workers to unite. Of interest is the fact that

SHAMROCK was initiated during wartime for the sake of national defense but was continued

long after the war was over.

The counterargument to such fear of government overreach is that by not allowing the

government any rights to obtain data exposes the citizens of the country to the dangers of crime

and damage to the security of the country. In a need to address these dangers, it can be argued

that the need to collect information is fine so long as it is not overreaching. A government should

only need user data of its citizens that are part of, or the subject of, an investigation. The search

and or seizure of property of a citizen is protected by the fourth amendment to ensure that the

action is reasonable. The term reasonable is meant to be vague and malleable to changing

situations. Brewster quoted Nest Labs, a home automation company, on their transparency

report, “If a U.S. government agency presented us with a search warrant to investigate a crime

they think was captured on a Nest Cam, we wouldn’t just hand over user data. We’d analyze the

request to be sure the warrant wasn’t overly broad, then we’d make sure the information they

requested was within the scope of the warrant” (Brewster, 6).

Another problem with data security stems from the fact that the world is divided by

political and geographical borders, and countries have authority within their borders. This has

always been the case, but now electronic information can flow fast and freely beyond these
 Theorell 3

borders. Facebook, for example, has over a billion users on their social media platform which far

exceeds the three hundred twenty million citizens of the U.S. where the company is based. If the

government had access to all of Facebook’s user data, then it would have the information of

people who are not citizens. This might lead to violation of their rights as defined by their

respective countries. Solove in his article writes, “Canada and most European countries have

more stringent privacy statutes than the U.S., which has resisted enacting all-encompassing

legislation” (Solove 104). Any demand for user data must address these differences. One

solution might be that the government only has the right to request user data of its own citizens

and those companies or individuals that operate within U.S. boundaries.

Going beyond the issue of government rights is the matter of the need for respecting

privacy of the users when the data is procured. General government “fishing” should not be

allowed. As Daskal states, “the default rule should be that investigators need a warrant when

seeking the content of a U.S. person’s communications. If the government wants metadata, it

should have to document a reasonable suspicion” (Daskal, 17). Although the government has the

job of serving the people for the greater good, personal information should never be

unnecessarily be made public. For example, if in the course of warranted investigation, electronic

data obtained reveals personally embarrassing information which is not germane to the

investigation, such information should remain private.

Inherent in all of these concerns is the question does the government serve the people, or

do the people serve the government? The United States Constitution was founded on the words

“of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The title of this paper refers to Thomas

Hobbes’ Leviathan in which he argues a need for the long reach of a strong government. Because

of the dangers to individuals from crime and terrorism, such a need must be affirmed. However,
 Theorell 4

history has subsequently shown that too much power in the hands of fallible individuals is

destructive of good society. Therefore, this paper argues that some limitations of that reach of

government should be extant. The government should be required to have a court issued warrant,

the subject of the user data is in the bounds of government jurisdiction, and that the use of the

information gathered is respectful of the privacy of the individuals involved.

 Theorell 5

Work Cited

Brewster, Thomas. “Smart Home Surveillance: Governments Tell Google's Nest To Hand Over
Data 300 Times.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 15 Oct. 2018,
www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/10/13/smart-home-surveillance-governments-tell-
googles-nest-to-hand-over-data-300-times/#6381a3d2cfa7.

Daskal, Jennifer. “Public and Private Eyes: Surveillance in the Digital Age: We Know All about
You: The Story of Surveillance in Britain and America.” Foreign Affairs, 2017, p. 290.

Leetaru, Kalev. “Will Governments Turn Our Smart Devices Into A Massive Surveillance
Network?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 10 Oct. 2018,
www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/10/09/will-governments-turn-our-smart-devices-into-a-
massive-surveillance-network/#5ba80a1626b6.

Solove, Daniel J. “The End of Privacy.” Scientific American, Sept. 2008, pp. 100–106.