Close
today i learned (til)

Privacy in the Age of Surveillance

December 16, 2023

In the digital age, the lines between public and private have blurred. Our every click, swipe, and purchase leaves a trail of data, meticulously collected by corporations, governments, and third-party entities. This pervasive surveillance raises urgent questions: who owns our data? How is it used? And most importantly, how can we reclaim control over this vital piece of ourselves?

The scale of data collection is staggering. Smartphones track our location, social media platforms analyze our interactions, and smart devices monitor our homes [1]. Facial recognition technology identifies us in public spaces, and even our browsing history paints a detailed picture of our interests and beliefs [2]. This data is then analyzed, packaged, and sold, shaping everything from targeted advertising to political campaigns.

The consequences of this data-driven world are far-reaching. Algorithmic bias can perpetuate discrimination, data breaches can expose our vulnerabilities, and the erosion of privacy can stifle free expression [3]. We become not individuals, but data points, subject to manipulation and control.

However, amidst this unsettling reality, there is hope. Reclaiming our privacy requires a multi-pronged approach, encompassing both individual action and collective advocacy.

Taking Control of Your Digital Footprint:

  • Mindful data sharing: Be cautious about what information you share online. Consider the purpose of each platform and the potential consequences of divulging personal details. Opt-out of data sharing settings wherever possible.
  • Privacy-focused browsers and apps: Ditch data-hungry browsers like Chrome for privacy-oriented alternatives like DuckDuckGo and Firefox. Utilize secure messaging apps like Signal and Telegram for encrypted communication.
  • Strong passwords and two-factor authentication: Implement unique, complex passwords for every account and activate two-factor authentication for added security.
  • Data minimization: Limit the data you share with third-party applications and services. Regularly review and revoke unused app permissions.
  • Digital detoxing: Disconnect regularly from social media and online platforms to reclaim your mental space and reduce data trails.

Collective Advocacy:

  • Support privacy legislation: Advocate for stronger data protection laws and regulations that empower individuals to control their data.
  • Hold corporations accountable: Demand transparency from tech companies and challenge their data collection practices.
  • Raise awareness: Educate others about the importance of privacy and encourage them to take protective measures.

Reclaiming our privacy in the age of surveillance is not a one-time action, but an ongoing process. It requires vigilance, awareness, and a commitment to safeguarding our digital and physical selves. By adopting these practical steps, amplifying our voices, and demanding accountability, we can begin to rewrite the narrative of data ownership and reclaim control over our lives in the digital age.

By understanding the pervasiveness of data collection, adopting practical protective measures, and advocating for stronger privacy protections, we can begin to navigate the age of surveillance with a greater sense of control and empowerment. Remember, our data is not simply a commodity; it is a fundamental part of our identity, and we have the right to decide how it is used. So, let us not surrender to the panopticon of the digital age, but rise up and reclaim our right to privacy, one click and one voice at a time.

Sources:

  1. The Algorithmic Society: Social Theory in the Digital Age by Nick Srnicek, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv319wpvm, 2023
  2. The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of Business, Work, and Society by Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg, https://www1.goramblers.org/papersCollection/Book?dataid=mTn:3008&Academia=The_New_Digital_Age_Eric_Schmidt(3).pdf
  3. The Public Option: How to Build a Better Internet by Evgeny Morozov, 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le8Ldl5EeZA
0Likes
About Author

she/her/hers
Average Computer Science Enjoyer.

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
If Vibranium Were Real: The Chemistry Behind Wakanda’s Supermetal
today i learned (til)
Understanding the Use of CRISPR in Humans
today i learned (til)
My Experiences Being a TA for a STEM Class in My Major (Intro to Biomedical Engineering Design)
today i learned (til)
Infectious Diseases, Immune System and Vaccines

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.