Online Security: A Second State of Nature
Social contract theory was first coined and defended by Thomas Hobbes in The Leviathan in 1651. It was later expounded upon by John Locke in 1689, providing a theoretical basis for the founding fathers of the United States. However, it is often attributed in originality to Socrates, who used it to justify his own acceptance of death at the hands of the Athenian city-state. It is a theory of long-standing consequence, which has become implicit in current western political thought and culture.
Social contract theory describes a hypothetical period of time before government, law, justice, or any real form of regulation - a time when human beings lived in a state of nature. This state of nature is a state of ultimate freedom. Without appeal to authority, man can do whatever he wants in the state of nature - build anything he pleases, share whatever he pleases, steal whatever he pleases. Consequently, of course, other men can also do whatever they want to him - building upon, sharing, or stealing the fruit of his labor. Without law or government, a man's security lies only in his own hands.
For Hobbes, the freedom found in the state of nature was also freedom from morality. A Hobbesian state of nature was a state of war and terror, with people unable to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, and thus thrown into chaos. For Hobbes, it was a state wholly undesirable - to be avoided at all cost. Locke, on the other hand, proposed that the state of nature was not devoid of morality, because some sense of morality was inherent to humanity. However, without laws or government regulation, it was almost inevitable that a dispute should arise that would lead to war and violence. After all, human beings may not be wholly amoral, but neither are they perfect.
Hobbes and Locke agreed that the solution to the uncertainty of the state of nature was a social contract. According to this social contract, human beings would give up some of their freedom in exchange for laws, government, and regulation. They would give up some of their freedom for security. Where they differed was: how much freedom? for how much security? And if the social contract breaks down, and security is no longer provided, can the social contract be voided?
----
My point in taking this very brief foray into Western political theory should be fairly obvious given the title of this post. And given such warning, hopefully you won't think I'm being facetious when I characterize the internet as a second state of nature, and the current dialogue surrounding online security as a preliminary discussion to the creation of a second social contract.
Let me flesh out what I mean.
The internet was originally created with the (pretty much) sole purpose of sharing information. With the addition of the World Wide Web - online protocol to give anyone the ability to share information over the internet - it quickly grew into the most massive unregulated forum the world has ever seen. With the exception of certain countries that aggressively police their residents internet access, freedom on the internet is almost guaranteed. With very few exceptions - and most of them quite recent, you can say whatever you want, buy whatever you want, sell whatever you want, and do whatever you want online. To many people, it is almost total freedom. To me, it is a second state of nature. Of course, whether you want to characterize that state of nature in a Hobbesian way - as terrifying, essentially amoral, and fundamentally insecure - or in a more Lockeien way - as essentially moral but relying heavily on individual responsibility and a strong sense of duty - is up to you.
As it stands, online security is pretty much every man for himself. You can hire mercenaries - anti-virus companies - to take care of you. You can choose to keep your property within the territory of a large well-resourced overlord - Google - that will look after you in exchange for information about all your doings (back in the day, they called it a tithe). You can rely on sporadic vigilante justice groups like Anonymous to go after the big baddies. Or, you can educate yourself, spend the resources, accept the inconvenience and do it yourself. As Locke himself said, "The only fence against the world is a thorough knowledge of it." And who knows, maybe free market capitalism will come through, and soon we'll have an easy convenient way to secure all our data (for the record, I'm very skeptical).
However, if system-wide security, with designated bodies to enforce rules and regulations, then according to the old model, we - the internet denizens - should be prepared to give up some of our freedom in exchange. A social contract for the internet could mean voluntarily giving online access to law enforcement; allowing internet companies to regulate the free exchange of information; letting companies pre-install tracking software on your computer; or letting third party companies keep track of your passwords. In fact, these things are all already in process - the NSA is spying on Americans illegally and fighting for the right to do so legally; ISPs are fighting for the right to regulate the flow of information (among other things, to make sure Netflix is playing by the rules - or paying by the rules, if you read between the lines); many computer companies pre-install spy software; and Chrome knows all your passwords. A new social contract is being written, with or without our participation. Personally, I hope that freedom of the internet will be maintained, even in the face of online security threats (yes, I'm a DIY-er) and that technology will continue to break barriers and come up with ingenious solutions to age-old problems.
