There are always new attempts by governments to systematically surveil Internet users for no reason. However, mass surveillance is not only unsuitable for fighting crime, it is also completely incompatible with democratic principles and poses a considerable threat to data security.
Threema was built to ensure secure and privacy-compliant communication. We believe that Internet users should be able to exchange thoughts and ideas without being tracked by companies or monitored by governments in any way, shape, or form. Just like it’s possible to have a private conversation in real life, it should be possible online.
For this reason, Threema is based on the “Privacy by Design” principle, meaning that only the minimum amount of user data is collected in the first place – and only stored for the shortest amount of time possible.
Mass surveillance requires the elimination or reversal of this principle: data that is not even necessary for the provision of a service has to be collected and stored for much longer than necessary so that authorities have free access to it.
This form of surveillance is a fundamentally bad idea for many reasons. Among the most important are the following:
Mass Surveillance Is Incompatible with Democracy
One major distinguishing factor between totalitarian states and democracies is that only in the former can the government invade citizens’ privacy for no apparent reason. Modern democracies recognize privacy as a basic human right. The EU itself acknowledges it in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (article 7):
Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.
Imagine, for example, the police could randomly enter any home without having a reason to believe the owners are involved in illegal activities, simply to snoop around and see whether they can find something suspicious by sheer chance.
In a healthy democracy, it should be the citizens who oversee the government – mass surveillance is the inversion of this democratic principle. With a measure like this, citizens would be put under general suspicion, and the trust in the government would be profoundly disrupted.
Mass Surveillance Is Ineffective
Mass surveillance of standard communication channels like instant messaging and email only affects law-abiding citizens. Why would any criminal continue to use a communication channel that’s known to be under government surveillance? Given their involvement in illegal activities, criminals will go to any length to avoid surveillance, i.e., use other, obscure communication channels that are not (and cannot be) monitored by the state.
Because it isn’t practical to handle day-to-day communication with friends and family members in this manner for ordinary, unsuspecting Internet users, they would therefore be the only ones really affected by mass surveillance.
Mass Surveillance Undermines Data Security
It’s not just citizens’ privacy that suffers from mass surveillance. If more data than needed is collected and stored for longer than necessary, the attack vector also increases considerably.
If communication services were also required to implement an “interface” for authorities, that would be like deliberately adding a weak link to a strong chain lock. It would be one of the first places someone would try to break an otherwise secure system.
For these reasons (and many others), we firmly say No to mass surveillance of any kind.