Safety vs Privacy
It is often argued that curtailing freedom of the individual is necessary to achieve effective public safety. Societies that emphasise personal freedoms, such as the United States, tend to experience high levels of crime, while law enforcement lacks the power to prevent it due to concerns about privacy. Most attempts to prevent crime are seen as infringement on civil liberties, leaving law enforcement impeded, unable to effectively police crime and act preemptively due to the legitimate concerns about surveillance.
Emerging cryptographic technologies such as Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) represent a profound shift; they enable enforcement of law and order without demanding the surrender of personal data. Compliance can be verified without the need to disclose personal information. The social benefits of highly effective law enforcement, exemplified by countries with low crime rates such as China, could be achieved without compromising on privacy or aggregating citizen data.
For example, a national ID system in the UK would help consistent compliance and enforcement, but it has been met with resistance due to privacy concerns. Similarly, age verification to access content online, while it could have a positive social impact, is extremely invasive and has been very unpopular. With Zero-Knowledge technology, citizens would be able to prove a certain attribute (eg. being over 18) without revealing any underlying identifying data. The user is the sole custodian of their data, and can choose to only reveal certain parts of it when necessary, for example when purchasing alcohol or applying for a job. If such a system was implemented, it would allow for much more effective enforcement of law and order, while preserving individual rights.
Zero-Knowledge Proofs are only the beginning; they barely scratch the surface of what privacy-enhancing technologies and cryptographic tools can achieve. Use of these emerging technologies in law enforcement would create opportunity for more rigorous and effective regulation, while simultaneously respecting the sovereignty of a citizen's private domain.
Many enthusiasts of privacy-preserving technologies tend to focus on a utopian, idealistic vision of society with absolute personal freedom and a minimal state. This philosophy likely stems from the "cypherpunk" movement of the 1990s, which heavily prompted absolutist libertarian ideals. But I believe that the real application of this technology is not to undermine the state, but rather to strengthen it's legitimacy by making it a trustworthy enforcer. Privacy-preserving tech can be integrated into existing institutions to enhance their effectiveness, while simultaneously advancing privacy and freedom. Once enforcement can be done in a truly private way, there is nothing to fear. Institutions no longer need to be trusted, as cryptography itself becomes the guarantor of privacy and freedom, not the state.
Safety and privacy are no longer mutually exclusive.