On January 11, 2022, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Bulgaria’s laws on secret surveillance violated its citizens right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention. Furthermore, when citizens asked about whether they had been subjected to surveillance, they received an insufficient response. Because of this, Bulgaria must amend its domestic laws in order to comply with the European Human Rights Convention. This is a somewhat fortunate event, in that action was taken to ensure Bulgaria’s surveillance methods and laws surrounding surveillance were called into question and forced to change to ensure better transparency. This however, isn’t always the case.
During the George Floyd protests in San Francisco, police illegally used surveillance cameras to monitor protestors. This was illegal because in 2019, San Francisco passed a landmark ordinance that banned the SFPD and other city agencies from using facial recognition and needing approval to use other surveillance technologies. Currently, a few groups have taken the SFPD to court (these groups include the Electronic Frontier Foundation; a leading non-profit that defends digital privacy, free speech, and innovation, and the ACLU of Northern California). The lawsuit is ongoing, but this is an example of non-profit groups and the public having to step forward and take action against an authority for the misuse of surveillance, rather than an already established court or governing body (like the ECHR). So then, what do we do? I can’t help but always think of these questions; How much surveillance is too much and how can we ensure our governments and authorities are using it in our best interests and not totally abusing their power?
This idea of “how much is too much” is always an interesting topic of discussion. I think a lot of us would agree, surveillance is important in our society. It helps to prevent crime, and most of the time, surveillance does a good job at this. But I also think that a lot of us would agree that where things get out of hand is when authorities and figures of power try to push the boundary just a bit further. I think Dr. Benjamin Goold wrote it best:
“… we know that there is too much surveillance when citizens begin to fear the surveillance activities of the state, and no longer feel free to exercise their lawful rights for fear of unwanted scrutiny and possible censure.”
The other question is then, how to we keep government agencies and authorities accountable for their use of surveillance technology? One could suggest the use of laws to help regulate the use of these technologies, but depending on where you are in the world, this might not work out as intended, as we saw with the case in the George Floyd protests. Thankfully however, we have plenty of advocacy groups that we as citizens can lean on to help keep these governing bodies accountable, though it would seem like it is a constant battle no matter where you are.
I’ve only just skimmed the surface of the surveillance vs privacy debate, there almost seems to be an infinite number of angles and layers as to which we can approach this subject. So, I’ll leave the question with you; How much surveillance is too much, and what can we do to keep governments and authorities accountable for their use of surveillance technology?
References:
https://www.jurist.org/news/2022/01/echr-rules-bulgaria-surveillance-laws-violate-human-rights/
So a side note, trying to write about this topic in around 500 words was nearly impossible, there’s so much stuff we can easily discuss.
This is a question brought up a lot, and one which obviously everybody has an opinion on. I wonder sometimes how strong an argument can be made for “surveillance is never ok,” which would essentially outlaw traffic cameras, and “surveillance is always ok,” which would invite federal agents to bug everyone’s belongings in the name of an omniscient nanny state. Both of these positions seem overbearingly uncompromising and impractical, neither of which are great traits for a society to build from. After all, this is just another step in the debate of “safety vs rights” which has been going on for like… ever, with differing conclusions.
I almost wonder whether the quote from Dr. Goold almost misses a key point, however, which stretched beyond the practical implications of overbearing surveillance. Does it matter if people are scared or not? Is it relevant if people are afraid to participate in society because of surveillance? Is this to imply that well-hidden surveillance would be acceptable? If privacy is to be considered a right, I think it has to be justified beyond simple utilitarian concepts, into a more rigid moral framework. After all, while some surveillance may be acceptable (like traffic cams or police cameras), something just seems wrong about the government knowing what I say at the dinner table, regardless of what they choose to do with that information.
This question is certainly becoming more relevant as we further into the digital age. With the internet basically being essential, it becomes more important for citizens (like those mentioned in the post) to hold governments accountable for online snooping.
Good post!
Super interesting points! I couldn’t help but think of trying to “define” a structure when it comes to public vs private surveillance, that is to say, defining that “Surveillance should only be used in a public setting.” Okay, then define “public”. Is it putting up cameras in super populated areas such as stop lights and shopping centres? Or is it putting up cameras and microphones on every single lamp post in a community. Is that former example still considered “public”? It’s not in anyone’s house, and it’s outside on city-owned property. This is such a multifaceted topic that I think is super hard to navigate.
Agreed, and it becomes much more complicated where the two intertwine. A toll road may be private property, but that doesn’t mean you can’t get pulled over on one, and it doesn’t mean you aren’t “in public”. Unfortunately, reality differs here from theoretical discussions; as far as I know, anything visible from a sidewalk is considered “public” – including the inside of your house. You can find many videos of instigators filming the inside of nursing homes through windows visible from the sidewalk with no consequences, because these areas are not considered “private”.
This brings about another point about surveillance: it’s not just governments who can spy on you. If privacy in one’s home is ever to be a right, these boundaries have to be rigidly defined and all invasions, whether by governments or other citizens, need to be accounted for one way or another.
I think this problem involves many situations in society, and the degree of monitoring should depend on many indicators. Such as a country’s political structure, cultural background, ideology, social problems, crime rate and so on. It’s clear that different countries have different levels of surveillance, and people have different levels of acceptance. Some people are intensely private, while others care little about it. In addition, the development of information technology also conflicts with people’s right to privacy to a certain extent. When people mainly use paper money, their consumption behavior is almost completely invisible, whereas when you use credit cards or electronic money, there is no doubt that there is a footprint. It is also worth discussing how to strike a balance between convenience, social security and privacy.
I think this problem involves many situations in the society, and the degree of monitoring should depend on many indicators. Such as a country’s political structure, cultural background, ideology, social problems, crime rate and so on. It’s clear that different countries have different levels of surveillance, and people have different levels of acceptance. Some people are intensely private, while others care little about it. In addition, the development of information technology also conflicts with people’s right to privacy to a certain extent. When people mainly use paper money, their consumption behavior is almost completely invisible, whereas when you use credit cards or electronic money, there is no doubt that there is a footprint. It is also worth discussing how to strike a balance between convenience, social security and privacy.
It’s interesting you bring up striking a balance between convenience, social security, and privacy, with a big one there being convenience. How can we keep things as convenient as they are today (or making things more convenient) without compromising security or privacy. Being able to access your banking info on your phone is super convenient, but there’s huge levels of security involved. Being able to order something from Amazon and have it arrive within 24 hours is super convenient, but (without looking into Amazon’s privacy policy) I’m sure you’re giving up a certain amount of privacy in order to accomplish that.
Great Post! For the privacy versus security debate, as you said, there is always the debate of how much surveillance is too much. I would agree with the quote made by Dr. Benjamin Goold. My take on the debate is that it depends on the situation. If giving up a bit of privacy allows police to hunt down a criminal who committed murder, the outcome is positive. However, as mentioned in your blog, too much surveillance can be abused, which is a negative outcome. Governments definitely should be held more accountable for their actions; likewise, citizens should exercise their rights to make sure this happens. A balance needs to be made between security and privacy, and that balance point differs from person to person depending on what they value. I am looking forward to reading other comments about this debate.
A person’s own value and opinion on privacy and security is super important. I think a lot of people focus quite heavily on the community/society/group of people when it comes to security and privacy, and tend to forget the individual wants and needs of a person. Does the needs of the greater take precedence over the needs of the few? Could neglecting those few become dangerous down the road? I’d like to think people still have control over how private they want to be, such as opting out of services, not creating accounts on social media platforms, and possibly moving away from more digital approaches to everyday tasks, but this, I’d argue, gives up quite a bit of convenience, as it pertains to our society.
Great to see this topic discussed! This is an important question in Canada as well. While much of the literature primarily focuses on the US, less has been done to observe Canada’s own cyber activities. Canada’s version of America’s NSA, the CSE, has been out of the public eye for much of the time (which can mean that they are generally doing their job properly), but when they have been put in the public spotlight (such as during the Edward Snowden controversy) some of their classified practices have been met with controversy. Privacy is especially important nowadays as we become more connected via the web in this pandemic. Especially after the expansion of the CSE’s mandate in the 2019 CSE Act, the question of surveillance vs privacy remains significant as since discussion may be needed in Canada’s context.
This is my first time hearing of the 2019 CSE Act, I’ll need to see if I can find a summary of it, the actual document seems to be 60 points of legalese, a lot of it that may be lost on me. I hope to see more discussions about this subject in a Canadian context in the future.
Great Post!
Your blog reminds me of the “Skynet System” in my home city. If you search “Skynet System in China” on Google, you will see there are so many “anti” “Skynet System” articles and news on Google. Yes, this system truly has “stolen” our privacy. However, at the same time, it also makes my home city much safer than before. For example, when I lived in my home city last year because of the COVID-19 pandemic, someone damaged my Jimny(a very cute off-road car produced by Suzuki) when it was parked in a public parking lot, so I called the police. After only one day, the police told me they had caught that person, and I was asked to get to the police station. That person paid me money for the damage. But, to be honest, sometimes this system truly disturbs me, because the government can always know almost all of my privacies by using this system.
When I was researching and writing this post, my thoughts kept on wondering to China and how they handle security and privacy, so it’s SUPER interesting to hear first hand experience on that. I haven’t looked into this “Skynet System” myself, but I can only imagine how far the Chinese government has gone to monitor its citizens purely based on hearsay and various articles I’ve skimmed in the past.
It is certainly true that more surveillance can lead to less crime, and that needs to be balanced with privacy. Perhaps another consideration is that what the government may consider to be a crime might not reflect the actual values of the people who are governed- an example of this could be seen in many covid government responses, where everyday activities could suddenly become illegal, without any consultation from the people. While it can be argued that these particular restrictions were necessary for public safety, it is also possible that in the future governments will suddenly make and enforce laws that are terribly unfair… and if this should happen, the amount of surveillance the government is able to use to enforce these laws will become a very relevant issue. It may be that surveillance today is only used to stop crimes like murder, and that is commendable, but if in the future it is a crime to use Instagram, would we want the government having the ability to prosecute Instagram users of the future? I should hope not, and so I am of the opinion that it would be wise to limit the amount of surveillance that the government or institutions are allowed to use, and to hold them accountable should they overstep these bounds.
Though surveillance has its benefits, it has to be limited to allow people to live their lives comfortably. If there’s too much of it, people would constantly be conscious of their actions knowing someone is watching them. This is a great post.
Great post!
I appreciate you giving a good overview of the topic within such limited space.
This topic is very interesting and really affects all of us, it is to be assumed that all of us are surveilled in parts of our lives we would not expect it, may it be big tech companies or governments.
I personally find it very hard to draw a clear line between a “good” amount of surveillance to make everyone feel safe, or a “bad” amount of surveillance, that is just to much and invades people’s privacy. I do think that surveillance, with good reason, is a good thing to prevent terror and crime. But invading average people’s privacy for no reason seems morally wrong. I often think to myself that “I have nothing to hide”, but some deeper reflection and reading the provided text on this topic really show that this is a bad argument and I do not want to be under surveillance for no reason and without being able to know about it.
Thank you for sharing this topic. The use of electronic devices brings us convenience and troubles at the same time. For example, privacy is no longer privacy. Privacy and public safety sometimes conflict. They are difficult to achieve simultaneously.
I think when it comes to the point that people are jamming their signals or finding bunkers just to have a conversation is a point where the line has been crossed. I know that when the Patriot Act was passed, many people resorted to such methods in order to hide their communication for fear of being spied on. When the community is exposed to immense surveillance, it creates a dystopian Orwellian environment where a lack of trust prevails within the society. Inadvertently, this causes the government to view its own citizen whom they have sworn to protect as their enemies.