Technology and Nature of Surveillance - Essay Example

The Nature of Surveillance Customer Inserts His/her Name Customer Inserts Name of University/College (March 29, 2016) Contents Contents 2 Introduction 3 Surveillance in the information age 4 Who is watching whom? 5 Implications of surveillance on privacy 6 Implications of surveillance on security 7 Privacy vs. Security 8 Conclusion 8 Reference List 10 Introduction Surveillance is defined as the collection and processing of person data, which can be either, personally identifiable or not, with a view to managing or exerting influence on the people whose data or information has been gathered (Humphreys, 2011). Notably, the definition of surveillance involves gaining power to exert influence over other people, as well as the fact that in some circumstances, the people being watched may have no idea that somebody is collecting their personal data (Humphreys, 2011). Since the occurrence of 9/11, governments across the world, particularly the US have expanded their surveillance systems dramatically (ACLU, 2016). The surveillance is being directed not only at criminals and other suspicious characters but to every citizen. The government has for years been examining financial records, emails, telephone conversations, travel itineraries, website visits, as well as digital images from surveillance cameras in metadata programs that seek to establish suspicious associations and patterns (ACLU, 2016). Despite this surveillance capability that the US government has built and is implementing, US citizens do not have a clue about the extent to which the government is using such data. This fact begs a number of questions including whether the government should disclose how surveillance metadata is used and whether national security can be used as an excuse to infringe on individual rights and freedoms (ACLU, 2016). This paper examines the meaning of surveillance in the information age and seeks to establish who the spies are, and their targets, as well as the impact of surveillance on both privacy and security. Surveillance in the information age Technology has had a revolutionary effect on surveillance. Before the advent of technology, the use of technology in surveillance was limited to using telescopes while watching a surveillance target. On the contrary, contemporary surveillance is characterized by the use of technologies such as video and photographic gear, covert listening devices, and night vision aids, cameras mounted on drones, as well as beacons and programmable scanners. Such technology has become even more successful as surveillance tools because of the use of personal computers that that are used for storage and analysis of collected information (Burton, 2007). In addition, the internet has made surveillance easy because people are volunteering to give personal information freely on the internet in the name of social networking. Actually, it is very easy to know the basic information of people nowadays, including their names, location, family ties, appearance, appearance of neighborhood in which they live, etc., courtesy of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. People post personal information, images, videos, etc. on these sites, which can be used for surveillance purposes. Some of the aspects of modern surveillance include security cameras mounted to businesses, traffic lights, homes, street corners, and even on drones. Other cameras like those of news segments, television program, movie shoot, music video, cameras on mobile phones, etc. are also likely to take images of unsuspecting people if there is something peculiar with them. If such images make their way to the internet, then the data about that specific person or event is recorded forever. Mobile phones even have a GPS system, which enables any interested person to know one’s location at any time (Sau and Randol, 2012). Without a doubt, modern technology has proved to be a game-changer in surveillance. It is however important to note at this point that modern technology has failed to render traditional pre-operational surveillance irrelevant. Despite the opportunities that the internet presents, a person sitting with a computer connected to the internet in Saudi Arabia or Syria will not get all the information he/she needs to carry out a terrorist attack in the US. Such an operation requires such a person to carry out eyes-on surveillance, making some traditional surveillance techniques relevant in modern surveillance. As long as such traditional surveillance techniques remain relevant, counter-surveillance will be an important deterrent against terrorist attacks. Who is watching whom? Governments across the world are increasingly recognizing the power of the internet in terms of promoting ideas of activism, dissent and even facilitating terrorism. Due to this recognition, autocracies and democracies across the world have made attempts to censor and/or monitor information shared online in a bid to further their interests (Ahmed, 2013). For instance, the National Security Agency (NSA) has been collecting metadata, which is a term used to describe data or information related to one’s communications. Thus the metadata related to a phone call would be location from which the caller made the call, the number called, duration of the call, time of the call, etc. (York, 2014). In addition, there have been reports of a NSA center in Utah that is used for intercepting and archiving internet communications across the globe for analysis and decryption (Richards, 2013). The government has also, for the longest time, been using covert recording devices to solve court cases. That is, the police are sent to monitor a group or a person who is being suspected of having committed/planning to commit a crime. The purpose of such surveillance is to collect information that is sufficient enough to be used in court as evidence (Michael, 2014). Government entities and corporate keep databases containing the personal information of people, without their knowledge, which they can commoditize and use to discriminate against certain people or control people socially (Humphreys, 2011). In addition, individuals like activists can carry out surveillance on corporate and government bureaucracies with a view of unearthing secrets that are of interest to the public. For example, Edward Snowden carried out surveillance and leaked information about governments in 2013, unearthing a program carried out by the US government, which intrudes into citizens’ private lives (York, 2014). Implications of surveillance on privacy Surveillance especially that conducted during the information age has led to reduction in personal privacy. This is because people who use interactive digital technologies like social media do not have control over their personal information once they post it on the internet. Such technologies require people to post their personal information before they can access their services and thus many people end up posting their information on such sites. This therefore support the aforementioned fact that the information age has made surveillance easy (Humphreys, 2011). Studies show that, as long as internet users feel that they are in control regarding sharing of personal information, they are not concerned about privacy (Humphreys, 2011). The aforementioned leak of government secrets by Edward Snowden in the year 2013 showed the extent to which governments like the US go to collect metadata in mass surveillance programs. Such programs amount to intrusion into the private lives of the populace, which is indiscriminate in nature and goes against the fundamental freedoms and rights guaranteed by constitutions across the globe (York, 2014). The law is partly to blame for the lack of privacy in electronic communications. It has not been able to keep abreast with the ever improving surveillance techniques and thus it has done little to protect the privacy of individuals from the government and even unscrupulous private persons. The law has therefore not comprehensively come up with a framework for ensuring that electronic communications remain private (Akdeniz, Taylor and Walker, 2001). Implications of surveillance on security The government defends mass surveillance programs with the alleged maintenance of security by countering security threats without having to deploy military personnel. The covert nature of such programs implies that they are carried out in an accountability vacuum; lacking oversight and transparency, and with the public being unable to assess their effectiveness as we as demand accountability from the government (Kersley, 2015). Lack of accountability also means that the information gathered can be used for reasons other than national security reasons, thereby putting the security of the populace at risk. Collection of metadata and the use of automated techniques for data analysis can potentially lead to false positives with regard to terrorism connections. This normally occurs in automated data analysis for terrorism because of the rarity of attacks and the quality of data used in analysis. The high number suspicious individuals who are falsely identified leads to data overloads, overworked analysts and thus more resources are used in analysis instead of investing such resources in more productive counter-terrorism methods. This therefore reduces the security of the citizens and leads to unfortunate harassment of innocent individuals as authorities try to confirm terrorist links (Kersley, 2015). Recent evidence even shows that mass surveillance and the resultant intelligence information is not very useful in counter-terrorism. In 2014, French grocery and Charlie Hebdo attackers were known to US and French authorities and two were monitored by French authorities; one was previously convicted with terrorism charges (Kersley, 2015). Privacy vs. Security More surveillance does not result to a safer society. Actually, some reports may erroneously paint the picture that crime is reducing while in actual fact, crime becomes relocated and redistributed when surveillance equipment like cameras are installed in crime hot-spots (Michael, 2014). Mass surveillance programs, as they are currently structured are not sufficiently justified. Authorities are infringing on the fundamental freedom of the populace to privacy without any tangible results from the mass surveillance programs. Further, the programs are secretive and thus the public is unable to gauge their success; they operate under an accountability vacuum and thus they are likely to be misused to jeopardize the security of the populace. In addition, the data provided by such programs may be unusable, like in the cases of false positives for terrorism links and thus authorities may result to traditional means of surveillance in order to confirm terrorism links and carry out counter-terrorism procedures. Conclusion From the discussion above, surveillance has drastically changed as a result of modern technology. This has seen many governments across the world collecting metadata in mass surveillance programs meant to ensure that people live in a secure environment. Despite the good objectives of such programs, they open up issues like the infringement of the fundamental right to privacy. Such programs are meant to ensure that suspicious characters are easily nabbed but the programs lead to more harm than good because they violate individuals’ right to privacy while making indeterminable contribution to security. Mass surveillance programs should be abolished or redesigned to make them transparent and make the government accountable for the data it collects. Reference List ACLU. (2016). Surveillance in the Age of Total Information Awareness. Retrieved from https://privacysos.org/report/ Ahmed, S. (2013). Censorship and Surveillance in the Global Information Age. Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=jolti Akdeniz, Y., Taylor, N. & Walker, C. (2001). State surveillance in the age of information and rights, Criminal Law Review, pp. 73-90 Burton, F. (2007). Surveillance in the Information Age. Retrieved from https://www.stratfor.com/surveillance_information_age Humphreys, L. (2011). Who’s Watching Whom? A Study of Interactive Technology and Surveillance. Retrieved from https://www.cs.siue.edu/~wwhite/IS376/ReadingAssignments/1021_WhosWatchingWhom.pdf Kersley, E. (2015). Beyond Privacy: The Costs and Implications of Mass Surveillance. Retrieved from http://sustainablesecurity.org/2015/09/04/beyond-privacy-the-costs-and-consequences-of-mass-surveillance/ Michael, K. (2014). Redefining Surveillance: Implications for Privacy, Security, Trust and the Law. Retrieved from http://www.issuesmagazine.com.au/article/issue-december-2014/redefining-surveillance-implications-privacy-security-trust-and-law.html Richards, N. (2013). The Dangers of Surveillance. Retrieved from http://harvardlawreview.org/2013/05/the-dangers-of-surveillance/ Sau, A. & Randol, S. (2012). Who is Watching Whom? Retrieved from http://www.mantlethought.org/international-affairs/who-watching-whom York, J. (2014). The harms of surveillance to privacy, expression and association. Retrieved from https://giswatch.org/en/communications-surveillance/harms-surveillance-privacy-expression-and-association Read More