Established liberal democracies have greatly expanded their surveillance capabilities in recent decades. It then distinguishes three potential sources of concern: (1) the fear that governments will violate citizens’ privacy by collecting their data, (2) the fear that governments will violate their privacy by accessing their data, and (3) the fear that the collected data will be used for objectionable purposes. There are three legitimate reasons to be concerned about the expansion of surveillance capabilities in established democracies: (1) Even established democracies can deteriorate. There is a risk that surveillance capabilities that are currently used for democratically legitimated purposes will be used for less democratically legitimated purposes in the future. (2) Surveillance may be used to enforce laws that lack legitimacy due to the disproportionate punishment for violating them. (3) Established democracies’ democratic procedures do not meet the requirements outlined by mainstream theories of democratic legitimacy. Thus, surveillance is used to enforce laws whose legitimacy is called into question.
Mass Surveillance:
Mass surveillance is indiscriminate monitoring.
Instead of limiting surveillance to individuals with a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, mass surveillance employs systems or technologies that collect, analyze, and/or generate data on an indefinite or large number of people. Governments can now capture virtually every aspect of our lives using current forms of mass surveillance.
Mass surveillance can subject a population or a significant portion of it to indiscriminate monitoring, resulting in a systematic violation of people’s right to privacy and all the rights that privacy entails, including the freedom to express yourself and protest.
Today, intelligence agencies and law enforcement conduct mass surveillance using a diverse – and expanding – set of tools and techniques. Direct mass interception of communications, access to bulk communications stored by telecoms operators and others, mass hacking, indiscriminate use of facial recognition technology, indiscriminate surveillance of protests using mobile phone trackers, and other methods are among them.
Here are some examples of how government surveillance can affect civil liberties:
Privacy:
Individual privacy can be violated when the government conducts surveillance. This is due to the fact that surveillance frequently involves the collection and analysis of personal data, such as communications, location, and online activity. When the government has access to this data, it can potentially use it to monitor and track individuals, limiting their ability to communicate and express themselves freely.
Read More: Impact of Technology On Our Relations and Ways To Balance Screen Time – About Pakistan
Freedom of expression:
Government surveillance can also have an impact on freedom of expression by chilling people’s willingness to express themselves freely. Individuals who are aware that their communications are being monitored may self-censor or refrain from expressing certain opinions or ideas for fear of repercussions from the government.
Due Process:
Surveillance can also have an impact on due process by allowing the government to collect information on people without their knowledge or consent, potentially leading to false accusations and wrongful convictions.
Freedom of Association:
Surveillance can also have an impact on freedom of association because it allows the government to monitor the activities of individuals and groups, potentially leading to the suppression of political or social movements.
Trust in Government:
Finally, surveillance can have an impact on trust in government. When people believe that the government is violating their privacy and civil liberties, they may become less willing to cooperate with law enforcement or other government agencies, undermining public safety and national security.
What exactly is the issue?
The acquisition, processing, generation, analysis, use, retention, or storage of information about large groups of people occurs regardless of whether they are suspected of wrongdoing.
In a democratic society, mass surveillance is neither strictly necessary nor proportionate, according to the law. There are frequently less invasive options. Even where there isn’t, we wonder if a democratic society can survive under constant surveillance.
Mass surveillance allows for unchecked state power and control over individuals by systematically monitoring people’s lives. The assumption that all information could be useful to address a hypothetical threat is incompatible with the fundamental values and principles of democratic societies, which seek to limit the information a state knows about its people in order to moderate its power.
Mass surveillance also undermines the separation of powers by allowing the executive branch to carry out its operations without adequate oversight from the legislative and judicial branches. Because the ability to surveil is authorised in bulk rather than for each instance of wrongdoing, mass surveillance powers lack effective independent authorisation.
It fosters a climate of fear and suspicion that is incompatible with democratic values and principles, in which all individuals are presumed to be guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the state.
Finally, mass surveillance has a negative impact on other human rights and freedoms because unjustified invasions of privacy prevent the enjoyment of other rights and frequently serve as a gateway to violations of other human rights, such as freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, the principle of non-discrimination, and political participation.
What is the significance of this?
Mass surveillance allows for significant power imbalances while undermining people’s autonomy and dignity.
It creates a climate of suspicion and threat, which can cause people who have done nothing wrong to change their behaviour, including how they act, speak, and communicate, in what is known as the chilling effect of mass surveillance. As a result, it impedes the legitimate exercise of our rights. It jeopardises society’s ability to innovate and evolve.
Given the massive amounts of data collected and analyzed by mass surveillance, the practice also allows for the use of automated decision making: opaque algorithms, or ‘black boxes,’ make decisions that are impossible to explain given the complexity and secrecy involved in the implementation of such systems, particularly in a security context. This exacerbates the inability to effectively supervise mass surveillance operations.
Aside from being a fundamental violation of the right to privacy, no safeguard can guarantee that mass surveillance will never be used for new purposes in the future. For example, an algorithm that searches vast amounts of data for dangerous criminals can and will be used to identify political dissidents in another context. This fundamental vulnerability to abuse fundamentally alters the power dynamic between a state and its people.
Read More: Does Robots Really Causing Insecurities Among Workers? – About Pakistan
Conclusion
In conclusion, while government surveillance can help to maintain public safety and national security, it can also have an impact on civil liberties in a variety of ways. To reduce the impact of government surveillance on civil liberties, legal and policy frameworks must strike a balance between the need for surveillance and the need to protect individual privacy and civil liberties. Transparency and oversight mechanisms can also help to ensure that surveillance is carried out in a responsible and accountable manner.
