Issues of Spying on Citizens - Term Paper Example

(Assignment) Safety or Right to Privacy Issues of Spying on Citizens Terrorism poses manifold security threats in thepresent global conditions. The world today is a global village, and hardly any part of it can be insulated from the ill-effects of terrorism. However, in the zeal to secure the life of the common man, his privacy is being invaded upon. Spying on an individual has not prevented terrorist acts. It is not worthwhile to stifle a person’s privacy for the perceived gain to security. One does not know where to draw a line regarding the extent to which the state can snoop on its own people. Spying is not the only remedy for terrorism. Evidence shows that the opposite is true in this case. This topic becomes significant in the light of the Snowden episode. EJ Snowden, a computer specialist and formerly associated with the CIA and NSA, revealed classified documents to the media. These documents were related to surveillance by NSA and others and the details thereof. In the wake of the September 11th attack on the US, the NSA decided to track phone calls where one of the parties was outside the US. This did not require warrants. As Cauley reports, though the address details were not sought by the NSA, it could always be obtained from other databases. To conclude, NSA had got hold of the communication patterns of many US citizens. According to the fourth amendment of the US constitution, the government would not spy upon its people, provided they take reasonable measures for the same. As Jordan points out, the Supreme Court considers two things as pre-requisites for fourth amendment status. Firstly, the person must display that he expects privacy. Secondly, society should accept this expectation as legitimate (536). For instance, VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) is very secure and difficult to eavesdrop on. Hence, the user expects even more privacy (538). While most countries do not consider privacy of communications as a human right, the Japanese constitution ensures privacy. In terms of the internet, cryptography is a principle with far reaching consequences. Shearer & Guttmann point out that a cryptography-based society could exclude governments unless it decides to do so. If governments can tolerate encryption by citizens and involve itself in other activities, it would be in the interest of the common man (23). The term ‘privacy’ has narrow as well as wide connotations depending on its interpretation. As Daniel believes, one has to focus more on related problems rather than ignoring or inflating them (772). By focussing on the definition, one digresses from the idea that privacy must be respected and safeguarded and not sacrificed at the altar of security. "Privacy and freedom of expression are fundamental human rights recognised in all major international and regional agreements and treaties" (Lawner, 464). The intrusion in the name of terrorism or security cannot be an excuse for any intrusive behaviour or act on the part of the state. Since privacy is a global issue, it cannot be put on the backburner so that counter-terrorism measures can be set in place. As Prowda points out, according to the US Privacy Act, 1974, an individual’s privacy is affected when the Federal Agencies involve in the personal information of individuals (744). This happens when the information is collected, processed, maintained or passed on. Any one or more of the above-mentioned points constitute an affront to the privacy of the individual. In the pre-technology era i.e. before the widespread use of software began, this itself was a safeguard for privacy. The cumbersome nature of recording conversations without revealing to the subject about the eavesdropping helped maintain the individual’s privacy. Hence, one needed hardly any legislation for the same. Many of the old provisions in the law may not be suitable to the current situation. The current method of snooping on all and sundry is a very inefficient method. It is akin to ‘searching for a needle in a haystack’. Surveillance on too many people is required if at all one has to come to a conclusion as to who should be suspected. There is likelihood that the enforcement agencies would end up with a smoke screen and not with the actual suspects. One cannot underestimate the enemy who is aware of the surveillance methods of the state. The enemy could take advantage of the situation prevailing in the state. A façade could be created by the enemy. While an unnecessary subject may be put under surveillance, the enemy would have not only completed its nefarious activities, it would also have had the much-needed time to cover their tracks and escape. Intrusive surveillance backfires when those at the receiving end are in huge numbers. Public opinion builds up against such eavesdropping. The net step is the politicisation of the matter. The opposition parties would gang up against the ruling party. This would be followed by an endless struggle to correct the situation. There would be acrimony between the two camps involved. The victims of such surveillance would be made pawns in a power struggle between the political parties in question. The party espousing the cause of the aggrieved individual(s) makes the right noises to show its concern for them. The next scene would be witnessed in the national senate or parliament. Changing the laws is not an easy job. It takes consultations and the co-operation of the other parties for any amendment to fructify. Sometimes, the cause of the aggrieved is espoused only during election time. It can be inferred from the preceding discussion that the state spends a disproportionate amount of money in surveillance over its citizens. Since warrantless eavesdropping is conducted on US citizens in the US based on interception or suspicion regarding an individual outside the US, needless amounts are spent. It is very much possible that the US citizen within the US may be merely associated and not involved in anti-national acts. A surveillance on such individuals leads to a chain reaction due to several associations that the person may have within the US. This could ultimately lead to the proverbial ‘goose chase’ which yields no value. Moreover, associations between US citizens within the country go unnoticed. The authorities are practically ignorant about what is going on underneath their very nose. On the one hand, the tax payer’s money goes down the drain over fruitless pursuits, and on the other, the much sought after security is in jeopardy. All this proves that the priorities of the guardians of the state should change. Until the focus does not shift, the common man will continue to be harassed and will repeatedly be stripped of his privacy, his basic human right. The silent majority in each community is concerned foremost with its survival and prosperity. By and large, man is a social animal and does not do anything that goes against the law. He does not resort to unfair means to further his interests, though every individual has vested interests. When an entire community is discriminated due to the misdeeds of some members, there are repercussions. The first fallout is ghettoisation of the community. Moderate elements which co-operate with the mainstream transform overnight into extremists as a reaction to the partisan behaviour towards them. As mentioned previously, state enemies would change and fine tune their activities based on surveillance and focus on them. Hence, the authorities need to focus more on terror emanating from within the US itself. It is possible that naturalised citizens of the US may be plotting against the state from within the borders of the US. It is these elements that need to be weeded out rather than regular citizens who associate themselves with foreigners in the normal course of their work. The US has always been synonymous with democracy, the freedom of expression and individual liberty. An example from the Cold War era is pertinent here. It was said in a lighter vein that in the Romania of Ceausescu, half the population spied on the other half. This is exactly what the US should not do. The US should not transform into a fortress with an impending war on its mind. Using cutting edge technology to snoop on its citizens makes the US no better than the former communists. No healthy society can thrive in an environment where a siege mentality persists. If the US transforms into a bunker of sorts, it would lose its very character and soul. It would not be a model for so many states that envy it simultaneously. The common man should not be apprehensive to the extent that he has to look over his shoulder every now and then. He will not be at ease with the niggling feeling of being constantly watched. Not only is it demeaning to the individual concerned, it pushes society back to the dark ages when rules where to be followed and not to be questioned. To conclude, the individual’s rights are enshrined both at the national as well as at the international level. Naysayers may argue that an individual’s rights are subservient to those of the society. Technology has rendered easy various tasks considered monotonous and tiring. However, it is unbecoming of the state to use that very technology to eavesdrop on its citizens. Each person has his individuality, and privacy is a reflection of that individuality. It is in the best interests of the US to stop invading the privacy of its citizens since no amount of snooping has stopped terrorism. The US should try to find the root cause of terrorism and use persistent dialog to solve this vexed issue. References Cauley, Leslie. “NSA has massive database of Americans phone calls”. USA Today, Nov 5, 2006. Web 21 Feb. 2014. Daniel, Solove, J. Ive Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy. 44 San Diego L. Rev. 745 (2007). Jordan, David, Alan. ‘Decrypting the Fourth Amendment: Warrantless NSA Surveillance and the Enhanced’: Expectation of Privacy Provided by Encrypted Voice Over Protocol, 47 B.C.L. Rev. 505 (2006). Kevin J. Lawner, Post-Sept. 11th International Surveillance Activity - A Failure of Intelligence: The Echelon Interception System & the Fundamental Right to Privacy in Europe. 14 Pace Intl L. Rev. 435. (2002), 14 (2). Prowda, Judith Beth. “Privacy and Security of Data”. 64 Fordham L. Rev. 738 (1995). 64 (3/5). Shearer, Jenny and Gutmann, Peter. “Government, Cryptography, and the Right To Privacy”. Journal of Universal Computer Science. (1996), 2 (3): 113-146. Schermer, Bart Willem. “Software agents, surveillance, and the right to privacy: a legislative framework for agent-enabled surveillance”. Leiden University Press, 2007. Web. 21 Feb. 2014. Read More