Analysis of the Tempora Surveillance System - Assignment Example

Surveillance refers to the process of monitoring the activities, behavior, or communication of other people, with the intention of managing, directing, protecting them. This includes the use of electronic equipments, such as cameras, CCTV, intercepting any information that is transmitted through electronics, use of postal interceptions, and human intelligence agents (Ernst, 2012). Surveillance is a very useful activity to law enforcement agencies, and government organizations for purposes of maintaining social control, recognizing threats, and investigating/ preventing a criminal activity. There are a variety of programs developed for purposes of promoting surveillance programs. An example is the Tempora surveillance system. Tempora is a codeword for a secret computer system that was used by the British Government to collect intelligence information through the internet. This system made it possible for the British Government to extract information from the fibre-optic cables. It enabled the British Government to access a large volume of personal information from the users of the internet (Ernst, 2012). To improve on the surveillance capabilities, the government normally uses biometric software, and high speed surveillance computers for purposes of collecting information and data on an individual. However, the enactment of the Freedom of Protections Act prevented intelligence officials from violating the privacy of their subjects. However, for surveillance program to be effective there is a need of supervising everyone responsible for collecting and using the intelligence gathered. There is a need of supervising surveillance programs, for purposes of ensuring their effectiveness. Carrying out a surveillance program helps the government to collect information to use in protecting the citizens of a state. However, there are instances where the government intelligence agencies or surveillance programs are accused of breaching the privacy of the citizens of a state. Take for example the Tempora surveillance program that was developed by the British government, to spy on the online data of people (Ernst, 2012). Through this program, the British intelligence agencies were able to access millions of personal data, extracted from social media sites such as Face book, Twitter, Linkedn, etc. This program was also able to capture telephone conversations between different people. Furthermore, Tempora was effective in identifying the personal internet history of users. To achieve success in this program, the government had to collaborate with companies. This is for purposes of allowing the government to access the profile of their users and employees. This was a clear breach of the privacy of people. Furthermore, the companies that cooperated with the British government under this program were responsible for breaching their own confidential laws or policies. That is, keeping the information of an individual private, and confidential, unless authorized by the courts to share the information with third parties. This surveillance program came under great criticism, from civil rights advocates and the public. In fact, the British Parliament held sessions for purposes of finding out whether the program had breached the British communication and privacy laws. However, the parliamentary watchdog came with a resolution that the program did not breach any British laws, regarding collection and usage of information. Despite getting support from parliament, the program ceased to continue. This is without achieving its objectives. Lyon (2003) believes that the reason for the failure of this program is its secrecy, and lack of a body or independent institution to supervise its applicability. This is because once the program was leaked to the public, British intelligence agencies stopped to operate the program. Furthermore, there were allegations that the surveillance system was used to spy on British and other politicians, who were critical to the government. This is unacceptable in a democratic country, and a breach to the laws that govern freedom of speech and movement. United States was also involved in political surveillance (Lyon, 2003). This is by their use of the PRISM intelligence system, that managed to hack into the private internet communication of various congress men, senators, and people who were critical to the operations of the government. Michael Foucalt talks extensively on the process of surveillance. This is through his theory of panopticism (Ernst, 2012). Panopticism involves the systematic control, and ordering of human population through unseen and subtle forces. Foucalt believes in the supervision of any surveillance process (Williams and Edge, 1996). This would ensure that intelligence authorities do not breach the rights of citizens, and the right information is gathered. Panopticism advocates for the use of modern equipments and facilities for purposes of gathering intelligence information. The theory of Panopticism is more relevant in the modern era of surveillance programs. This is because of an increase in the digitization of information. Most information occurs through electronic means, i.e. computers, mobile phones, televisions, tablets, etc. There is also an increase in CCTV cameras for purposes of surveillance (Lace, 2005). Furthermore, the use of biometric ID cards and passports is another modern method of carrying out surveillance. Chances are high, that with minimum supervision, law enforcements agents can abuse the use of this technology to collect information. This is because they can acquire unauthorized information, and use this information for their own purposes. This results into a breach into the rights of the individual under consideration (Lyon, 2003). However, in liberal democracies, an increased use of electronics for purposes of gathering information is heavily regulated and supervised. This is for purposes of ensuring that this process does not breach the privacy rights of people. Furthermore, this heavy regulation is for purposes of ensuring that the process achieves success in its intentions. A law that supervises the manner in which electronic surveillance programs are utilized in United Kingdom is the 2012 Protection of Freedom Act. This law makes it mandatory for the Home Office to establish a code of practice that governs the use of surveillance cameras on civilians (Petersen and Petersen, 2012). This includes CCTV cameras, Automated Number Plate Recognition systems, etc. The protection of Freedom Act prevents government agencies from collecting information from social sites, without the authorization of the courts. The courts under this circumstance acts as a supervisory institution responsible for the process of surveillance and collecting information. Other institutions that are allowed to act as supervisory agencies include (Petersen and Petersen, 2012), The director of the agency responsible for preventing serious crime. The Head of British Transport police. The head of defense. The head of civil nuclear constabulary. The main reasoning of enacting such laws is for purposes of improving the quality of information gathered by intelligence agencies. Lace (2005) believes that when the society is disciplined, there won’t be any need of establishing a surveillance program. This is because the society will report any suspicious human activities to the law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, the society is not disciplined enough. That is the reason why the government has initiated electronic surveillance programs such as the use of CCTV cameras, biometric ID cards, electronic profiling of suspected criminals, and gathering information from the social media (Lyon, 2007). Supervision of surveillance programs would ensure that there is efficient gathering of information. This is because the institutions supervising surveillance programs would ensure that any such activity is carried out, as per the principles of law. Currently, there is an extensive use of electronic gadgets for purposes for carrying out surveillance. This includes the use of biometric ID cards, CCTV cameras, electronic profiling, etc. Without supervision, chances are high that law enforcement agencies will breach the rights of citizens, in regard to their privacies. Furthermore, the use of such information is inadmissible in a court of law. This is mainly because they are illegally obtained; hence the courts cannot rely on illegal information in its justice process. Supervising surveillance programs is therefore necessary to ensure that surveillance institutions are able to efficiently gather information. Bibliography: Ernst, A. (2012). Beyond Foucault: new perspectives on Benthams Panopticon. Farnham: Ashgate. Lace, S. (2005). The glass consumer life in a surveillance society. Bristol: Policy. Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: privacy, risk, and digital discrimination. London: Routledge. Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance Studies, an Overview. Kingston: Queens University. Petersen, J. K., & Petersen, J. K. (2012). Handbook of surveillance technologies (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The Social Shaping Of Technology. Research Policy, 25(6), 865-899. Read More