The Nature of Surveillance within the Context of Big Data Collection and Privacy Versus Security - Term Paper Example

Nature of Surveillance Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Date Nature of Surveillance Introduction Surveillance has always been mainly used by the organizations that concern themselves with law enforcement with the aim of keeping a close attention on individuals of interest. The invention of the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) was initially intended to be used by the security agencies so that they could be vigilant all the time to assist them in catching criminals which would, in turn, enable them to give eyewitness account in the courts of law (Valera & Velastin, 2005). Recently, there have been technological advancements which have allowed businesses and institutions to mount simple CCTV cameras which will offer the surveillance in and around those premises (Cieszynski, 2007). However, the practice of surveillance has been met with its fair share of challenges especially regarding issues concerning security and privacy matters and people understanding the nature of surveillance. The paper will, therefore, seek to evaluate the nature of surveillance within the context of big data collection and privacy versus security. Nature of Surveillance in Information Age The individuals who conduct surveillance either for protective or nefarious security reasons have often utilized the available technology to assist them in their efforts of enhancing security (Velastin & Remagnino, 2006). During the past years, the employment of surveillance technology would mean just using the telescope, but in the recent years, surveillance entails the use of video and photographic gear, electronic equipment like programmable scanners and beacons, as well as the night vision aids. The surveillance efforts have been enhanced significantly by the presence of personal computers which could be utilized in the analysis of information and database storage as well as for the internet access (Lyon, 2003). The modern technology has radically changed the process of surveillance. However, what the modern technology has not done is to render obsolete the physical pre-operational surveillance (Wall, 2007). In the same light, the internet has been a valuable surveillance tool in the information age. The internet has proven to be a central asset in the preparation of a surveillance operation. For example, in many cases, the checks of the public records can be undertaken on the net which can provide a lot of personal information concerning a potential target (Wall, 2007). Also, various internet sites exist which provide aerial photographs and maps of particular locations which can assist in surveillance. Thus, in the surveillance in the information age has fully been transformed thanks to technological advancements and more so, the use of the internet as one of the primary tools for surveillance (Velastin & Remagnino, 2006). Surveillance Systems The law enforcement officers and agents are often not available to physically follow their suspects around for long time durations. Following this, these security agencies have started to rely heavily on the surveillance technologies and systems to assist them in monitoring the activities of the suspects or any potential criminal activities (Yeo, 2010). These systems are made of various constituents which include satellites, video cameras, and some long range listening equipment and devices, among others. The satellites are utilized to capture specific areas of interest. The satellites are often utilized by the law enforcement bodies to capture pictures over a given period and then use the captured pictures to compare the images for long time duration (Lyon, 2001). Working together with the satellites or used independently are the video cameras. The video cameras are used to record particular areas of interest (Isnard & Council, 2001). For example, many stoplights intersections, and roadways often have video cameras. The law enforcement agencies also use the video cameras to complete their surveillance in these areas. Through the video cameras, they manage to record the activities which take place in the area and then use the recordings for investigation purposes (Isnard & Council, 2001). Another surveillance system is the long-range listening equipment which is used to hear the conversations which occur outside the video recordings (Finn, 2012). They are often put in areas where the suspects frequently visit so that their conversation may be heard and recorded for further investigations (Finn, 2012). Who is Being Watched and by Whom? Surveillance was initially designed for security reasons which were intended to simplify the work of law enforcers in their process of surveillance. The authorities are often the ones who watch its citizens and gather information about them with or without their consent as a security measure (Richards, 2013). Often the citizens of a given country are the ones who are always being watched and by the authorities and the law enforcement security agents. On another perspective, the citizens also closely monitor each other in non-transparent measures (Richards, 2013). With the invention of the interactive media and the Internet, citizens also monitor the behavior of other citizens through some non-reciprocal surveillance forms (Senior et al., 2003). Also, people watch themselves in a type of surveillance known as ‘self-surveillance.’ This is where people either record themselves or invite other people to do the same which can be replayed later. The ability for a person to record themselves could result in scrutinizing of one’s behavior which can the fundamentally change the understanding of oneself regarding that event or behavior (Mtema et al., 2016). Implications of Surveillance to Privacy When the issue of surveillance is being discussed, it is often that what follows is speaking about the privacy matter which entails being free from being observed or being disturbed by the various surveillance systems (Calba et al., 2015). In many countries including America, citizens have a right to privacy which is usually enshrined in the constitution. Surveillance, especially public surveillance has faced privacy criticisms. Surveillance is said to be a violation of individual privacy which is the fundamental right of people (McGrath, 2004). It has also been associated with being indiscriminate in that it undermines the freedoms of association and expression. However, as much as surveillance has been linked to the infringement of privacy rights, it’s validity continues to become less evident particularly in an era where there is the ubiquitous digital connection ((Slobogin, 2002). Surveillance entails close observation, paying close attention, and being subjected to scrutiny and judgment of an individual. It has therefore been associated with the invasion of privacy in that people are subjected to intrusive observation since there will be a possibility of the person changing their behavior when they know the intentions and perspectives of the observer (Slobogin, 2008). Also, since during the surveillance there is paying close attention, it leads to the loss of privacy. This is because this close attention will then be subjected to scrutiny and judgment which is a significant privacy invasion issue (Slobogin, 2008). Implications for Security Surveillance has often been used by the government to maintain security through what they term as ‘remote control’ approach (Peyre et al., 2014). Surveillance has played a significant role in the maintenance security in that the security agents have to manage to counter threats from a distance without the actual need of deploying security personnel to counter the threats physically (Monahan, 2006). Surveillance has also enhanced the capabilities of governments to acquire digital intelligence which has assisted them to deal with criminal activities significantly. Additionally, as the technology continues to advance regarding security measures, it is evident that surveillance and intelligence have had an interdependence relationship and as they work together, they have managed to enhance the security measure all across the globe (Monahan, 2006). However, as much as the surveillance systems have been associated with improving security, it has also put the citizens at greater safety risks (Finn & Wright, 2012). Surveillance systems have increased the proliferation risks which have, in turn, led to people’s trust in the government being weakened (Finn & Wright, 2012). The terrorist groups have used the same surveillance techniques to try and monitor the moves of the security agencies and the governments so that they can plan their means of attack (Welsh & Farrington, 2004). In the same light, the terrorist groups may give some false positives to the government security agencies so that they would think they are planning one way but instead, they use a different way of attack (Welsh & Farrington, 2004). Therefore, in these perspectives, the surveillance systems have also jeopardized the security of citizens regarding curbing terrorism. Conclusion The surveillance systems continue to be widespread especially with the advancements. The nature of surveillance systems in the information age is characterized by major technological incorporations which have resulted in high-security measures and interventions. Some of the constituents of surveillance include the satellites, video cameras, and the long-range listening devices. Regarding who is watching who in the surveillance systems, it is the security and the law enforcement agencies that watch over the citizens often, but also citizens watch each other, as well as people watch themselves which are all kinds of surveillance. The surveillance systems have resulted in issues concerning privacy rights where many people perceive surveillance as an infringement of their privacy rights. On the other hand, surveillance has enhanced the provision of security in tremendous ways although it has also led to jeopardizing the same, particularly regarding terrorism. References Calba, C., Goutard, F. L., Hoinville, L., Hendrikx, P., Lindberg, A., Saegerman, C., & Peyre, M. (2015). Surveillance systems evaluation: a systematic review of the existing approaches. BMC public health, 15(1): 448-449. Cieszynski, J. (2007). Closed circuit television (3rd ed.). Burlington, NJ: Newnes. Finn, J. (2012). Surveillance Studies and Visual Art: An Examination of Jill Magid's Evidence Locker. Surveillance & Society, 10(2): 134-135. Finn, R. L., & Wright, D. (2012). Unmanned aircraft systems: Surveillance, ethics and privacy in civil applications. Computer Law & Security Review, 28(2): 184-194. Isnard, A., & Council, T. C. (2001, August). Can surveillance cameras be successful in preventing crime and controlling anti-social behaviours. In character, impact and prevention of crime in regional Australia Conference, Australian Institute of Criminology, Townsville (pp. 2-3). Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk, and digital discrimination. Psychology Press. McGrath, J. E. (2004). Loving big brother: Performance, privacy and surveillance space. Psychology Press. Monahan, T. (2006). Surveillance and security: Technological politics and power in everyday life. Taylor & Francis. Mtema, Z., Changalucha, J., Cleaveland, S., Elias, M., Ferguson, H. M., Halliday, J. E., ... & Lembo, T. (2016). Mobile phones as surveillance tools: implementing and evaluating a large-scale intersectoral surveillance system for rabies in Tanzania. PLoS Med, 13(4), e1002002. Peyre, M. I., Hoinville, L., Haesler, B., Lindberg, A., Bisdorff, B., Dorea, F., ... & Goutard, F. (2014). Network analysis of surveillance system evaluation attributes: a way towards improvement of the evaluation process. Richards, N. M. (2013). The dangers of surveillance. Harvard Law Review, 126(7): 1934-1965. Senior, A., Pankanti, S., Hampapur, A., Brown, L., Tian, Y. L., & Ekin, A. (2003). Blinkering surveillance: Enabling video privacy through computer vision. IBM Technical Paper, RC22886 (W0308-109). Slobogin, C. (2002). Public privacy: camera surveillance of public places and the right to anonymity. Miss. lJ, 72: 213-214. Slobogin, C. (2008). Privacy at risk: The new government surveillance and the fourth amendment. University of Chicago Press. Valera, M., & Velastin, S. A. (2005). Intelligent distributed surveillance systems: a review. IEE Proceedings-Vision, Image and Signal Processing, 152(2): 192-204. Velastin, S. A. & Remagnino, P. (2006). Intelligent distributed video surveillance systems (Vol. 5). Iet. Wall, D. (2007). Cybercrime: The transformation of crime in the information age (Vol. 4). Polity. Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Surveillance for crime prevention in public space: Results and policy choices in Britain and America. Criminology & Public Policy, 3(3): 497-526. Yeo, M. (2010). Propaganda and Surveillance in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four: Two Sides of the Same Coin. Global Media Journal, 3(2): 49-51. Read More