the relationship between free access to information and the need for surveillance and censorship of personal privacy
The emergence of the internet has become the single most influential aspect of the world’s technological history. In the current world, we use the internet for online banking, social networking and E-commerce among other sectors. However, the internet does not come without a negative aspect. This essay seeks to divulge the relationship between free access to information and the need for surveillance and censorship of personal privacy.
All governments have a high affinity for control in every sector, and the internet is another victim. In the past, internet service providers controlled information flow; however, with the increase in the use of the web, the need for surveillance and censorship has risen intending to filter out the bad. Cyber-crimes and terrorism are just but a tip of the iceberg on the bane of the internet’s existence. Governments have taken advantage of this fact to take control of the internet using unethical ways while excusing their actions as gathering national intelligence. Never the less each supervisory body has to ensure they follow the proper legal channels when implementing such acts that seem to violate human rights.
Surveillance is the monitoring of behavior or activities; in this case, large sets of data from internet users is cross-referenced to determine distinct purposes. Lyon (2014) states that there is a shift in the need for surveillance from discipline to control. The act does have some positive side to it as the study behavior patterns can lead to the identification of persons of interest. In countries such as the United States of America (USA) funds of up to $70 billion are injected yearly in the gathering of national intelligence this proves just how much the various governments invest in surveillance.
Monitoring is vital in detecting individuals with a negative impact on society. The surveillance today that is intent on controlling what is said/done, who said it or how it was said? lacks windows, towers or guards. That means that there is no longer a privacy aspect to internet use. Anything one says, searches, implies, does is censored or monitored. Fuschs et al. (2011) assert that apart from the government’s intent on surveillance, organizations and the media, among other vital players, manipulate the internet to their benefit. Organizations survey consumer’s behaviors on their purchasing and consumption habits to increase their profits. Facebook benefits through valorization that is price controls that is made possible through monitoring. The increase of monitoring and censorship generates dictatorial powers in developed countries.
In the USA, the collection of metadata that is data about data is allowed by law Lyon (2014). Such information is inclusive of the location and duration of calls or messages or the internet protocol address, which essentially gives away the area of any internet user. In essence, this means that nothing one does on the internet is private. The government and bodies such as NSA listen in to people’s conversations to avoid occurrences such as the 9/11. The primary issue with these trends is that while governments or other appointed bodies may have the central control in surveillance for security purposes, their systems are prone to hacking. If intelligence bodies are hacked using the same channels they seek to regulate, then they offer information to the criminals in a single platform. The action endangers their citizens further.
Harmful internet practices such as sexual abuse and offences led to the need for content regulation in the USA and the United Kingdom (UK) in the 1970s and 1980s, respectively (Wagner, 2013). Surveillance and censorship are vital in such a situation to identify offenders and perpetrators of sexual abuse on children and adults. The internet is a platform that gives the offenders a chance to revel or stalk their victims. In the UK internet service providers came up with a list that dictates which content is illegal. Such a provision is a form of censorship, and it has brought with it the need for surveillance to ensure the users abide by the rules. Bodies such as Internet watch foundation acted ethically with their means of control; however, the government pushes continually for more power through legislation threats or threats of prosecution. Internet service providers now do the work of the government through the policies they implement.
Democratic governments who ought to be at the forefront in maintaining privacy with internet use and advocating for self-imposed discipline on content viewed or displayed are at the forefront of implementing authoritarian control policies. Countries such as Sweden, Finland and Germany use filtering systems to regulate content (Mackinon, 2012). The intent for surveillance was positive as it aimed to control child abuse, promote transparency within the media and offer a platform for free communication. However, consent is a significant issue, as Mackinon (2012) argues that powers of cyberspace such as Google make decisions about the user’s physical freedom without their consultation. For you Tube, Twitter and Facebook, which earns a massive amount of their revenues from Europe, use the European hate-speech regulations worldwide.
The action does not take into account other countries policies which may be in support of such speech. As such, it alienates these countries and indirectly censors some of its content. Internet use is profoundly affected by political pressures making it succumb to the government rule directly or indirectly. The Chinese government has a more utilitarian view on the internet that is conducive to the countries social and economic development. Jiang (2012), states that freedom of speech is limited in China, especially when politics are concerned. The Chinese government banned the use of all foreign social media platforms promoting the purpose of their own such as Weibo. For companies such as Google that want to have their systems used there, then they have to agree to specific monitoring and censorship regulations for licenses.
Since it is an authoritarian country, the need for supremacy further enforces its requirement for surveillance to ensure that there are no direct threats. It uses filtering techniques such as the “great firewall of China” to regulate content to the public; in addition, it promotes self-censorship. Due to the government’s advocacy for legitimacy and influences from their culture that the impact of western internet behavior is tyrannical, the Chinese people are astonishingly in support of the stringent internet regulations. Additionally, the government continually showcases China’s economic prowess, mainly due to the enforcement of such directives.
Channels such as fingerprinting, network monitoring and bio awareness put in place for privacy purposes are the same modes used to monitor groups of people to determine behavior patterns. The action can have a positive effect like controlling vital information so that third parties such as terrorists are not privy to it. It can also help to predict and prevent attacks such as the 9/11. Although most countries have laws allowing censorship and surveillance, the respect for users rights is crucial for ethical purposes. With the rise of social media in the modern world for communication, then nothing can stop the government bodies from evasive surveillance.
It is no longer possible to trust the government to be ethical stewards in censorship and surveillance of personal data. The government and its bodies use such information to manipulate policy formation, purchasing powers and information flow. Human rights to privacy must become a significant concern when surveillance is underway.
References
Fuchs, C., Boersma, K., Alberchutslund, A & Sandavol, M., 2011.Internet and Surveillance: The challenges of web 2.0 and social media. Routledge Publishers.
Jiang, M., 2012., Authoritarian Informationalism: China’s approach to internet sovereignty. Research Gate, 30(2), pp. 71-89. Available at; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236760988_Authoritarian_Informationalism_China’s_Approach_to_Internet_Sovereignty.
Lyon, D., 2014. Surveillance, Snowden, and big data: capacities, consequences, critique. Sage Journals. Available at; https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714541861.
Mackinon, R., 2012. Consent of the networked: the worldwide struggle for internet freedom. Basic Books publishers.
Wagner, B., 2013. The politics of internet filtering: the United Kingdom and Germany in a comparative perspective. Political Studies Association, 34(1), pp. 58-71. Available at: doi: 10.1111/1467-9256.12031.