More handpicked essays just for you.
How does government surveillance affect privacy
How does government surveillance affect privacy
Surveillance technology effecting privacy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Surveillance consists of the monitoring of a person, place or object to acquire certain information or to change/ regulate the behaviour of a person. Surveillance can be concealed or obvious, and can be conducted by a variety of people, agencies or organisations for differing reasons. For example, surveillance can be conducted by law enforcement agencies to prevent or investigate crime, by media organisations to obtain commercially valuable information, or by individuals to monitor the activities of family members. The practice of surveillance is antithetical to privacy because the goal of surveillance is to ‘pierce the privacy shield’. While surveillance is said to be ‘at least as old as recorded history’, developments in surveillance technology and the increased availability of this technology pose significant risks to privacy.
The management of personal information attained by the use of surveillance devices is typically regulated by the Privacy Act when the use of the device involves the gathering of personal information for addition into a record. Even though Surveillance technologies are being regulated the constant and rapid growth of the market make it difficult to know when and what
…show more content…
Accuracy and reliability of many biometric systems is still unknown, a biometric match is affirmed when the probability of a scanned trait matching to an enrolled template surpasses some pre-set threshold, such as 95%. Once an individual has been scanned there will be raw data, templates, audit files and metadata stored in the system relating to the individuals. This is a cause of concern and an area that needs constant review of current laws to maintain the standard of
Is the American government trustworthy? Edward Joseph Snowden (2013) released to the United States press* selected information about the surveillance of ordinary citizens by the U.S.A.’s National Security Agency (N.S.A.), and its interconnection to phone and social media companies. The motion picture Citizenfour (2014), shows the original taping of those revelations. Snowden said that some people do nothing about this tracking because they have nothing to hide. He claims that this inverts the model of responsibility. He believes that everyone should encrypt Internet messages and abandon electronic media companies that track personal information and Internet behavior (op.cit, 2014). Snowden also stressed to Lawrence Lessig (2014) the importance of the press and the first amendment (Lessig – Snowden Interview Transcript, [16:28]). These dynamics illustrate Lessig’s (2006) constrain-enable pattern of powers that keep society in check (2006, Code: Version 2.0, p. 122). Consider Lessig’s (2006) question what is “the threat to liberty?” (2006, p. 120). Terrorism is a real threat (Weber, 2013). Surveillance by social media and websites, rather than the government, has the greater negative impact on its users.
“With surveillance technology like closed-circuit television cameras and digital cameras now linked to the Internet, we now have the means to implement Bentham's inspection principle on a much vaster scale”(Singer) Bentham's inspection principle is a system that allows the collection, storing and dissemination of data on individuals, corporations, and the government. This collection of data has large implications in regard to privacy and security. “There is always danger that the information collected will be misused - whether by regimes seeking to silence opposition or by corporations seeking to profit from more detailed knowledge of their potential customers.”(Singer) What is done with the information collected is the main issue in terms of privacy. We do not want to be marketed to, or inundated with spam from third-party sources. We also do not want our private social circles and experiences to appear that they are being monetized or subjected to surveillance outside our control. In addition, surveillance has a large effect on the government that can beneficial or detrimental to democracy. Exposure of government secrets may make officials tread carefully when making decisions, ensuring that politicians are nothing but just and fair.“The crucial step in preventing a repressive government from
The government is always watching to ensure safety of their country, including everything and everyone in it. Camera surveillance has become an accepted and almost expected addition to modern safety and crime prevention (“Where” para 1). Many people willingly give authorization to companies like Google and Facebook to make billions selling their personal preferences, interests, and data. Canada participates with the United States and other countries in monitoring national and even global communications (“Where” para 2). Many question the usefulness of this kind of surveillance (Hier, Let, and Walby 1).However, surveillance, used non-discriminatorily, is, arguably, the key technology to preventing terrorist plots (Eijkman 1). Government surveillance is a rising global controversy; and, although minimal coverage could possibly result in safer communities, too much surveillance will result in the violation of citizen’s privacy.
As technology allows for the constant possibility that someone might always be watching you — whether it’s the government, your friends, or
Current advancements in technology has given the government more tools for surveillance and thus leads to growing concerns for privacy. The two main categories of surveillance technologies are the ones that allow the government to gather information where previously unavailable or harder to obtain, and the ones that allow the government to process public information more quickly and efficiently (Simmons, 2007). The first category includes technologies like eavesdropping devices and hidden cameras. These are clear offenders of privacy because they are capable of gathering information while being largely unnoticed. The second category would include technologies that are used in a public space, like cameras in a public park. While these devices
There are, today, cameras almost everywhere whether it is on a cell phone, ATM, traffic light, or public spaces. We are also being surveilled on other mediums such as social media and other parts of the internet. Much of this surveillance is for the safety of the society but surveillance on the internet often can shape what a person is
James Stacey Taylor's article, "In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Government Surveillance" begins reviewing the concept of "Big Brother" as it was originally presented in George Orwell's 1984. The Big Brother started off as a fictional character in 1984-- a dictator of Oceania within a totalitarian state. Set within a society in which everyone is under complete surveillance by the authorities, mainly by telescreens, the people are constantly reminded of this by the phrase “Big Brother is watching you” (Wikipedia) . Taylor goes on to explain some examples of recent surveillance technology and how it is applied in lives today. An interesting note and comparison between today’s technology and that of the telescreens in 1984, is that people could be sure that they could not be watched by Big Brother’s telescreens by going out of the cities into the country, where they only had to take care that their conversations were not monitored by hidden microphones (Taylor 227). He contrasts the two, highlighting the fact that “Such an escape is not impossible, for spy satellites can be used to monitor people wherever they go” (277). From there, Taylor perpetuates the framework for his position on the Big Brother notion. Taylor argues that, "rather than opposing such an expansion of surveillance technology, its use should be encouraged -- and not only in the public realm" (227). Taylor’s argument presented in a more formal construction is as follows:
By definition, “biometrics” (Woodward, Orlans, and Higgins, 2003) is the science of using biological properties to identify individuals; for example, fingerprints, retina scans, and voice recognition. We’ve all seen in the movies, how the heroes and the villains have used other’s fingerprints and voice patterns to get into the super, secret vault. While these ideas were fantasy many years ago, today biometrics are being used and you may not even know it.
Ever since day one, people have been developing and creating all sorts of new methods and machines to help better everyday life in one way or another. Who can forget the invention of the ever-wondrous telephone? And we can’t forget how innovative and life-changing computers have been. However, while all machines have their positive uses, there can also be many negatives depending on how one uses said machines, wiretapping in on phone conversations, using spyware to quietly survey every keystroke and click one makes, and many other methods of unwanted snooping have arisen. As a result, laws have been made to make sure these negative uses are not taken advantage of by anyone. But because of how often technology changes, how can it be known that the laws made so long ago can still uphold proper justice? With the laws that are in place now, it’s a constant struggle to balance security with privacy. Privacy laws should be revised completely in order to create a better happy medium between security and privacy. A common misconception of most is that a happy medium of privacy and security is impossible to achieve. However, as well-said by Daniel Solove, “Protecting privacy doesn’t need to mean scuttling a security measure. Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place.”(“5 Myths about Privacy”)
The world erupted in outrage following revelations by Edward Snowden regarding the extent of surveillance perform by the National Security Agency. Privacy becomes one of the hottest topic of 2013 and was chosen by the world’s most popular online dictionary, Dictionary.com, as the Word of the Year. However, the government is not the only one that conduct data gathering and surveillance. Employers often monitor their employees, and businesses collect data on theirs customer. The morality of these practices is a topic that generates heated debate.
There are an estimated 30 million surveillance cameras in the United States, proving to be a normal feature in American lives (Vlahos). This is no surprise because in the past several years, events such as the 9/11 attack and the availability of cheaper cameras have accelerated this trend. But conflicts have come with this and have ignited, concerning the safety of the people versus the violation of privacy that surveillance has. Although camera surveillance systems are intended to provide safety to the public, the violation of privacy outweighs this, especially in a democratic country like America.
Privacy is not just a fundamental right, it is also important to maintain a truly democratic society where all citizens are able to exist with relative comfort. Therefore, “[Monitoring citizens without their knowledge] is a major threat to democracies all around the world.” (William Binney.) This is a logical opinion because without freedom of expression and privacy, every dictatorship in history has implemented some form of surveillance upon its citizens as a method of control.
However, government agencies, especially in America, continue to lobby for increased surveillance capabilities, particularly as technologies change and move in the direction of social media. Communications surveillance has extended to Internet and digital communications. law enforcement agencies, like the NSA, have required internet providers and telecommunications companies to monitor users’ traffic. Many of these activities are performed under ambiguous legal basis and remain unknown to the general public, although the media’s recent preoccupation with these surveillance and privacy issues is a setting a trending agenda.
With continuing revelations of government surveillance, much has been said about the “trade-off” between privacy and security and finding the “right balance” between the two. As Michael Lynch, a professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut, wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times, “this way of framing the issue makes sense if [one] understand[s] privacy solely as a political or legal concept.” In this context, the loss of privacy might seem to be a small price to pay to ensure one's safety. However, the relevance of privacy extends far beyond the political and legal sphere. Privacy – or the lack thereof – affects all aspects of one's life; it is a state of human experience.
In the modern day era, we find in society a ubiquitous usage of technology that seems to be never ending and forever growing. Included with this notion, the broad subject of surveillance is of course included. Contemporary surveillance, or more specifically technological surveillance, has been described as ambiguous; meaning that it is often misunderstood or open to different interpretations. The representation of surveillance within popular culture has played an impacting role on how we as a society perceive it and this raises certain questions that may reflect back on to society. The 1998 film Enemy Of The State directed by Tony Scott, Starring Will Smith, Gene Hackman and Jon Voight is considered to be a ‘spy-thriller’ blockbuster. Its central themes explore a range of surveillance techniques and equipment and also provides some insights, no matter how realistic or unrealistic they may be, into the real life security organisation; The National Security Agency (NSA). Using this film as an example and analysing how these themes are represented will hopefully allow us to key these ideas back to modern surveillance theories and practices.