Surveillance- the act of monitoring an individual, group or the general population to either protect them or know more about their activities has been in practice for centuries. The nature of surveillance however has changed with the advance in technology and the changing threat levels that people face today. With terrorism having become a real threat to countries and with it becoming a mushrooming problem that almost every country has to deal with, surveillance techniques have become all the more in demand. Surveillance of not only suspects but also private citizens has become normal in many countries. Although the government agencies involved in surveillance claim that it is a preventive measure and is for the safety of the citizens, not everyone is buying it. Surveillance, even when used for preventive measures are intrusive in nature and this brings into question the validity of its need and existence. Cameras on the street, wire and email tapping and facial recognition soft wars are some of the methods used to collect data about people or an incident. Even though it might help in solving or preventing crime, it is also true that it also intrudes into the everyday lives of people. Prism is one such surveillance program of the United Sates National Security Agency that collects data of online users from internet service providers. It was a clandestine activity until a whistle blower brought it to public knowledge. Surveillance of private citizens is also on the rise with their keywords being sorted through and drones flying about. In spite of being told it is for their own good, people fight back in their own ways and Tor is one such software which helps people browse, build websites, send messages and go online without fear of being tracked. Both surveillance and anti-surveillance measures however have their pros and cons.
The world is not the same as it was even a decade ago. Technological advances are so common place today that there is a new innovation every week. Terrorism isn’t also what it used to be a decade ago. Terrorists, even the hardcore ones who would like to hark back to an earlier era of strict rules rely on technology to keep in contact with each other and hatch plans that would cause violence and send their message across. This is where the question of surveillance becomes tricky. With criminals and terrorists becoming increasingly technologically savvy, the government and other law enforcement agencies can no longer rely solely on old style detective work to solve problems. They need to sift through a huge amount of data to find out the suspects as time is of the essence. Surveillance comes handy here as the recorded data from the cameras and the emails with the right software help them pinpoint the problem area much faster than the traditional way of information gathering. However when there are thousands of cameras covering a city and drones flying overhead, there is no saying who is being monitored. When law enforcement officials sift through the entire data, it is not only the suspect’ life and movements that comes under the scanner but that of other people too; private citizens who have no connection with the suspect or the action. Their movements are out there and recorded for posterity without them having no clue about it.
Even though it might help in apprehending criminals, surveillance is not fool proof either. Face scanning software and feeds from surveillance cameras has not reached levels where it can exactly identify a person. But with many building becoming less accessible without pat downs and extensive security measures, surveillance cameras are an effective and comparatively cheaper method of keeping an eye on what’s happening. Supporters of surveillance or people who have accepted their necessity argue that, “When combined with competent law enforcement, surveillance cameras are more effective, less intrusive, less psychologically draining, and much more pleasant than these alternatives (Kelly 2013).” Mistakes can be made by the software that putting innocent lives at risk. What makes surveillance a scary concept is that it is still a cloak and dagger affair. In many countries where private citizens are monitored by government agencies, it is a flagrant violation of their constitutional and civil rights. Hence many governments choose not to tell people the extent of their surveillance tactics. Prism, for example collects data of users form nine internet service providers (Gellman and Poitras 2013). A user is not safe even when he or she browses innocuous websites from the comfort of their own homes. Their browsing history is open knowledge to not only the service provider but also the government agency that is snooping around. Innocent search terms when it matches the keywords that the government uses to track people can get them into serious trouble. However on the brighter side, keyword trawling helps the government and law enforcement agencies to also figure out any plots or terrorist plans beforehand and stop it from happening.
Another important issue as to why surveillance of private citizens comes under such problems is the question of what happens and what is being done with the amount of data that is being collected. When rightly used, this data can be used for constructive purposes such as identifying terrorists or criminals and bringing down crime levels. But the same data can also be used for vindictive purposes. Governments can target a dissenter using data collected from his or her online activities. Although this is not lawfully right, it still can be used as evidence to arrest them or suppress their activities. The surveillance tactics used by many governments today bear an eerie semblance to the idea of the ‘big brother’ that George Orwell wrote about many decades ago. Orwell in his book 1984 talks about a state that monitors every activity of its citizens and it has come almost come true (Orwell 1950). Any person who has an active online life has his or her information stored someplace and leaves tracks behind that makes it easier for anyone with data to form a profile about them.
When it comes to software like Tor, it is something that is embraced by people who are tired of government high handedness and are done with their every aspect of their lives being intruded upon. As much as it protects the privacy of a private citizen, Tor also helps terrorists to hatch a plot online and get away with it from government eyes. Even though Tor strives to provide anonymity to millions of people who’d like to protect their identity, it also inadvertently helps people hide potential damning evidences. The law enforcement agencies are also aware of Tor and what it does and hence users using Tor get more interest than others. Also even with Tor that uses a complex encryption system to hide the user’s identity it is not completely impossible to find the source of an online activity. And since the US government considers any Tor user as a foreign national unless it finds out otherwise, even an innocent Tor user can be under increased surveillance (Estes 2013).
Surveillance programs like Prism and surveillance of private citizens has it pros and cons just like anti-surveillance mechanisms like Tor does. For people who agree and accept the intrusion into their private lives, it gives them a sense of safety; that there is someone out there looking out for them. But for people who do not share similar views, it is an unforgivable intrusion into their lives. Surveillance poses a real danger of having to be scared of our every actions and increasing the paranoia levels of people. It also gives the stat draconian powers and a sense of omnipotence. With technology showing no signs of slowing down, surveillance tactics will also improve with people arguing on either side over their merits and faults.
Works Cited
Gellman, Barton and Poitras, Laura. “U.S., British intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program.” The Washington Post. 7 June 2013. Web. 24 June 2015.
Estes. C. Adam. “Tor: The Anonymous Internet, and If It's Right for You.” Gizmodo. 30 August 2013. Web. 24 June 2015.
Kelly, Heather. “After Boston: The Pros and Cons of Surveillance Cameras.” CNN. 26 April 2013. Web. 24 June 2015.
Orwell, George. 1984. New York: Penguin Group. 1950. Print.
