Surveillance and Civil Liberties

Introduction

The essay aims to underscore the importance of surveillance to protect Western nations, especially in the wake of the post-September 11 US attacks. The need to protect lives and property in Western countries gained prominence as the US sought to root out real and potential terrorists in the country and sometimes across borders. Some of the steps that several agencies took were the installation of systems to collect as much data as possible to help them assess and scuttle terror threats before they are implemented. Although data is needed, too much personal data collected threatens personal privacy and does little to achieve the end goal.

Balance between privacy and national security

A lot has been researched on how national security can be enhanced without necessarily infringing on personal privacy rights. While there is no question as to whether to the need for national security, there is no consensus on how this ought to be realized. Rainie and Maniam (2016) observed that right after the 9/11 attacks, 70% of Americans did not have an issue with carrying ID cards always, but hesitated to allow their mail, credit cards, and phone calls to be monitored without their knowledge. This percentage willing to carry ID cards had reduced from 70% in 2001 to 57% in 2011. Western countries are facing an ever-increasing threat from terrorists who hide among ordinary citizens and thus make it difficult to distinguish and apprehend the culprits. There is no direct way of profiling, identifying terrorist,s determining when and where they will carry out their ill motives. The way that this can be done is to monitor and analyze all citizen activities so as to identify potential criminals. This means personal data would need to be collected without knowledge of people. It involves various communications with people of all sorts, including telephones and emails. The implication of this is monstrous amounts of data that should be able to guide security personnel to identify criminal intent.

Some gains are said to be realized from the collection of citizen data, and this extends the security purposes. Information gathered from citizens was said to have helped the government fight terrorism. Although it is possible that data collected can be used to provide better services to people, it is not possible to ascertain claims on gains made in fighting terrorism, which is its overarching aim. Like the author observed, Davis (2016) noted that such aims are too secretive and opaque about who and how the data is used. Besides, the tactics are not done right. Zara added that as long as one is online, all civil rights to privacy are surrendered, meaning that any information needed can be extracted, including location, what they purchase, and pages visited.  

The author suggested that camera surveillance or the use of CCTVs should be used as opposed to the arbitrary collection of personal data. Citizens are also more comfortable with this, although they also appreciate the importance of police getting the right information to thwart security threats. Mail Online (2014)noted that while people value security, they were not ready to trade their privacy. The Daily Mail suggested that while CCTVs have been hyped at preventing crimes, there is less evidence of doing so. The conclusion was brought about by the fact that security does not rely on technical advancement but on simple principles, such as enough lighting and enough security patrols. The implication is that all security measures need to be organized and directed towards a common goal without overdependence on one technological approach. CCTVs were said to be useful in cities and town centers to reduce crimes associated with the area, such as abductions and theft. CCTVs are useful but need to be connected to alarm systems to alert security personnel to respond swiftly. They also create a psychological threat to potential criminals by feeling they are being watched. Vigne, Lowry, Dwyer, & Markman (2011) added that public cameras can be used to present evidence in court and aid in arrests despite concerns about civil rights. Other technologies that can be used include gunshot detection systems to activate alarms to enable prompt police response. Others that were suggested include license plate recognition, facial recognition, and video analytics.

There is not enough evidence to suggest that the enormous data collected helped prevent crime. There was justification that these systems helped nab over 50 potential terrorism intents in more than 20 countries. There was a need to buttress these claims with specific references to gain support that feels their details are being exposed unfairly to security agents. The UK Parliament distinguished the two types of surveillance, where mass surveillance is passive, general, a nd active, or targeted is specific to individuals or a given issue that is being pursued by people. Mass surveillance is done using technology without necessarily active human intervention,o n while active surveillance utilizes human agents. The latter is likely to be more effective, especially given that there is less data collected and they are following a specific lead. Civil rights arise from two main areas: failure to regulate the storage and use of data collected and the placement of cameras where they could capture data not intended, such as in people’s private residences. Surveillance ought to be used in a non-discriminatory manner such that people of all races, genders, religions, or sexual orientations should be subjected to the same requirements of providing data. Mell (2003) described this approach as bordering on “homogeneity of thought and action,” where dissent attracts the attention of security agents. This implies erosion of civil liberties that are struck by governments of the modern age. Further, privacy should not be confused with criminal intent, but ought to be protected. This does imply that governments need to use more effective means of crime prevention without immersing themselves in the private lives of citizens, which do not constitute crime.

Conclusion

The trend of mass surveillance should be enhanced to protect the lives and property of people, given the threats that terrorism poses in the modern age, especially to Western countries. While the intent is good, the approach needs to be improved to consider civil liberties. This means that targeted surveillance should be favored rather than mass surveillance, where only suspects should be pursued with more scrutiny. Where there is cause for concern, much data can and should be collected. The law should be followed to allow all people to due private lives, which means cameras should be in public places and be general in their target, if they are not pursuing any suspect. CCTVs can be even more effective if incorporated with other technologies described to enable identifying suspects and initiating an investigation, where targeted surveillance sets in.  

References

Davis, L. C. (2016, February 3). How Do Americans Weigh Privacy Versus National Security? Retrieved from The Atlantic

Mail Online. (2014). Does CCTV cut crime? Retrieved from Daily Mail

Mell, P. (2003). Big Brother at the Door: Balancing National Security with Privacy under the USA Patriot Act.

Rainie, L., & Maniam, S. (2016, February 19). Americans feel the tension between privacy and security concerns.

Vigne, N. G., Lowry, S. S., Dwyer, A. M., & Markman, J. A. (2011, September). Using Public Surveillance Systems for Crime Control and Prevention. Retrieved from Urban Institute: Justice Policy Centre