Some (usually the surveilling governments) argue that surveillance keeps the society secure and high range of crime is prevented. It does not mean that a state is spying on its citizens, but it provides security in exchange for looking into the privacy of individuals. But who cares about state surveillance, if a person doesn’ t have anything to hide. It isn’t such a big problem, or is it?
Questions such as: Where are our data stored; Who and what entities have access to them; Can our data be misused; were very much present in EU countries and resulted in regulating data collection and their (mis)use. There is still a long way to go, but some kind of a base has been built to move the debate further.
On the contrary, in the USA, where Edward Snowden publically shared the leak of information regarding actual practices of NSA in terms of state surveillance, no serious measures were taken. In fact, the public did not even seem very alarmed . But where can this apathy Americans actually take? And how much surveillance is really necessary within liberal democracies?
On January 24, 2019, the Danish Institute for International Studies organised a seminar on “Surveillance and the Contradictions of Power”. The main speaker was an anthropologist Victoria Bernal, Professor in Anthropology at the University of California in Irvine; as well as a visiting professor at the Institute for Anthropological Research in Africa, KU Leuven. Bernal presented her research on digital surveillance, cybersecurity and privacy while taking into consideration the “post-Snowden” time in the United States of America. Moreover, she provided the audience with a surprising comparison of the level of surveillance in the USA and Eritrea, an authoritarian state in northeast Africa.
One of the main substances of Bernal’s research is her focus on the Eritrean diaspora in the USA, which communicates very actively through online networks and platforms (e.g. awate.com). Online networks have a very high meaning for the Eritrean diaspora, they are crucial to maintaining some level of democracy alive and push the democratic boundaries step by step forward. Eritreans in Eritrea are oppressed and can not enjoy the freedom of speech. As in other totalitarian regimes, criticising government can only lead to prosecutions and imprisonment. Therefore, the form of state surveillance in Eritrea is very deeply embedded throughout the society in order to provide the state with control over its citizens along with an assurance that democratic ideas from the web will not contaminate thoughts of the citizens.
The shocking part of the research comes in Victoria Bernal’s argument, where she compares the American and Eritrean forms of surveillance, even though these two countries may seem very far from each other. She concludes that dichotomy of surveillance between these two opposing forms of government (liberal democracy on one side and the totalitarian regime on the other) is becoming much less distinct. Meaning that surveillance in the USA is so deeply embedded that it resembles the form of surveillance in an authoritarian regime such as Eritrea.
This comparison may seem too drastic, but Bernal makes a point, that online activities of Americans are highly watched by the state, which at the moment seems harmless and more beneficial to the security of the citizens since no one is being persecuted for expressing political opinions on the Internet. But what if the government changes its strategy in the upcoming years? Along with our world being more and more digital, with the fast speed of so-called 4th industrial revolution and soon using the 5G network, we must keep in mind that rights, which our predecessors fought for centuries are not forgotten on the way. Especially in times of unpredictable Trump-politics resulting in a transformation of the USA from a generous global leader to an egoist isolationist country. What comes next?
Moreover, the discussion in the USA regarding data protection seems to be left out only for a few. After Snowden ’s leak of highly classified information regarding NSA activities in 2013, the attitude of American citizens was surprisingly lackadaisical. Bernal points out that discussion regarding data protection was only between tech-experts, whereas most Americans did not really care. Therefore, no real legislation that would protect the way data is being used and collected, as in the case of the EU (namely the General Data Protection Regulation known as GDPR, which enforces the data protection by companies), followed. The US government, companies and American tycoons can freely store data about online users the way they desire, even though they argue that data is being well protected.
The situation brings certain doubts. Is the main substance of state surveillance in the USA really maintenance of security, or isn´t it the contrary, that state surveillance is the actual source of violating citizen’ s rights? Maybe the need of the government to surveil its citizens is at the end an artificially created justification for security.
Another point Bernal addresses is, whether the system of American surveillance is really so efficient as the government claims since one of the arguments in favour of surveillance is to prevent any potential dangers such as organised crime and terrorist activities. However, the number of mass shootings, which with the right and efficient surveillance should have decreased significantly by now, shows that the situation remains the same. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there were 340 mass shootings in 2018 — in comparison to 346 in 2017, 335 in 2015 or 268 in 2014. The numbers show that mass shootings are still happening and their number is not really decreasing. One may pose a question, whether with such profoundly embedded surveillance techniques the result shouldn’t be different. Moreover, are the surveillance techniques even capable of preventing such crimes? Even in the case of 9/11, there were indicators that a terrorist attack is planned, but the indicators were not understood and received on time.
Regarding Denmark, there has been a discussion among politicians and media on cybersecurity and the potentially growing danger of cyber attacks and fake news in the upcoming parliamentary elections as well as EU elections. The government proposed a new cyber-strategy, which will to a certain extent increase the surveillance of the state in order to protect Danish online users from being exposed to fake news and better secure their data. It is crucial to respond and fight against fake news and cyber attacks, but is surveillance and monitoring what citizens do online really the right way to go? Isn’t it smoothening the dichotomy of state surveillance between liberal and authoritarian countries as Bernal suggests?
However, so far it seems the only solution… at least according to the governments.
