The implementation of technologies in relation to social control (Research Paper Sample)

The Implementation of Technologies in Relation to Social Control
Name:
University:
Instructor:
Date:
The Implementation of Technologies in Relation to Social Control
Introduction
The issue of privacy invasion by government surveillance systems is not a new thing more so in the American society. In the year 1978 and under the recommendations of the Church Committee, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed as a way of protecting civil liberties. Under this Act, FISA court was established to keep a check on surveillance activities by the government. At the same time, surveillance agencies were prohibited from keeping a surveillance list on specific individuals without first obtaining a warrant from the court. Similarly, the Act limited government surveillance to foreigners as opposed to citizens living in United States. The latter provision however did not apply to citizens residing outside the country. This paper seeks to critique the issue of surveillance and its implications on the privacy of individuals.
Status of surveillance and its implications on the privacy of individuals
An analysis of individuals’ right to privacy conducted by Farman (2014) is worth examining before embarking on the issue of surveillance and privacy intrusion. According to Farman (2014), each person is a part of a large number of various interlocking sphere in the society including but not limited to social club membership, workplaces, family among others. Each sphere in the variety represents an area which is out of bounds to others, while in the inside, a person has little privacy against those in the same sphere and for the specific purpose of the sphere. For example, while a person may enjoy privacy from the outside world, he or she may have little privacy in the family sphere as would other members of the family.
In this context, the concept of privacy revolves around conflict of interests and this conflict will generally differ according to individual circumstances. Inherent in the conceptualization of a sphere is time, space, action and information. While in public sphere a person may not have control over the spatial and time aspect of his or her privacy, he or she may have a claim over information and action aspects of privacy (Palmer & Warren 2013). In this regard, while privacy may be relatively small in a public space, it does not necessarily imply that it is inexistence altogether.
The issue of domestic surveillance remained in the shadows until in the wake of the September 11 terrorists attack. This rejuvenated government agencies to reinvent domestic surveillance with intelligence agencies, through powers granted by the USA Patriot Act collecting metadata and intercepting phone calls, emails and messages from numerous local and foreign sources (Lyon, 2014). Further, surveillance cameras are increasingly being installed in streets and other public places in the name of protecting the interests of the public. While this has been justified as a necessary move aimed at beefing up security, there are concerns that these new surveillance measures constitute an invasion on privacy. Important to note here is that the issue of privacy invasion is not restricted to United States but is rather an issue affecting many other countries.
The allusion to the surveillance by the state or what has commonly became to be known as the big brother concept is widely understood in terms of illegal privacy invasion by the government. According to Hier, Lett and Walby (2010), State surveillance whether in terms of telephone tapping, internet monitoring or installation of CCTV cameras have dire implications on civil liberty rights and more specifically, the privacy of individuals. Individuals’ right to privacy is included in many national constitutions and international documents. In this regard, lack of legal protection for an individual’s privacy in domestics does not necessarily imply that such an individual does not have a standing in regard to international provisions on state surveillance. For example, the EU Convection on Human Rights has established minimum statement of rights that each member state should protect, and gives individuals a standing against the state in case of an infringement and where a remedy may not be secured under domestic law (Taylor, 2002). Of these rights is the individuals’ right to private life and which is contained in Article 8 of the convection.
While it is widely accepted that surveillance helps in alleviating crime, there is evidence that surveillance through phone tapping, CCTV cameras and Satellite imaging among other methods has the potential and regularly does invade individuals’ privacy. Critics of surveillance through CCTV while recognizing the usefulness of the technology in detecting crime holds that the technology rarely prevent or reduce crime in areas where it is installed (Taylor, 2002). To this end, CCTV cameras should only be used as investigation tools but even then, they do presents a threat to the privacy of people. Public surveillance by the government has the potential to furnish the state with massive personal information including data collected from innocent people. The knowledge that every step is being observed or monitored in turn affects how people interact with others, how they conduct their daily activities (Taylor, 2002). In this context, surveillance infringes on individuals’ freedom of expression and speech.
Individuals’ right to privacy dictates that personal information should not be collected for purposes other than legitimate and specific purposes. Further, the right also provides that personal information use will be limited to the minimum possible and for specific purpose which the owner has the right to know. Finally, such personal information may only be disclosed in line with the specified purpose. One issue that remains contentious in regard to this is the openness with which state agencies are willing to disclose or make public how they use information collected through public surveillance. For example, the NSA, though sticking to the claim that it had the permission of FISA to intercept phone calls and emails, has been accused of spying on American citizens contrary to the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Lyon, 2014).
The same concerns have been raised with other agencies as well across the country and abroad. Echelon is another program undertaken in collaboration between different governments to monitor activities of their citizens. The US government in collaboration with that of UK, New Zealand, Australia and Canada was accused of using the surveillance program to circumnavigate domestic laws which prevents governments from spying on their own citizens (Lyon, 2014). In this context, these governments would spy on the citizens of each other and exchange data in a bid to avoid contradictions with domestic laws.
Another issue that has raised heated debate in regard to surveillance is the extent of an individual privacy when in a public space. This issue particularly crop-up in discussing whether or not surveillance cameras installed in public space infringe of individuals privacy. According to Katz v United States, 1967, 389, U...