Government surveillance
Mass surveillance of a country’s citizens by its government can no longer be said to be the preserve of authoritarian and dictatorial states. Even living halfway around the world, seemingly out of the reach of the US government and its vast and intrusive intelligence program, it is safe to say that Australians have been the subject of US government surveillance. Their Gmail records and Facebook photos have been vulnerable to examination and investigation. Their phone calls have been tracked. And they have no means of recourse to prevent this activity from continuing. These events should cause us to recognise how much we have given up — and how much has been taken from us — in the name of security, particularly since the attacks of 9/11.
In the past decade we have seen the progressive expansion of government powers to track and control their citizens in the name of preventing terrorism. The NSA revelations are part of a recent tide of surveillance measures, in both democratic and repressive states, that will ultimately have the effect of creating all-seeing, all-knowing governments. In just the past few months, we’ve seen reports of the US Department of Justice spying on journalists, the French and Spanish governments trying to legalise Trojan software for the use of law enforcement, and British legislation that would essentially replicate and enhance the tactics being used by the NSA.
These international trends are being replicated in Australia. Last year, the Attorney-General’s Department submitted proposals to Parliament that would have greatly increased the scope of surveillance of Australians, including a scheme that would have made the collection and retention of data about individuals’ web activities mandatory. The collection of such ‘’communications data’’ would create a treasure trove from which the government could derive vast amounts of information, including who we talk to and for how long; where we go and who we meet; who we bank with, shop with and receive a variety of other services from — creating a detailed profile of our associations, movements, relationships and activities. The same law reforms would greatly expand the scope of ‘’lawful’’ interception of communications, and would create a new offence for those who fail to hand their encryption keys — passwords and other basic security measures that keep our computers and phones safe from intrusion — over to police when required.
Investigations have shown that the Australian government is also seeking to expand its capability to conduct surveillance by acquiring offensive surveillance technology that would allow law enforcement to ‘’hack’’ into phones and computers. In a remarkably timely move, the United Nations last week released a report condemning the spread of each of these surveillance trends. The report points out that without safeguards protecting private communications from the intrusion of government actors, the important democratic tenets of individual autonomy, free speech and political participation cannot be realised. The link between privacy and other human rights is key. Privacy is the fundamental barrier that stands in the way of complete state control and domination. Without it, the social contract is broken, and individuals cannot recognise their democratic rights to participate, build, grow and think. A citizenry unable to form or communicate private thoughts without the interference of the state will not only be deprived of their right to privacy, they will be deprived of their human dignity. For the ability to freely think and impart ideas is essential to who we are as human beings. The suspicions of privacy advocates have been confirmed. A massive and pervasive surveillance state, where citizens are constantly under the government’s watch, is no longer a fear. It is no longer speculation to say that governments empowered to protect the rights of its citizens have failed.
It is our reality, and we’ve been living in it for some time without even knowing it.