Essay: Arguments for use of security programs which use surveillance are highly persuasive

It is often said that the first duty of a Government is to give protection to its citizens and provide resources against the threat of terrorism. We must then ask how far should a country go to fulfil this need and where should the line be drawn? In an attempt to protect citizens some Governments have infringed on citizens’ rights to privacy and hence civil liberties. Many would argue these are necessary evils, while others believe that if their government was elected to represent them, then the government should adhere to a policy of morality and translucency. Furthermore many of these security programs are highly classified, because of this citizens are often unable to verify their rights are being observed by their governments and clearly defined security purposes are in place for the use of this information.
Our age of technology has vastly improved our quality of life, however these enhancements have come at a high cost, with acts of terrorism targeting areas which previously didn’t exist. Each time we come up with new, more efficient systems we are vulnerable to cyber attacks and are sometimes left scrambling to protect ourselves. When individuals are targeted by computer viruses it is an irritation at best, when hackers bring down 911 systems or target our government, the effects can be devastating.
In light of this it is more than reasonable for a government to provide safe guards against these vulnerabilities. If we take the example of ECHELON, a surveillance program operated on behalf of Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US, we can see the use of a system that provides key information to help the government stop security threats, terrorism, cybercrime, and even navigate political mine fields. The system was initially created to monitor the military and diplomatic communications of the Soviet Union during the Cold War; If ECHELON’s surveillance helped prevent nuclear war then few would argue they’d rather their privacy full intact instead.
On the other hand there exists a tenuous balance between the government protecting its citizens, and the violation of civil liberties and rights to privacy of individual citizens. Notably where there is power, corruption often follows. It was Thomas Hobbes who first said in the ‘Leviathan’ that “scientia potentia est”, broadly meaning “knowledge is power”, the power from having knowledge on an entire country is unfathomable. If corruption were to creep into a surveillance system on such a grand scale the repercussions would be endless. The psychological impact on an individual from the loss of personal privacy and the sense of being controlled by their government would be crippling.
If these surveillance programs clash with citizen’s individual rights and liberties then they could be considered as not democratic, contributing to a society slowly spiralling into dystopia. In an extreme example of this we could examine George Orwell’s ‘1984’, the government’s fast growing ability to spy on us could lead to a civilisation where there is no place for privacy and control extends even into the minds of the citizens. Moreover this is not beyond the realm of belief, in present day there are numerous societies where this is the case.
Nevertheless if a government’s citizens understand these risks and the majority are still satisfied and in approval then the moralities of the situation are slightly more nuanced. In surveys carried out by CBS News after the exposure of the actions of two previously classified surveillance programs in the US the majority, nearly 6 in 10, had an unfavourable opinion of their government accumulating phone records of “ordinary” citizens. In clear juxtaposition with this was that most people surveyed had little concern for their own activities being monitored and their support, nearly three-quarters of those surveyed, for their government monitoring suspects of terrorist activities.
This survey importantly gives us a small insight into the publics perception of the surveillance. From what can be gathered from this small illustration we can see that although the public may have qualms with what could happen and wish the government would be more focused with their targeting, the majority think of this small sample believe it to be necessary evil. With this in mind much more research must be done besides this survey, with larger sample sizes across different regions so as to properly gauge the beliefs of citizens. If the majority of citizens are vastly against this style of surveillance it would be highly inappropriate to continue with it, perhaps this is one of the reasons these operations were significantly not made publicly known until recently by Snowden. Having said that it is wise to take cynicism like this with a pinch of salt, there is a valid argument that revealing a database of such information exists is a security threat in itself.
In conclusion the arguments for the use of security programs which make use of surveillance are highly persuasive, the prevention of both relatively minor, the hacking of 911 call centres as an example, and major security breaches are vital for the smooth running of a society. When countless lives are at risk the monitoring of phones may seem like a small price to pay. Then again it also a compelling argument that once you start giving away small liberties it is very difficult to prevent big ones being taken too. The violation of the privacy of a citizen should not be something that\’s taken lightly. Finally above all if the citizens are vehemently against this surveillance, their concerns should not be ignored. As such more thorough surveys should be carried out. Perhaps as a compromise a more targeted system could be introduced, which would be nearly as effective and less intrusive.