Essay: Surveillance is a necessary evil

Introduction
In 1990, when the internet was born, a new era began. Since then, it has grown so powerfully that nowadays most people could not imagine their life without smart phones, computers. These innovations naturally make our life easier, but we do not often think about the enormous amount of electronic records (data) that are created about us. We cannot avoid leaving traces behind us online. However, anyone can easily access these data including where we are, what we are doing, how often we are doing these things, what we spend on and where we do our shopping. These data can be used easily and in many ways against us but on the other hand, it is useful in protecting us too. Companies and governments often refer to the observation of our daily life as it is done for security purposes only, but how far can they break the limits with our private sphere? They are working with data that they get from mobile phones, internet or the intelligent surveillance systems like CCTV cameras, drones, biometric data and so on to get information from society and use this information to create a safe environment and to assess the needs of consumers.
Instead of Orwell’s’ Big Brother, in which he is talking about one big surveillance state, there are many small information monopolies. These “small brothers” are always there to watch everyone’s steps. Airlines have a huge database for booked and purchased tickets from which can see where or how often we travel, which countries are preferred by us and this way can be easily deduced for example where our relatives lives. In the Netherlands, the public transport company Arriva uses nominated travel cards (just for Dutch people); with this card, passengers can travel cheaper, but on the other hand the company knows where, when and how often they travel. Furthermore, if someone pays with his or her credit card they give information immediately about what they bought and where. These are all information that we share about ourselves that we do not know about or if we know it, it does not bother us. Can safety of the people be guaranteed with total privacy?
In this paper I argue that surveillance is a necessary evil, we are not be able to choose alone security or alone privacy, because they are closely related. If we lose or there is no proper security and we have trouble, then our private spheres will no longer matter. When we can feel safe and we have not got the sense of danger is more important than some private data. Do we want to travel by an airplane where everyone’s luggage was screened or by an airplane where no one’s was? For the sake of security, we must abandon certain private data (for example when we let them look into the package and see our personal items) but it has limits too where regulations are needed to find the balance.
1. Definitions and concepts
In order to be able to take a side of this issue, we need to clarify some of the basic concepts that we will be exploring during the essay. Below, I define the three basic concepts of the paper: privacy, security and observation. However, it is important to note first that these terms do not have an exact definition and they are universally disputed issues. Another important influencing factor can be the context in which we put these expressions. They can have a different meaning in a democratic and in a totalitarian system. In this work I incorporate these phrases into a democratic system.
The meaning of privacy can differ from one person to another. It does not have an exact, generally accepted definition. As Lyon quotes (1994) Warren and Brandeis’s idea, privacy is “the individual’s right to be left alone” (p. 14). A more precise definition of privacy was formulated by the Open University during the surPRISE project (2014) “the ability of an individual to be left alone, out of public view, and in control of information about oneself” (p. 14). In this sense, privacy is a persons’ right to act freely, to speak and discuss questions with others without being restricted or observed by anyone.
The definition of security is formulated differently in every era. From the 17th to the 19th century security and privacy walked hand in hand. What is more, some interpretations describe security as a prerequisite of freedom which is closely related to privacy. Locke’s (Székely, Somodi & Szabó, 2017) opinion is that the basic function of security is to guarantee of freedom. In the middle of the 19th century, Jeremy Bentham (Székely, Somodi & Szabó, 2017) argued that freedom is not an individual value because security means predictability and this is an essential element for free action which in this case is equal to the private sphere. According to the surPRISE project (2014) security is “the condition of being protected from or not exposed to danger; a feeling of safety or freedom from or absence of danger.” This definition shows that people’s sense of security is at least as important, if not more, than security itself.
To conclude the term of security, it has many definitions and interpretations and it obviously means different things to everyone but there is a large enough consensus there, that is: it is needed, it is the responsibility of the authorized management to ensure it and it is in the commonweal’s interest.
There are many definitions for surveillance, because there are many kinds of observations. During the surPRISE project the researchers used a definition which correctly summarises what surveillance mean: ‘monitoring people in order to regulate or govern their behaviour’(2014). Surveillance and surveillance society concepts are used as synonyms by many authors.
Lyon (), provides an accurate summary of the existence and function of the surveillance society. He argues that electronic observation is an essential activity of all the industrial societies. However, people should not be frightened or be paranoid, rather certain restrictions should be imposed. (p. 161)
On the other hand, surveillance systems developed historically hand in hand with democratic governments and with rights of the citizenship. We cannot say that is an “unambiguous or unmitigated evil” (p. 162) and we cannot insist that this is an unquestionable or “inevitable” (p. 162) negative, as there are different type of observations, as well as having restrictive consequences for the life of human society.
2. Security as an essential part of our lives
In the 20th century a new term, “societal security” was coined. As a result of globalization, these security policy measures are no longer confined to the local level, but they are global and require close cooperation between nations. Global issues threaten society like terrorism, cultural and religious conflicts, global warming and so on. For these global issues global terms are needed. After the terror attack on 11th September, in 2001, it has become evident to the world, including the electorate and to the government, that the security policy measures that have been applied in the past, will not be enough to overcome the terrorists. It seemed clearly that those intelligence forms and national security techniques are not enough to stop the outrage. As a result of events and the following fear, serious measures, steps and bills were adopted by both the society and the political leadership, which has never happened before. Since the attacks have happened, surveillance became more important and it has become a fundamental tool in the fight against terrorism with new policies and technologies. These technologies and policies allowed the military and the police operatives to monitor suspect populations (Haggerty & Ericson, 2006).
After George Orwell published the novel 1984, we started to compare this phenomenon, to a huge superpower, which observes every step of our life and made us paranoid. Most of the people associate the word ‘surveillance’ with something negative but it has a lot of positive effects which we all enjoy.
Security is a prerequisite of enforcing other values and rights. Physical security is of prime importance because it is not possible to enforce another right if the individual is not safe, that is, if something happens to him, for example he is being attacked, beaten, raped, or robbed (Shue, 1996). So, on this basis, we can say that physical security is not just an inalienable right of everyone, but a must and a priority for everyone. As mentioned in section 1, beyond physical security, your sense of security plays a very important role. Security policy is well designed when citizens feel safe. Living in fear can bring out the worst of the people; they can destroy a whole society, so security is not just the individual’s interest but the whole community’s. Furthermore, security is the foundation of the political community (Loader & Walker, 2007), among other things, that is why we give state the power, to create it. For example, according to Raab (2005), “safety state” is above all value. However, to create such a state, not only the rights of individuals and society as a whole should be limited but also the modern democratic society’s main values and the power of the leadership as well. Therefore, we have to ‘civilize’ (Loader & Walker, 2007) security. In line with the argument above, it is necessary to adapt to the jurisprudence of Western-style democracies more, and to incorporate to the political decision making (Székely, Somodi & Szabó, 2017).
Why does the government not use other legal channels against crime and terrorism can also be classified as privacy-related arguments. It is rarely heard that they are surveillance us for the fight against drug trafficking. In addition, there are many laws that just regulate that the authorities might seize the computers and mobile phones of potential criminals and terrorists. The question arises to why they should observe us then.
Most of the regulations and laws are not unlimited and have to be balanced with other rights. Take for an example when governments regulates our privacy. Governments are allowed to discipline drivers if they do not engage the seat belt. This is a little infringement into our privacy but no one argue that is a problem, because the most important rights still be respected and this regulation is protects’ us.
Observation is not a new phenomenon, it has always been in the communities, as he explains its historical background and analyzing the appearing and embodiment of surveillance through several periods. Lyon () says governments have always been observing society so that they can spread their control and deeds. In another book (Lyon, ) he argues that surveillance is a part of modern life and not ‘intrinsically anti-social or repressive’ (p. 31). It coordinates the life of the individuals across customs, workplaces, shopping malls, public areas. This kind of surveillance has increased significantly with the appearance of computers. In addition, it has now become a part of the all-encompassing Internet and social media.
The challenges of surveillance also play an important role in the debates of security versus privacy. These challenges include privacy laws and other social movements, according to Lyon. Power and surveillance has a special and complex social relation. It is forming a ‘superpanopticon’ by effecting on ‘life chances and social destinities’ (p. 151)
Mayer-Schonberger and Cukier (cited in van Dick, 2014 p) who wrote about the metadata’s far and wide availability and the danger of that, argue that, that governments have to take measures because they are responsible to prevent the potential risks. Security is a conscious risk taking and it is not about avoiding risks, but about managing them.
Based on these we can state that security plays a key role in our life.