Introduction
In
the book ‘1984’, George Orwell described a police state dystopia in which the
government (or ‘Big Brother’) is constantly watching its public. This
oppressive and paranoiac fictional world he created seems highly improbable,
yet the themes it explores could be plausible under current surveillance
strategies. How much of this world is possible for our future within the
constraints of western democracy and how much of it are we already
experiencing?
In
this essay, I want to analyse the relationship between the state and the
public. It is now generally understood that the government can tap into our
private lives through innumerable and highly covert ways (detailed in the next
chapter), but this does not mean it is commonly accepted. With ongoing
technological advancement in this ‘Digital Age’, there is an increasing concern
as to just how far our personal liberty and rights are being impinged upon.
Thus, organizations such as ‘Don’t Spy on Us’ and ‘Big Brother Watch’ were
created, endeavouring to protect the public against strict surveillance tactics.
In an age
where technology has become a significant aspect of our everyday lives, it is
important not only to acknowledge how its application benefits us, but how it
is also used against us. With increasing fear over organized terrorism,
security is becoming a progressively important aspect of government policy. With legislation such as ‘The Freedom of
Information Act’ (passed by Parliament in 2000), the public are allowed more
access over some governmental dealings and information held by public officials,
however much of this is still ‘protected’. ‘WikiLeaks’ and other journalistic
organisations help to some extent in gaining insider knowledge but many argue
that the public should have more access in order to provide adequate checks and
balances on our elected officials so to monitor their activity. However do
these public exposé’s help or hinder society and government? Do the state and
powerful corporations have too much power over our personal freedom with
surveillance through techniques such as CCTV and the ‘surface’ web? Can we have
security without our freedom being eroded?
My approach is to first identify some
of the various methods in which the government uses in order to surveil its
people. I want to demonstrate that government and certain corporations do in
fact hold too much control over surveillance and that the public is entitled to
some unobserved activity under the quintessential democratic right of freedom.
This can ultimately be experienced through my case study of ‘the Deep Web’. The
deep web offers pure anonymity to the public as well as the governments who use
it, aiding both equally. It embodies the fundamentals of liberal thought and
the freedom it offers its users helps the plight of many who are in extremely
difficult circumstances. Technically, using such software is illegal but
theoretically, this does not make it wrong. I want to analyse the many ways in
which both the public and government utilise this tool in order to exhibit its
incredible potential for good, as well as bad. By examining different arguments
for and against less surveillance, I will argue in favour of and frame this
essay around Michel Foucault’s poststructuralist approach to power and
surveillance. This is the critical theoretical perspective that analyses
knowledge and power and how this impacts social control through certain
institutions, as “…policymakers seek to constitute themselves as having
authority…their formal authority is derived from their institutional location,
but authority is also built on knowing about a particular issue. Knowledge,
therefore, becomes important for establishing authority, and this in turn
creates a new analytical optic for discourse analysis…” (Hansen, 2007, p8) of
security. This is in contrast to various alternative perspectives such as the
notion, ‘if one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to fear’ or that strong
surveillance is always in the interest of the people and so on. I conclude that
limitations within legislation need to be set on the surveillance of the
public, especially as we see it being used more often to boost commercial sales
for businesses rather than for security purposes. Overall, there needs to be
less intervention by the state and other powerful bodies onto the public as
heavy surveillance is quickly surpassing ‘national security’ and ‘effective
screening’ and becoming more about the need for full control, infiltrating
every aspect of our daily lives, manifesting itself as fear, paranoia and
overbearing monetization.
Surveillance
Society: Techniques
There are various techniques that are used in order
to surveil the public and the UK is one of the most watched places with one of
the biggest DNA databases and millions of public cameras. According to the
‘BBC’ (British Broadcasting Company), these include Drones, ANPR, CCTV,
Bugging, Trackers, Databases, Key loggers, DNA, Biometrics, and so on. Many surveillance
drones are unmanned and have been deployed by the police since 2008. This type
of aerial surveillance use cameras to operate 24/7, transmitting live images
and recording “many different activities such as searching for firearms or
missing persons, road traffic accidents and surveillance after a terrorist
attack.” (BBC, 2009, part 1). ‘ANPR’ (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) was “Initially
used to combat terrorism…Only in the last few years has the system been used on
a large scale.” (BBC, 2009, part 2). Police databases employ this to tag
vehicles of ‘special interest’ and to spot any crimes that may be linked to a
vehicle’s number plate. “The system works by recording every number plate
regardless of who the driver is, no matter how mundane the journey. Every
journey is then held for two years and can be held longer if considered
necessary…cameras are not concealed (but) the police will not reveal how many
cameras they have or where the cameras are.” (BBC, 2009, part 2). ‘CCTV’
(Closed-Circuit Television) were originally installed for guarding properties
and commercial premises but rapidly became commonplace throughout the urban
setting with an estimated 4.2 million of them, including new features such as
microphones. “A Home Office report in 2005 revealed that CCTV had not been a
success. It did not stop crime, it just moved it away from the cameras and it did
not make people feel safer. However, CCTV can be effective after a crime has
been committed to detect the perpetrator and cameras remain at the heart of the
government's drive against anti-social behaviour.” (BBC, 2009, part 3). ‘DNA’
profiles contain about 7.4%
of the population and is taken from any arrested individual
(innocent or guilty) over 9 and kept permanently. This led the ‘European Court
of Human Rights’ to label the “government's DNA policy in England and Wales indiscriminate
and particularly damaging to children and asked the government to change it.”
(BBC, 2009, part 8). ‘Biometrics’ use fingerprinting, DNA and iris and face
recognition to identify our behavioural and physical characteristics, however
“…they are only as good as the information inputted, which can be incorrect” (BBC,
2009, part 9) meaning there can be many false matches. ‘Bugging’ allows
conversations to be recorded and accessed by the police, security services and
increasingly public bodies, while data is stored by internet and telephone
companies. “The Home Office says that it uses communications data in 95% of
serious crime convictions and every single terrorist investigation since 2004
has employed communications data.” (BBC, 2009, part 4). ‘Voice over Internet
Protocol’ (VOIP) is a complex system of breaking down voice information and
controversially, “This has required the security services to develop different
techniques for interception. It is also one of the reasons the government argues
it needs new powers to require all communications service providers to keep all
their communications data for a year.” (BBC, 2009, part 4). ‘Tracking’ devices
can either use telephone signals or satellite for vehicles (through GPS or
Global Positioning System) in order to track anyone’s location. ‘Key loggers’
record computer operations and can be “used to trace computer faults and to
monitor employees, for example to determine productivity. They are also used by
law enforcement agencies and criminals to obtain passwords and bypass other
security measures.” (BBC, 2009, part 7). ‘Databases’ have increased
exponentially with our ever-advancing technology, recording our welfare,
education, health and justice. A report was made that out of “46 major government
databases…11 needed to be scrapped or redesigned immediately, and more than
half were deemed to have significant problems with privacy or effectiveness.”
(BBC, 2009, part 6). Most controversially, the “National Identity Register
(stores) biographical information, biometric and administrative data linked to
an ID card.” (BBC, 2009, part 6). Any government database can find any personal
information about anyone from their ID. However, the acquisition of personal
information on databases are being utilized more by private companies for
loyalty cards, banking and even commercial shopping. Personal data of a vast
number of individuals has even been lost or stolen from private and governmental
databases, “In 2007 the government lost two computer discs containing a copy of
the entire child benefit database with the personal details of all families in
the UK with a child under 16. The discs held the details of 25 million people,
including name, address, date of birth, National Insurance number and where
relevant bank details.” (BBC, 2009, part 6). Surveillance is not only used for
intelligence purposes, but also to encourage spending. Advertising and
‘cookies’ (pop ups that show websites you recently visited) are unavoidable
whilst one ‘surfs the web’. Everything we do online is being watched, monitored
and tracked: even our mundane shopping. This continuous bombardment of
commercialism through ads can appear suffocating and oppressive.
The increasing amount of advanced surveillance
methods were kept relatively secret until ‘whistle-blower’ Edward Snowden
famously revealed in 2013 that U.S and U.K governments were engaging in mass
surveillance of their citizens. He disclosed secret information in regards to
‘PRISM’; a surveillance program under the NSA (National Security Agency) which
oversees and collects data from sites such as ‘YouTube’, ‘Facebook’ and so on.
He exposed the fact that PRISM was accumulating “…consumers' personal data by
forcing those private companies (such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, or Skype)
regularly collecting vast amounts of data for commercial purposes to hand it
over to the intelligence services without the knowledge of users.” (Bauman et
al, 2014, paragraph 4). Snowden believes we have no privacy from mass
surveillance and due to his exposé, is continuously vilified by the U.S
Government as a traitor. However many consider him a hero and a patriot. Since
this revelation, suspicion and fear of rights being eroded have led to the
creation of a movement for the reform of certain governmental dealings over
intelligence, in particular information privacy, mass surveillance, nationals
security and government secrecy. One manifestation of this is the organisation
‘Don’t Spy On Us’; their key principles are “no surveillance without suspicion,
transparent laws not secret laws, judicial not political authorisation,
effective democratic oversight, the right to redress and a secure web for all”
(dontspyonus.org, date unknown, part 4). They call for surveillance to be solely
targeted at suspected criminals, for judges rather than politicians to justify
when it is necessary, and for security agencies to be held accountable to
elected representatives. Another organization is ‘Big Brother Watch’, who
believe in defending civil liberties and protecting individual privacy. They provide
extensive research for Parliament, media and government reports into “the dramatic
expansion of surveillance powers in the UK, the growth of the database state
and the misuse of personal information.” (bigbrotherwatch.org, 2017, part 1).
Two significant laws have been formulated; the
‘Investigatory Powers Act’ (passed by Parliament in 2016) and most recently,
the ‘Digital Economy Bill’ (currently being processed by Parliament, 2016/17);
specifically “Part 5 of the Bill will fundamentally change the way our data
will be shared with government, public authorities, councils, charities and
with private businesses such as gas and electricity companies.”
(bigbrotherwatch.org, 2017, part 1). The Investigatory Powers Act is arguably
the most controversial bill in terms of surveillance in recent times. According
to dontspyonus.org, all communications over the internet will be collected and
stored in order to analyse it and keep a track on every individual (even those
not suspected of any crimes). Personal devices can be hacked without suspicion
and every person’s web history will be made available to various agencies. This
erodes our right to privacy from both the government and corporations. Our
freedom of expression will in turn be disrupted by the government’s threat of
arbitrary interference. The ability to share and discuss through online
exploration will become more self-monitored and will change the way we interact
online. Bulk hacking powers weaken any security we have on the internet. Intelligence
can be shared between the UK and the US with no restraints. This is because the
‘GCHQ’ (Government Communications Headquarters) is close to the NSA, this will
mean that mass surveillance capabilities will be overseen by President Donald Trump.
Some fear that this immense power could possibly be in the hands of a considerably
provocative and divisive person (New Scientist, 2016). Finally, investigative
journalism will be dramatically affected as the bill “lacks sufficient
guarantees for the protection of journalists and their sources. It also fails
to require authorities to notify journalists before hacking into their devices.”
(dontspyonus.org, 2017, part 2).
Our fundamental rights of freedom and privacy need
to be sustained against potentially malign practices within the digital sphere.
Democratic and legal transgressions need to be considered as the long-term
implications of these methods may mean “historical shifts in the locus and
character of sovereign authority and political legitimacy.” (Bauman et al.
2014, paragraph 2). Thus, many are calling for “an urgent need for a systematic
assessment of the scale, reach, and character of contemporary surveillance practices,
as well as the justifications they attract and the controversies they provoke.”
(Bauman et al, 2014, paragraph 2). Snowden’s revelations over surveillance
sparked worldwide debate on national security and the need for more scrutiny of
those in power. However, some argue that mass surveillance is only in the
interest of the public’s safety and convenience (in terms of marketing). Many
maintain that concerns over privacy and freedom are merely ‘exaggerated’ or just
radical liberal notions of authoritarian rule overtaking democracy. Nevertheless,
surveillance is such a subtle and pervasive part of everyday life that
compliance can seem like people are learning to blindly accept or ignore
potentially dangerous government behaviour. A key aspect of a liberal democracy
is the ability to challenge governmental power in order to provide checks and
balances on authority. As Michel Foucault explains, surveillance is a network
of power that naturally generates resistance as “power requires resistance as a
force immanent to its action” (Bogard referencing Foucault, 1996, p98). His
analysis provokes resistance as we begin to question and challenge power relations
and come to perceive power as ubiquitous. “‘The question becomes, when the
government adapts their practices, takes advantage of new technologies that
some think are perfectly justified, what impact does that have on the freedoms
that we cherish?’” (Gordon quoting Nossel, 2013, paragraph 19). Thus, one can
use Foucault’s theory to critique heavy surveillance and analyse its impacts.
Surveillance
as Power: Impacts
Surveillance is effectively ‘hierarchal
observation’, which maintains control through guardianship (or what the state
considers national security). It impacts every person’s psyche, private and
public behaviour, human rights as well as democracy as a whole. Foucault’s
post-structuralist analysis of power explains how social surveillance is like
‘capillaries of power’ where “the power differentials of everyday interactions
are more immediately significant than whatever the NSA and its cognate agencies
are doing.” (Bauman et al, 2014, paragraph 5). Surveillance is a distinct form
of power, exercised through Foucault’s notion of ‘governmentality’. This
concept refers to the ‘analytics of government’ as generically
historical-descriptive. It studies “‘the close link between power relations and
processes of subjectification’…Foucault speaks of governmentality as ‘a
strategic field of power relations in their mobility, transformability, and
reversibility…’” (Hutter et al referencing Foucault, 2014, p274). He perceives
power as the ‘conducting of conduct’, structural, fluid and operating within
society as “permanent, repetitious, inert, and self-reproducing…” (Foucault,
1978, p93). Power cannot be possessed, but is exercised productively and
preventatively, always against some resistance, “resistances that are possible,
necessary, improbable; others…spontaneous, savage, solitary, concerted, rampant
or violent; still others that are quick to compromise, interested, or
sacrificial”, only existing within the strategic field of power relations
(Foucault, 1978, p98). Foucault’s non-prescriptive theory of power is
distinctively related to knowledge (through discourse and perceptions) and does
not involve normative ideas of thought or behaviour. He argued that “discourse
never merely describes but rather, creates relationships and channels of
authority through the articulation of norms…discourse simultaneously
constructs, positions, and represents subjects in terms of norms and deviations
posited by the discourse…” (Brown, 2006, p71). Language frames power relations and
representation is constitutive of society and its subjects. Foucault explored
the evolution of power in the modern state through past and present disciplinary
measures (how we exercise punishment), from being enforced physically in the
past, to mentally now. Public executions and ritual torture gradually became
‘shameful’ acts inflicted by the executioner and “seen as a hearth in which
violence bursts again into flame.” (Foucault, 1995, p9). Organized expiations
became grotesque and it was thought that “The punishing power should not soil
its hands with a crime greater than the one it wished to punish.” (Foucault,
1995, p56). Thus, punishment was transformed from public and violent to private
and more invasive.
Foucault drew upon Jeremy Bentham’s concept of
Panopticism to inform on his study of modern surveillance and disciplinary
power relations. A panopticon is an institution that allows a watchman to
observe occupants of a space without them knowing when they are being watched.
The watchman is concealed and equipped with a weapon in which he can use on any
person displaying disobedient activity. The idea is that one will police
themselves in order to divert punishment by the watchman. Foucault considered
panopticism a part of many contemporary institutions because of society’s
intense monitoring and bureaucratic nature.
This concept inspired CCTV in the hope that people would curb their own
behaviour, consoling the public with ideas of “‘empowerment’ and ‘freedom’,
particularly the ‘freedom and safety to shop’.” (Allmer quoting Coleman and
Sim, 2011, p572). However, many argue that criminals will now purposefully
commit crimes away from cameras and so illicit activity is not actually being
deterred. As evidenced by the London riots (2011), mass crime was not hindered
by surveillance. This may be because “We behave ourselves because of our social
contract, the collection of written and unwritten rules that bind us together
by instilling us with internal surveillance in the form of conscience and
aspiration. CCTVs everywhere are an invitation to walk away from the contract
and our duty to one another, to become the lawlessness the CCTV is meant to
prevent.” (Doctorow, 2011, paragraph 12). This suggests that CCTV surveillance
is meant to create a moral standard, but it is actually within our individual
autonomy that truly ethical surveillance lies. By relying on heavy governmental
surveillance to supervise us, we transfer any responsibility towards the law
onto another institution other than ourselves. Nevertheless, “Evidence-led CCTV
deployment shows us where CCTV does work, and that's in situations where crimes
are planned” (Doctorow, 2011, paragraph 11). The knowledge of being constantly
observed at all or most times forces people to internalise the threat of
violence (or punishment) from institutional power. Another example of
Panopticism in practice is the use of ‘dummy cameras’, which unbeknownst to the
public do not actually record anything in reality but its perceived observational
power serve to generate docile subjects of those who believe it records them.
Hence, the Panopticon induces “the
inmate (into) a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the
automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is
permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the
perfection of power should render its actual exercise unnecessary” (Foucault,
1995, p201). This system sustains “a power relation independent of the person who
exercises it…the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they
are themselves the bearers” (Foucault, 1995, p201).
Foucault’s view was that the awareness of being
constantly watched can stifle creativity and individuality which in turn
creates conformity or ‘dynamic normalisation’, “…the activity of judging has
increased precisely to the extent that the normalizing power has spread…The
judges of normality are present everywhere. We are in the society of the teacher-judge,
the doctor-judge, the educator-judge, the 'social worker'-judge; it is on them
that the universal reign of the normative is based.” (Foucault, 1995, p304).
Consequently, this eradicates the notion that it is everyone’s democratic right
to retain free will and freedom of thought. Surveillance asserts a domineering
and shadowy supervisory power that generates an obedient society. One can
theorise through Foucault’s theory that society can be perceived as a subtle
yet increasingly totalitarian state, disguising itself as fully democratic.
Foucault’s realist “emphasis on discourse and the critique of sovereignty
significantly challenges both the materialism and the state-centrism of that
tradition” (Brown, 2006, p76), necessitating state surveillance to be
constantly challenged and improved upon in order to provide the public with
more personal privacy and freedom. Foucault argued that we are taught to
perceive the past in a negative way in order to believe we have come a long way
since the ‘Dark Ages’ in a kind of naïve smugness. He maintained that the
modern prison system was formulated in private, arguing that this was so that
the public would be blissfully unaware of any barbaric or unethical
‘punishment’ and thus unable to resist this form of state power and control. He
reflected upon past brutal and savage forms of punishment as a better
representation of a more equal power relation between the state and the public
as people had more individual freedom. These public executions encouraged open
protests and rebellions while sparking debate and controversy. Crime was more
openly dealt with and thus power was more transparent making it superior in
some ways to our modern state. Foucault felt it was important to acknowledge
the dishonest and ignorant optimism instilled in us from the state over current
power relations surrounding surveillance and punishment and to learn some
lessons from history without fully reverting back to such violent acts. He
considered “imprisonment as a legal penalty, but at the ‘illegal’ use of
arbitrary, indeterminate detention…Sometimes in the name of the effects of
imprisonment, which punishes those who have not yet been convicted, which
communicates and generalizes the evil that it ought to prevent, and which runs
counter to the principle of the individuality of penalties by punishing a whole
family; it was said that ‘imprisonment is not a penalty’.” (Foucault, 1995,
p119-120). Foucault saw the modern prison system as an abuse of power and incompatible
with justice because of its very nature of punishment control and how it
deprives a person of everything they hold precious or that provides them with
subsistence. Contemporary power through punishment naturally appears more
compassionate on the surface in retrospect to past methods, therefore we
willingly accept what is secretly decided for us and how it may affect our
behaviour. Some consider the state a ‘sofa government’ that casually make key
decisions informally with unofficial advisors. Hence a more negotiated, open
and transparent relationship needs to be recognised between the public and the
state in order for surveillance to have some restraints and to be as democratic
as possible. The state’s role (in terms of surveillance) is contradictory as it
both liberates and oppresses the public. Some accept surveillance and its invasive
nature, giving up some personal privacy for security provided by the government
or for new technological updates, apps, improved shopping, use of social media
and other such benefits provided by businesses. To Foucault, power is
ubiquitous and belongs to everyone yet it is the general public who become
repressed by power enforced upon them by authority, “Power in this view is
thought to be contained in sovereign individuals or institutions and to be
exercised over others by these individuals and institutions.” (Brown, 2006,
p68). Through panoptic surveillance in a disciplinary society, repression and
fear begin to supersede collective and particularly individual ethics and
morals. One removes any need for punishment when fear prevents the public from
acting before they even commit an act. Right and wrong are already decided for
us, removing any individual responsibility towards one’s own morality and
conscience.
Many believe widespread hierarchal observation is
becoming increasingly normalised, despite its controlling means to deter, train
and correct human behaviour. The overall implications of this is that people
have begun to self-vet themselves in fear of exposure of private details about
their life or of any possible misunderstandings over an opinion or joke due to ambiguous
‘online language’ on social media. Understandably, ‘malicious communications’
can land a person in court with a fine or even a sentence if it were deemed a
hate crime, “British police are arresting people in the middle of the night if
they have made racist or anti-Muslim comments on Twitter” (Edwards, 2013,
paragraph 1). However, a simple harmless, misconstrued or unpopular opinion
shared online has the potential to ruin a person’s livelihood and professional
reputation, even resulting in punishment by the law. It is believed that, “Of
the more than 500 writers…surveyed, one in six said they had avoided writing or
speaking about a certain topic, and almost one in four reported that they had
self-censored via e-mail or on the phone.” (Gordon, 2013, paragraph 2).
Surveillance has created a somewhat paranoid culture in which one must maintain
the status-quo and avoid going against mass opinion. Many ‘self-police’
themselves by generally censoring what they do and say online, curbing their
behaviour on media forums created to share personal events and opinions that
inspire meaningful authentic debate such as on Facebook. It has been reported
that posts containing user’s own images and words, or “‘original broadcast
sharing’…fell 21 percent from 2014 to 2015, contributing to a 5.5 percent
decrease in total sharing.” (Bercovici, 2016, paragraph 2). Many people are now
censoring what they post on large social media platforms, in favour of smaller
networks such as ‘Snapchat’ for example, perhaps because they do not trust
large corporations with their private details (especially now that advertising companies
have capitalised on such websites to boost sales) and to retain some level of privacy.
In response, Facebook created new updates that would allow easier access to
photos from your phone’s camera to be uploaded, nostalgic and personal videos
were created to encourage user’s to share more information and live-streaming
videos has become the newest feature in their bid to stay popular. Some
reported these updates were far too invasive, bothersome and even dangerous. An
example of ‘unsafe use’ was exhibited when a young girl hung herself on
Facebook’s live-stream. Facebook tried to remove the video but it had been
shared and re-uploaded so many times that anyone could search for it.
Similarly, “Twitter’s own live streaming platform, Periscope, faced criticism
after an alleged sexual assault and a young woman’s suicide were both shared
online.” (Fussell, 2016, paragraph 8). These new ways of sharing online can be
abused and the protection of privacy can be lost. “Facebook’s decision was met
with anger. Essentially, the social network had severed its own vaunted ‘open
connection’ between its users at the behest of the very organization whose
abuses were being documented across the site. The event revealed to many
lauding its revolutionary potential that Facebook’s commitment to open sharing
across the world is tenuous.” (Fussell, 2016, paragraph 11). This confirms how
the internet cannot be fully void of surveillance so to prevent harmful content
being uploaded onto sites that are often used by the greater public, which
includes children. In response, many argue that we should be realistic about
online material and accept that there will always be ‘controversial content’
shared online. They contend that this type of content requires another open
forum that is not readily available to the general public so to prevent it
being seen by those who have not searched for it. This space would be the ‘Deep
Web’.
In an age of digital fingerprinting technology
threatening the way we interact online, many have taken to certain networks in
order to retain some freedom against the ever watchful and repressive eye of
the law. Particular networks such as the Deep Web is the largest anonymous tool
covertly available to regain control over individual privacy and freedom,
tipping the scale slightly within the current power relation of a domineering
‘surveillance state’ to a fully unrestricted and autonomous agent. The general
awareness of surveillance and its impacts have arguably created a culture of
fear, mistrust and secrecy. An exemplary manifestation of this is project ‘Dead
Drops’. This is an anonymous network that have hidden thousands of USB flash
drives in various public places all around the world. It was created in order
to combat internet surveillance by freely sharing files via external
hard-drives only, bypassing the need to connect to the web. People can upload
anything to these public USB’s and because it does not take place on the
internet, it does not break any download laws (Bartholl, 2010). This
demonstrates that there is a real desire to gain back personal privacy and
freedom against oppressive state surveillance.
Against
Surveillance: The ‘Deep’ Web
This
case study is extremely important in analysing whether a free and open (zero
surveillance) space is a necessary and positive environment for adults today.
It is arguably the greatest example of a liberal democracy within the ‘New
Media Age’. The deep web makes up approximately 96% of the World Wide Web’s (or
‘surface web’) networked web pages (Epstein, 2014, paragraph 1). This
subsection of the web is invisible to standard surveillance methods due to
encrypted network servers and because it is not accessible by usual surface web
browsers. Michael Bergman discovered that this uninspected resource is 400 to
500 times larger than our commonly used surface web. He argued that “If the
most coveted commodity of the Information Age is indeed information, then the
value of deep Web content is immeasurable.” (Bergman, 2001, paragraph 5). Original
content from the deep web currently exceeds all global printed content, the “International
Data Corporation predicts that the number of surface Web documents will grow
from the current two billion or so to 13 billion within three years, a factor
increase of 6.5 times; deep Web growth should exceed this rate, perhaps
increasing about nine-fold over the same period.” (Bergman, 2001, paragraph 1).
Many believe that this tool ought not be ignored, but utilized due to its impressive
size. It undeniably can provide users with a deep and indispensable wealth of
knowledge as well as full access to profuse amounts of unfiltered
representations and reflections of every part of the human psyche.
This
immense document or record can be particularly useful to scholars, journalists,
investigators, academics, political activists, dissidents and so on. “In a
time of widespread state censorship and surveillance, and persecution of
minorities and activists in many countries, even in democracies, the
availability of such a platform for anonymous communication and publishing is
considered by many essential to protect freedom of expression.” (Frediani, date
unknown, paragraph 19). Consider a writer researching the preparations and
contingency plans America had for a nuclear attack during the Cold War. They
stated, “‘I decided to put the idea aside because…what would be the perception
if I Googled ‘nuclear blast,’ ‘bomb shelters,’ ‘radiation,’ ‘secret plans,’
‘weaponry,’ and so on? ...are librarians required to report requests for
materials about fallout and national emergencies and so on?’” (Gordon quoting
an anonymous author, 2013, paragraph 4). The fear of potential punishment can
limit our knowledge and exploration, discouraging the positive desire to enrich
the education of humanity. This deprives us of our democratic rights to freedom
of expression and speech. The freedom to search for anything on the deep web
provides solace to those seeking knowledge. There are many other reasons a
journalist (for example) may want to keep their research private. It is
conceivable that a journalist’s country may be undergoing war, revolution, or
perhaps there are exceptionally strict and unfairly limiting surveillance laws
decided by an ‘ethically ambiguous’ state. However, “These days it is not just
journalists working in repressive regimes that need worry. Increasingly, outwardly-democratic
governments are tightening control over the Internet and those who use it.”
(Pearce, 2013, p4). It is feasible to consider a journalist’s research may be highly
provocative or controversial and so their browsing activity could be dangerous
if misconstrued. Alan Pearce, author of ‘Deep Web for Journalists’ contended
that “‘The internet is a dangerous place for journalists’…And starting an
investigation–whether into child sex abuses or terrorist activity–might set off
alarm bells with the security services. ‘A device will quickly be planted in
your computer to follow you around’” (Marshall referencing Pearce, 2013,
paragraph 1). Many believe “‘Mass surveillance is a threat…And the press, as a
cornerstone of democracy, has never faced such a threat.’” (Marshall quoting
Pearce, 2013, paragraph 1). Thus, the need for journalists to ‘go off the
radar’ for the safe transferring of confidential files and the protection of
important sources is becoming more of a requirement for this type of work in
the 21st century. “There are many journalists who use Deep Web tools
like the German Privacy Foundation’s PrivacyBox to communicate securely with
whistle blowers and dissidents. Aid agencies use similar techniques to keep
their staff safe inside of authoritarian regimes.” (Pearce, 2013, p6). As a
result, the deep web can be tremendously resourceful and liberating for many
people worldwide.
There are many hidden networks one can use to
access the invisible web; a commonly referenced one is ‘TOR’ (‘The Onion
Router’). Through Tor, “people may communicate secretly and securely away from
the attention of governments and corporations, scrutinize top secret papers
before WikiLeaks gets them, and discuss all manner of unconventional topics.
Ironically, Tor…was set up with funds from the US Navy” (Pearce, 2013, p6) for
covert communication. The deep web is equally useful to both the public and the
state, thus it can be considered one of the only contemporary examples of a
‘level playing field’ where there is no fixed power dynamic. There have been
many instances of gross misconduct by certain institutions such as releasing personal
information. For example, ‘Tesco’ Bank (in 2016) “froze its online operations–after
as many as 20,000 customers had money stolen from their accounts…40,000
accounts had been compromised” (Dunn, 2017, part 3). Another example was in
2007, ‘HM Revenue and Customs’ had “Probably the most infamous large data
breach ever to occur in the UK, two CDs containing the records of 25 million
child benefit claimant in the UK (including every child in the country) went
missing in the post” (Dunn, 2017, part 16). Under the ‘Data Protection Act’
(passed by Parliament in 1998), any sensitive or personal data (collected by the
government, organisations or businesses) of any living person has to be handled
under strict guidelines, used only specifically and must be protected and kept
secure. However, software vulnerabilities, criminal insiders, poor security,
general recklessness and so on can breech this law. One may choose to utilize
the hidden web instead of the surface web in fear of having their data leaked,
perhaps even because they have already experienced this. Many choose to online
shop on the deep web in order to remain anonymous, through the use of its own
untraceable currency ‘Bitcoin’. For many it offers a safe and secure way in
which one can buy anything, particularly drugs. The most popular site in which
to buy this is ‘Silk Road’. Those who purchase drugs can find themselves in
dangerous scenarios when it is carried out in person and so darknet
marketplaces offer a safe, peer-reviewed, confidential, and judgement-free
space in which one can read a full description of what they are purchasing and
read reviews on the seller. Ross Ulbricht, (the libertarian creator of Silk
Road) defended it by arguing he is “‘creating an economic simulation to give
people a first-hand experience of what it would be like to live in a world without
the systemic use of force’” (Mac quoting Ulbricht, 2013, paragraph 17). One can
find legal services on the deep web also, which many may favour over indexed surface
web marketplaces in order to avoid advertising and pop-ups concerning what they
purchased. Some examples of purchases one may wish to keep private could be an
engagement ring, erotica or various items that would give away ones sexual
orientation, if they have an STD, relationship status, fetish, political ideology,
religion and so on. These personal details are often paraded around one’s
screen through adverts or cookies once they have been searched for on the
visible web. An example of advertising being too invasive is that of the U.S
shop ‘Target’. They “identified 25 products that when purchased together
indicate a women is likely pregnant. The value of this information was that
Target could send coupons to the pregnant woman at an expensive and
habit-forming period of her life.” (Lubin, 2012, paragraph 2). This occurred
when an underage pregnant teenager was sent baby product vouchers to her family
home after she had been privately researching it online, but had not yet
informed her parents.
The invisible web is a helpful resource to those who
value their privacy and want to protect it with the utmost assurance. It is
arguably one of the most important rights we have within a democracy,
especially under current surveillance methods. Daniel Solove, founder of
‘TeachPrivacy’ (a data security training company) explained why privacy
matters. Privacy limits the private sector and the state from exerting too much
power onto the public. The more they gain knowledge over the public, the easier
it is for them to use this as a tool to control us, which can have harmful
effects when carried out by unethical individuals (according to Foucault).
“Personal data is used to make very important decisions in our lives. Personal
data can be used to affect our reputations; and it can be used to influence our
decisions and shape our behaviour” (Solove, 2013, part 1), thus it is vital to
protect such sensitive details of our lives. An aspect of showing respect is to
allow for some privacy. State ‘spying’ without compelling reasons to do so can
feel trivial to some, however others view unnecessary amounts of surveillance
as disrespectful towards their desire to be private. There are times when
privacy conflicts with ethics and morals such as if one were trying to purchase
an illegal firearm in which to murder someone. This is a convincing enough
reason as to why a person would be a subject of suspicion, and so should be
under surveillance. Unethical individuals who hack into celebrities’ phones in
order to find profitable information on them or malicious people who seek to
leak private sexual content of a person are just some modern examples in which
people do not have privacy today. Anonymous networks such as the deep web seem
to be becoming more popular the less privacy we experience due to invasive
technological advancements within surveillance and the fear that it brings.
Privacy allows the public to manage their individual reputations. Our
relationships, opportunities and general welfare are affected by other’s
conclusions about us. Slanderous false statements or even certain divisive
truths can damage one’s reputation if exposed or expressed in any way. We all
have the right to protect our reputations from being unjustly harmed. “Knowing
private details about people’s lives doesn’t necessarily lead to more accurate
judgment about people. People judge badly, they judge in haste…out of context…without
hearing the whole story…with hypocrisy. Privacy helps people protect themselves
from these troublesome judgements.” (Solove, 2013, part 3). Similarly, social
boundaries (established by one’s society) that are broken from lack of privacy
can affect our relationships and create friction. Solove explained that “These
boundaries are both physical and informational. We need places of solitude to
retreat to, places where we are free of the gaze of others in order to relax
and feel at ease. We also establish informational boundaries, and we have an
elaborate set of these boundaries for the many different relationships we have.”
(Solove, 2013, part 4). One can manage these boundaries better by maintaining
their individual privacy, “Most people don’t want everybody to know everything
about them-hence the phrase ‘none of your business’. And sometimes we don’t
want to know everything about other people-hence the phrase ‘too much information.’”
(Solove, 2013, part 4). Maintaining confidentiality is to preserve trust. Trust
is essential to any dependable relationship one may have, whether it is
professional or personal. “In professional relationships such as our
relationships with doctors and lawyers, this trust is key to maintaining candor
in the relationship. Likewise, we trust other people we interact with as well
as the companies we do business with.” (Solove, 2013, part 5). This is why many
may feel reluctant to hand over any personal information if they have ever
experienced a professional or even governmental breach of trust. Moreover, “Personal
data is essential to so many decisions made about us, from whether we get a
loan, a license or a job to our personal and professional reputations…(It) is
used to determine whether we are investigated by the government, or searched at
the airport, or denied the ability to fly. Indeed, personal data affects nearly
everything, including what messages and content we see on the Internet.” (Solove,
2013, part 6). The ability to amend our own data is not always available to us
as well as the fact that we do not always know what our data is being used for
or how and why it is being used. In order for us to have freedom and autonomy
over our own lives we must be allowed the chance to be more involved in the way
our data is used for or against us, “if so many important decisions about us
are being made in secret without our awareness or participation” (Solove, 2013,
part 6) then we do not have control over our lives in what should be a successful
democratic system. Privacy and freedom of thought must coincide in a democracy.
“A watchful eye over everything we read or watch can chill us from exploring
ideas outside the mainstream. Privacy is also key to protecting speaking
unpopular messages.” (Solove, 2013, part 7). It is not only fringe activities
that are protected through the privacy of the deep web but also anonymous
casual conversations on online forums that contain sensitive information about
an individual’s opinions, relationships and so on. Privacy allows us to engage
in contentious topics such as politics, but panoptic surveillance can interrupt
or influence these discussions, “A key component of freedom of political
association is the ability to do so with privacy if one chooses. We protect
privacy at the ballot because of the concern that failing to do so would chill
people’s voting their true conscience.” (Solove, 2013, part 8).
What is legal now may not be in the future; up
until 2015, it was legal to smoke in a car with passengers under 18 present. Laws
are subject to change, yet ‘datamining’ (examining old databases to generate
new information) could in theory be used to blackmail people for their past
mistakes that are frowned upon but not criminal. This is why many prefer to use
the deep web to converse about divisive topics or speak freely and openly about
their lives in an anonymous and less threatening way. The notion of privacy
being an essential component of freedom of expression, thought and speech which
make up a free democracy is closely associated with civil libertarian ideology
because they often emphasize individual rights and freedoms over the
collective. Surface web websites can also prove resourceful. Media platforms and
organizations such as WikiLeaks were created in order to combat the
manipulation of the media surrounding the secret dealings of the government and
certain corporations. WikiLeaks embodies liberal thought by encompassing
digital freedom, exposing the truth behind corruption and is a useful tool for
researchers, journalists and the general public. They have exposed many private
intelligence documents from the NSA and CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) over
mass surveillance, focussing primarily on American intelligence. However, even
WikiLeaks can be exploited and manipulated as some argue their “moral high
ground depends on its ability to act as an honest conduit. Right now it’s
acting like a damaged filter.” (Ellis, 2016, paragraph 11) because of their
brash and sometimes insensitive leaking of private information, which can have
many dangerous consequences and an adverse effect on a free and open internet. Some
blamed the site for damaging the prospect of a Democrat win in the Clinton V.
Trump 2016 U.S election by leaking Clinton’s emails, “WikiLeaks is like the
internet. It can be a force for good or a force for bad. Right now it is
propping up a candidate running the most hateful campaign in modern times.”
(Smith quoting Sroka, 2016, paragraph 9). However, they defended this by
arguing they do not have a political bias, but wish to provide any truth they
uncover to the public. What they expose may not always work in their favour but
their main goal is to ensure the public can make an informed opinion on
political issues, rather than encourage a certain viewpoint. Organizations such
as this are necessary media platforms for truth in a world where much of
mainstream media can be full of bias, lies, misinformation or fear-mongering
rhetoric. People have even formulated ways in which one can use the surface web
but in an anonymous way such as through ‘VPN’s’ (virtual private networks) or a
‘Proxy’. These can be used as an alternative to the deep web by allowing one to
create and secure a connection to another network. One may use this in order to
access a business’s network while travelling across the country, hide their
browsing activity from online surveillance, bypass internet censorship, access
geo-blocked websites, and illegally download files, and so on.
To many, privacy is a human right and should not be
eroded by intrusive surveillance methods. Some even go as far as defiantly
arguing that we should not have to justify every action we do, however when
someone is doing something that could be seen as against the law then the
authorities have every right to question them in order to protect public
security. Others claim that we should have the ability to have second chances
after we have made a mistake. The ability to change, grow or re-invent oneself
is nurtured by privacy. It is an agreeable concept to seek a society that
wishes to allow for personal improvement and not hold on to past harmless
mistakes, yet this argument could be seen as a ‘slippery slope’. Is it
someone’s right to cover up their affair because of their right to personal privacy?
Not all misdeeds are mistakenly committed and some transgressions are too
serious to ‘write off’. The truly immoral or unethical acts people commit will
always tarnish their reputations as people should always be held accountable to
themselves and society. A clearer distinction (alongside appropriate and
suitable punishments) must be made between disobedient yet innocent enough acts
to depraved criminal offences. An example of how this is not always reflected
within U.K law was when “Mother-of-two Ursula Nevin…was jailed for five months
for receiving a pair of shorts given to her after they had been looted…” (BBC,
2011, paragraph 3) during the London Riots. Mass amounts of people (who were found
to be involved in the riot through surveillance) were sentenced to prison
instead of given fines or community service for what some argue were not always
‘serious crimes’. Surveillance is necessary in order to protect the public from
serious criminal activity, but can be taken too far with mass surveillance
through aggressive and intrusive means. Overall, the deep web can be seen as a
liberating bastion of freedom and resourceful tool in the effort to gain back
personal privacy and freedom which many believe has been challenged and eroded
by state surveillance. Despite this, there are some who believe the deep web is
a menacing and lawless underworld which threatens our security making state
surveillance a necessary defensive measure.
For
Surveillance: The ‘Dark’ Web
Contrastingly,
some maintain that a free and open web (void of any surveillance) is not only
undemocratic, but anarchical. There are many ethical concerns regarding the illicit
content found on the ungovernable dark web. The ‘dark side’ of this resource is
sometimes referred to as ‘Mariana’s web’ (named after the Mariana Trench)
because it reflects some of the deepest and darkest parts of the human psyche,
hence why many call the whole network the ‘dark web’. Here, “It is very easy to
run into arms dealers, drug cartels, spies, paedophiles, kidnappers, slave
traders and terrorists. You can buy top grade marijuana direct from the grower,
trade stolen credit cards, buy the names and addresses of rape victims, or
arrange the murder of an inquisitive reporter or pernickety judge” (Pearce,
2013, p6). Due to the hidden web being encrypted, it cannot be placed under
surveillance and so it is extremely difficult for security agencies to
infiltrate this vast network. Even if they were to find a specific website or
go undercover as a customer of some illegal service; a website may get taken
down, but only temporarily. Once a website is removed, it can be easily
replaced with a new identical one, perhaps under a different name, “A new and improved
version of Silk Road, called Silk Road 2.0, sprung up and was shut down again
by law enforcement agencies in November 2013” (Sui et al, 2015, p9). It is rare
to find criminals and arrest them as all transactions are made through the
untraceable bitcoin currency and done so anonymously by ‘PGP encryption’
(Pretty Good Privacy), which requires authentication for data and cryptographic
privacy. The uncontrollable nature of this ‘free and open space’ makes it
incredibly dangerous to security. Hackers have been known to leak private data
on to the dark web. The adultery website ‘Ashley Madison’ was targeted by
hackers where “92 Ministry of Defence email addresses” were released as well as
“1,716 email addresses from universities and further education colleges…56
National Health Service emails and less than 50 police emails” (Boyle, 2015,
part 1). Up to 32 million user’s personal details were released which
accumulated to “9.7 gigabytes of data -including card account details and log-ins
-on the Dark Web…Among the email addresses are many work accounts, including
thousands of those used by government workers - more than 100 of them said to
belong to UK Government workers.” (Boyle, 2015, part 3). Once information is
posted on to the dark web, it cannot ever be fully retracted. This demonstrates
how personal privacy can not only be gained from this ‘libertarian tool’, but
how it can also to be lost or challenged. Worryingly, the dark web “not only (contains)
illegal transactions in traditional goods and services and the latest hacking
tools, but are also a battlefield where cyberwar and cyberespionage are and
increasingly will be waged” (Sui et al referencing Goodman, 2015, p11). This
means “a cyberattack can be attributed to a state actor (particularly where the
attacker masks their identity, location, and origins of the code they use in
the attack, and the state from which the code was launched denies involvement)…”
(Sui et al, 2015, p11) thus creating a huge international security issue within
this electronic age. Serious and harmful criminal activity on the web needs to
be better monitored by the government and so new methods of surveillance must
be formulated in order to combat this problem. For legislators, “the continuing
growth of the Deep Web in general and the accelerated expansion of the Darknet
in particular pose new policy challenges. The response to these challenges may
have profound implications for civil liberties, national security, and the
global economy at large.” (Sui et al, 2015, p4). Thus, policymakers must
develop a comprehensive account for law enforcement, national and regulatory
security responses. However, “This focus needs also to take into account the
potential positive uses of the Deep Web. For instance, in 2010 TOR received an
award for Projects of Social Benefit from the Free Software Foundation for
services it provides to whistleblowers and human rights supporters.” (Sui et
al, 2015, p10). A reasonable balance of surveillance within daily life as well
as new hacking strategies specifically created to infiltrate the deep web must
be ensured in order to counter serious criminal activity. In conjunction with
this, it is agreeable to believe that the “understandable and legitimate privacy
interest in the Deep Web’s anonymity (or at least greater user control over
anonymity) does not mean that states should turn a blind eye to the entire Deep
Web.” (Sui et al, 2015, p10).
Nevertheless,
these security reasons are often how the state justifies mass surveillance, yet
the dark web was arguably created in response to strict surveillance by rebelling
against current panoptic oppression. Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google), dangerously
dismissed users’ right to privacy by stating “If you have something that you
don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.”
(Esguerra quoting Schmidt, 2009, paragraph 1). This brazen statement was
understandably met with disapproval as many contend that “if we are observed in
all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism,
even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under
watchful eyes, constantly fearful that-either now or in the uncertain future-patterns
we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has
now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our
individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.”
(Esguerra quoting Schneier, 2009, paragraph 3). Schmidt's declaration is “painfully
similar to the tired adage of pro-surveillance advocates that incorrectly
presume that privacy's only function is to obscure lawbreaking: ‘If you've done
nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about.’” (Esguerra referencing
Techdirt, 2009, paragraph 4). This was infamously said by William Hague (UK
politician) when advocating mass surveillance, arguing that it is only ever carried
out in the interests of the public. However, this argument has been countlessly
debunked. Solove argued that people always have parts of their life that they
wish to keep concealed, and that if relentlessly pursued, one can find minor
crimes in most people’s pasts. The view that security interests override the
public’s personal right to privacy is a precarious one for the protection of
civil liberties. Information collection is not necessarily always the issue
with surveillance as sensitive data is not often shared or even required. The
problem lies with “information processing-the storage, use, or analysis of
data…They affect the power relationships between people and the institutions of
the modern state. They not only frustrate the individual by creating a sense of
helplessness and powerlessness, but also affect social structure by altering
the kind of relationships people have with the institutions that make important
decisions about their lives.” (Solove, 2011, paragraph 16). If one accepts that
‘if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear’ then one accepts the
faulty assumption that everything one may wish to hide is a negative thing, but
“Surveillance…can inhibit such lawful activities as free speech, free association…”
(Solove quoting Schneier, 2011, paragraph 18) which are vital for democracy. The
state’s secret aggregation of an individual’s personal information removes
their choice over whether they wanted to share those details or not, whilst
excluding them from the knowledge of how their data is being used. The power
structure between government and the general public is an imbalanced
relationship. Nonetheless, many argue that surveillance techniques are not only
used for security reasons but for the public’s ease. In order to use certain
mobile applications, social media or conveniently shop online, one gives up
some of their privacy. Yet, data can and is still being exploited and so “Without
limits on or accountability for how that information is used, it is hard for
people to assess the dangers of the data…” (Solove, 2011, paragraph 22) which
is being controlled by big businesses or the state. An example of a company
exploiting their power over customer’s privacy was when “Sex toy maker We-Vibe…agreed
to pay customers up to C$10,000 (£6,120) each after shipping a ‘smart vibrator’
which tracked owners’ use without their knowledge.” (Hern, 2017, paragraph 1). Customer’s
intimate sexual habits were being secretly recorded and stored by the company
in an effort to customise their products to suit their clientele. As well as
this, there were technological issues found within the device that would
potentially allow hackers to take control of the product’s functioning. The
commercial justification for surveillance is superficial and not strong enough
to validate extreme invasions of privacy or exploitation of the public’s trust.
The
Foucauldian concept of behaviour being negatively impacted by state monitoring is
often disputed by surveillance advocates as it is difficult to prove that every
person within society feels behaviourally inhibited or oppressed. However, it
can be argued that this is not enough to advocate mass surveillance or invasive
surveillance practices. Some believe that the problem with surveillance “is not
inhibited behaviour but rather a suffocating powerlessness and vulnerability
created by the court system's use of personal data and its denial to the
protagonist of any knowledge of or participation in the process. The harms are
bureaucratic ones-indifference, error, abuse, frustration, and lack of transparency
and accountability.” (Solove, 2011, paragraph 19). Nevertheless, there are some
that disagree with Foucault’s analysis of modern power for various reasons. “The
modern positive power Foucault offers us…is not really positive at all, being
all too ready to turn negative at the drop of a hat, being infected with the
urge to social critique, the urge that leads to so much of the aforementioned
hat dropping, and being far too close to some troubling, totalitarian
primacy-of-the-political thinking.” (Wickham, 2008, p41). Gary Wickham states
he has been “suspicious of this notion of ‘repression’” (Wickham, 2008, p29)
and believes Foucault’s account of power “is politically problematic, in two
ways: one, that it is rooted in a tradition of unengaged ‘critique’ and, two,
that it is tied, albeit inadvertently, to totalitarianism.”(Wickham, 2008,
p29). For Wickham, Foucault was only occasionally aware of the possibility of
accurately and methodically historicising his account, but did not adequately
connect these potential factors when stating that “modern government began in
an era before the governmentality era of the 18th and 19th centuries” (Wickham,
2008, p33). As well as this, Foucault’s theoretical focus on power as an
explanatory force unintentionally “became an ally of totalitarianism…without
enough consideration being given to the complexity of the social, left his
account vulnerable to the excesses of power obsessed totalitarian political
ideologies” (Wickham, 2008, p32). For some, these points determine that
Foucault’s analysis is not convincing enough to use as a political theory in
which to frame an argument. However, it can be argued that Foucault’s
unavoidable hostility towards totalitarianism did not make his approach in line
with totalitarian political thought but rather firmly and repeatedly against
it. Many maintain that “He seemed to imagine a neoliberalism that wouldn’t project
its anthropological models on the individual, that would offer individuals
greater autonomy vis-à-vis the state” (Drezner quoting Zamora, 2014, paragraph
2), against the potential rise of totalitarian thinking within government that
could pass undemocratic legislation over surveillance.
Even
so, some disagree that surveillance is ever a negative thing, but rather a
neutral and necessary feature of national security. Anthony Giddens opposed
that surveillance is panoptic but rather it should be “seen as documentary
activities of the state, as information gathering and processing, as
collection, collation and coding of information, and as records, reports and
routine data collection for administrative and bureaucratic purposes of
organizations.” (Allmer, 2011, p569). Christopher Dandeker similarly described
surveillance as neutral, “The term surveillance is not used in the narrow sense
of ‘spying’ on people but, more broadly, to refer to the gathering of
information about and the supervision of subject populations in organizations.”
(Dandeker, 1990, part vii). In this sense, panopticism is not a significant
notion in the analysis of modern surveillance. Surveillance is technical,
plural and should have a more broad definition which acknowledges both its enabling
and constraining effects. Roy Boyne also argued against the panoptic paradigm
by stating that this can be shown by the “redundancy of the Panoptical impulse
brought about by the evident durability of the self-surveillance functions
which partly constitute the normal, socialized, ‘Western’ subject; reduction in
the number of occasions of any conceivable need for Panoptical surveillance on
account of simulation, prediction and action before the fact; supplementation
of the Panopticon by the Synopticon; failure of Panoptical control to produce
reliably docile subjects.” (Allmer quoting Boyne, 2011, p571-572). The concept
of Synopticism theorises that surveillance has become an ‘even playing field’,
in the sense that new technologies have created an opportunity for anyone from
both the public and the state to observe any individual they wish to watch.
“Surveillance has become rhizomatic,
it has transformed hierarchies of observation, and allows for the scrutiny of
the powerful by both institutions and the general population.” (Haggerty and
Ericson, 2000, p617). Thus, many believe that surveillance is just a part of a
civilized, well-ordered society and the need for panopticism has decreased due
to its supposed inefficacy.
Yet,
Mark Poster emphasises that in the New Media Age the “technological
change has caused new forms of surveillance and an electronic Superpanopticon
in the postmodern and postindustrial mode of information. A Superpanopticon is
a process of normalizing and controlling masses and a form of computational
power” (Allmer quoting Poster, 2011, p574). The power of surveillance is not
equally devolved to the public. The public has little influential or
significant control over the state through this medium, except for the cases of
organizations such as WikiLeaks and so on which are often overlooked as
‘conspiratorial’ or criticised by the government for being problematic in their
efforts to take back some power from the state. Shoshana Zuboff argued that
panoptic power is especially evident within corporate institutions through
information technology as “new technologies at the workplace have brought a
universal transparency, increased hierarchy and control, and they provide the
management with a full bird’s-eye view to counter the behaviour of their
workers”. (Allmer quoting Zuboff, 2011, p574). Surveillance may be viewed as a
necessary technical process, but it is also unbalanced and if exploited, it can
be extremely oppressive to those targeted by it. The public is generally
unaware of every single surveillance method and are often not given the means to
use them in the same ways as the government does. Thus, we cannot exhibit as
much control through surveillance onto the state. Alongside this, the public
are also excluded from the decision-making process surrounding new surveillance
laws which directly impact every individual’s life. This is why many assert
that surveillance is a “complex high-tech system of power, where people are
sorted into categories in order to identify, classify, and assess them.
Furthermore, surveillance is used to normalize and homogenize behaviour with
discriminatory elements in a structure of hierarchical observation.” (Allmer
referencing Gandy, 2011, p574). Not all surveillance methods may be
specifically considered panoptic, for example Biometrics, yet many (if not
most) have panoptic features (such as CCTV and Bugging), in the sense that its
job is often to be a preventative measure in order to curb criminal activity by
making people feel more conscious of their actions as they feel they are being
watched with the possibility of being reprimanded.
The
dangers of having no surveillance has been evidenced through the dark web
medium, therefore this perilous aspect of the deep web should be a topic of
interest within national security discussions. However, the deep web is
arguably the only online public space in which one can experience pure
anonymity and privacy that cannot be replicated on the surface web. Its rich
content and numerous uses are necessary for individuals worldwide to have
access to, especially when surveillance methods are increasingly becoming more
intelligent, invasive and secretive. The deep web offers the public its own
preventative measure of being unjustly targeted by surreptitiously carried out
surveillance practices. The sheer power the deep web has by being accessible to
any person and the consequential covert knowledge contributed, makes this
resource extremely important in today’s technology driven world. The hidden web
is often used for innovative, legal, educational, humanitarian, civil rights,
or revolutionary reasons (as examples) and so it offers the general public
unvetted access to information that would in turn allow for more personal
privacy and freedom to be experienced by the user than if they were to use the
surface web. The need to balance the “protection of civil liberty for law-abiding
citizens with the concerns for national security remains a daunting challenge
for policymakers in the age of big data and Deep Web.” (Sui et al, 2015, p14).
In particular, the “economical actors such as corporations undertake
surveillance and exercise violence in order to control a certain behaviour of
people and in most cases people do not know that they are surveilled.
Corporations control the economic behaviour of people and coerce individuals in
order to produce or buy specific commodities for guaranteeing the production of
surplus value and for accumulating profit.” (Allmer, 2011, p588). This form of
surveillance is not used for security purposes and so should not be as
intrusive as it currently stands. Economic surveillance needs to be reviewed by
the state and public awareness should be encouraged, “public awareness of
surveillance issues could further be raised through professional groups and
organizations, especially those directly concerned with computing, information
management, and so on.” (Lyon, 1994, p223). The movement for critical privacy
must also be supported so to “develop counter-hegemonic power and advance
critical awareness of surveillance” (Allmer, 2011, p588). Overall, there is a
need for “transparency, oversight, and accountability as the mechanism to allow
surveillance when it is necessary, while preserving our security against
excessive surveillance and surveillance abuse.” (Schneier, 2015, paragraph 1).
Perhaps the UK government should take inspiration from various Scandinavian
countries where ‘natural surveillance’ is often a preferred method of
surveillance. Low fences, private balconies, open gardens and courtyards and so
on are built in order to increase visibility and allow residents to be a
powerful source of crime prevention. Bo Grönlund (an architect) explained that
Scandinavia’s physical environment is different from Britain’s abrasive “fences,
cameras and alarms…We wanted to do it in another way very consciously. The
basis was that Denmark should continue to be an open society with a minimum of
physical barring and formal surveillance.”(Laville quoting Grönlund, 2014,
paragraph 10). He wanted the atmosphere to be “…a calming environment, it is
not provocative. If you do things that tell you that you are a bad person–like
have cameras or gates everywhere–you might become that bad person, at least a
little bit.” (Laville quoting Grönlund, 2014, paragraph 9). This is just one
instance in which Britain can protect public security without eroding too much
personal privacy and essentially avoid any potential Orwellian aspects of a
totalitarian style government.
Conclusion
After Edward Snowden’s exposé of secret
governmental mass surveillance strategies, the knowledge of being watched has
made the topic of surveillance become more threatening and divisive. With ever
increasing technological innovation, surveillance techniques and practices have
been able to become more invasive. This has become problematic for libertarian
values within Western democracy as the rights to personal privacy, individual
autonomy, free speech, freedom of expression and freedom of thought are being
constantly challenged and slowly eroded by modern surveillance. This is
especially the case with corporate surveillance that targets the public through
intrusive methods for profit. When this form of ‘superficial’ surveillance
becomes exploitative of individual privacy, it ceases to be a legitimate or ethical
way in which surveillance ought to be used over the public. Michel Foucault
persuasively analysed the power modern surveillance has over the control over
the public in order to generate obedient subjects. Contemporary hierarchal
observation can be perceived as panoptic through the ways it has become a
preventative force through its inherent watchful nature and its powerful
lasting impact on the public due to its consequential judgement and
repercussion dynamic. It has been gradually normalised, becoming embedded
within today’s urban landscape and hailed as an indispensable aspect of civil
society. The critical discussion over surveillance challenges can be
successfully informed by Foucauldian poststructuralist features of the panoptic
paradigm and its effects on human behaviour and societal structures.
There is a need for balance within personal privacy
versus national security and state control and intervention versus individual
freedom and autonomy. Some of us have too readily accepted the gradual
tightening of security measures in order to feel protected and secure, however
there is a real need for public pressure and scrutiny in order to challenge the
state’s control and keep authority accountable. Panoptic surveillance
inevitably changes the way we live and interact authentically as it is meant to
curb disobedient behaviour. As surveillance practices continue to become more
invasive, public paranoia will also increase. Even if one has not done anything
legally ‘wrong’, one still has the right to retain their privacy and should be
allowed to conceal aspects of their life that are not appropriate to be watched
by state actors or corporations. Without this right to privacy, it is
conceivable to imagine a subsequent culture of fear and mistrust because of the
threat of always being watched and judged. This accusatory and potentially
Orwellian state control is fundamentally undemocratic in nature because of its
reminiscence of totalitarian power structures. Mass surveillance has provided
the public widespread opportunities in which to be obedient, but it has also
sparked much resistance through mediums and organizations such as WikiLeaks,
Big Brother Watch, Dead Drops, Don’t Spy on Us, Electronic Frontier Foundation,
the Deep Web and so on. Policymakers and security specialists must form new
counter strategies in order to infiltrate and combat the most violent,
malicious and sinister crimes that are so easily and freely carried out over
the hidden web. This is an important national security issue that needs more
attention within Parliament. Nevertheless, these risks do not outweigh the deep
web’s positive libertarian power to give the public digital privacy that we see
so often being exploited by modern online surveillance methods. This vast
resource’s potential for good ought not be overlooked or rejected, especially
for those who seek to fight for their democratic or humanitarian civil rights
in areas of the world that are not given so much freedom or choice due to heavy
or harsh surveillance laws. It can be said that the harsher surveillance laws
become, the potential for rebellious or resistant behaviour from the public
rises. Surveillance may be necessary in some situations in order to effectively
protect innocent citizens, but with this power, the responsibility to also
protect the public’s personal data becomes paramount.
It is not futile to resist exploitative mass
surveillance. The public must scrutinize governmental institutions so to
provide them with adequate checks and balances. We need more transparency,
accountability, oversight and knowledge within surveillance practices in order
to keep them as representative and democratic as possible. Intelligence
services ought to encompass an independent, transparent, well-informed and
comprehensive oversight regiment, prior to any impositions so that any unlawful
measures can be readdressed. The public should also be offered the opportunity
to access their own personal data in order to retain their dignity, privacy and
possible innocence. In these ways, dishonest or unethical mass surveillance
practices (whether it be from the state or private companies) can be more
easily dealt with, thus we can regain some individual freedom and personal
privacy in a society where modern state surveillance has challenged these
democratic values.
xx
Bibliography
Allmer, T. (2011), Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society (Vol.9
No.2), published by triple C,
accessed by http://www.allmer.uti.at/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/266-1006-1-PB-1.pdf, pages 572, 569,
571, 574, 588.
Bauman, Z. et al. (2014), After Snowden: Rethinking the Impact of
Surveillance, in International
Political Sociology (Vol.8 Issue.2, pp121-144), published by the
International Studies Association, Large-Scale
Techniques of Surveillance and the Global Reach of the Internet: A Permanent
Gap-paragraphs 4, 2 and Living with
Surveillance: Resignation, Perplexity and Resistance-paragraph 5.
BBC (2009), Who’s Watching You? -The technology of surveillance, posted onto
BBC news (21st May), available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/whos_watching_you/7978415.stm, parts 1, 2, 3, 8,
9, 4, 7, 6.
BBC (2011), Some England riot sentences 'too severe', posted onto BBC news (17th
August), available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14553330, Riot Sentences- paragraph 3.
Bercovici, J. (2016), The Worst Thing That Could Happen to
Facebook Is Already Happening- Technology, posted onto inc.com (8th
April), available at http://www.inc.com/jeff-bercovici/facebook-sharing-crisis.html, paragraph 2.
Bergman, M. K. (2001), White Paper: The Deep Web: Surfacing Hidden
Value (Vol.7 Issue. 1), published
by Michigan Publishing, paragraph 5, part
27 paragraph 1.
Big Brother Watch (2017), information
posted onto bigbrotherwatch.org, available at https://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/, About- part 1, Digital Economy Bill- part 1.
Brown, W. (2006), Power After Foucault, in The
Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, (eds.) Dryzek, J. S., Honig, B. and
Phillips, A., published by Oxford University Press, part 2 Contemporary Currents-pages 71, 76, 68.
Bogard, W. (1996), The Simulation of Surveillance, in Theorizing Surveillance, (ed.) Lyon, D., published by Cambridge
University Press, page 98.
Boyle, D. (2015), Ashley Madison hack: Live updates as 'UK Government email addresses'
in data of 32 million dumped online, posted onto The Telegraph (19th
August), available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11811356/Ashley-Madison-hack-live.html#update-20150819-1628, part 1, part 3.
Dandeker, C. (1990), Surveillance, Power, and Modernity: Bureaucracy and Discipline from
1700 to the Present Day, published by New York: St. Martin’s Press, part
vii.
Doctorow, C. (2011), Why CCTV has failed to deter criminals- Technology, posted onto
The Guardian (17th August), available at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/17/why-cctv-does-not-deter-crime, paragraphs 11,
12.
Don’t Spy On Us (date unknown), information posted onto
dontspyonus.org, available at https://www.dontspyonus.org.uk, Surveillance in the UK -part 4, Home-part 2.
Drezner, D. W. (2014), Why Michel Foucault is the libertarian’s
best friend, posted onto The Washington Post (11th December),
available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/11/why-michel-foucault-is-the-libertarians-best-friend/?utm_term=.486fe85517bf, paragraph 2.
Dunn, J. E. (2017), The UK’s 16 most infamous data breaches, posted onto techworld.com
(2nd March), available at http://www.techworld.com/security/uks-most-infamous-data-breaches-3604586/, parts 3, 16.
Edwards, J. (2013), In Britain, Police Arrest Twitter And Facebook Users If They Make
Anti-Muslim Statements, posted onto businessinsider.com (26th
May), available at http://www.businessinsider.com/in-britain-police-arrest-twitter-and-facebook-users-if-they-make-anti-muslim-statements-2013-5?IR=T, paragraph
1.
Ellis, E. G. (2016), WikiLeaks Has Officially Lost the Moral High Ground- Surveillance, posted
onto wired.com (27th July), available at https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high-ground/, paragraph 11.
Epstein, Z. (2014), How to find the Invisible Internet, posted onto bgr.com (20th
January), available at http://bgr.com/2014/01/20/how-to-access-tor-silk-road-deep-web/, paragraph 1.
Esguerra, R. (2009), Google CEO Eric Schmidt Dismisses the Importance of Privacy,
posted onto Electronic Frontier Foundation (10th December),
available at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy, paragraphs 1, 3,
4.
Frediani, C. (date unknown), Deep Web, Going Beneath The Surface, information
from Freedom From Fear Magazine, available at http://f3magazine.unicri.it/?p=889, paragraph 19).
Foucault, M. (1978), The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality (Vol.1), published
by London Penguin Books, chapter 2 pages 93, 98.
Foucault, M. (1995), Discipline and Punish-The Birth of the Prison, translated from
French by A. Sheridan, published by a division of Random House Inc. New York, part
1 pages 9, 56, part 3 page 201, part 4 page 304, part 2 pages 119-120.
Fussell, S. (2016), How Facebook Live became the tool for live streaming death by police-
Black Mirror, posted onto fusion.net (29th September),
available at http://fusion.net/story/352130/facebook-live-twitter-black-pain-and-protest/, paragraphs 8,
11.
Gordon, C. (2013), Survey: 1 in 6 writers have self-censored because of NSA surveillance-
Flagship Blog, posted onto aljazeera.com (21st November),
available at http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/america-tonight-blog/2013/11/21/survey-1-in-6-writershaveselfcensoredbecauseofnsasurveillance.html, paragraphs 19,
2, 4.
Haggerty, K. & Ericson, R. (2000), The Surveillant Assemblage, published
by British Journal of Sociology (pp605-622), page 617.
Hansen, L. (2007), Security As Practice- Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War, in The New International Relations series,
published by Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, chapter 1 page 8.
Hern, A. (2017), Vibrator maker ordered to pay out C$4m for tracking users' sexual
activity, posted onto The Guardian (14th March), available at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/14/we-vibe-vibrator-tracking-users-sexual-habits, paragraph 1.
Hutter, G. et al. (2014), Governing Through Resilience? Exploring
Flood Protection in Dresden, Germany (pp272–287), in Social Sciences,
published by MDPI Open Access, part 2 page 274.
Laville, S. (2014), Designing out crime in Scandinavia: ‘Cities cannot be completely safe
and completely exciting at the same time’, posted onto The Guardian (24th
June), available at https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jun/24/designing-out-crime-scandinavia-copenhagen-cities-safe-exciting, paragraphs 10,
9.
Lubin, G. (2012), The Incredible Story Of How Target Exposed A Teen Girl's Pregnancy, posted
onto businessinsider.com (16th February), available at http://www.businessinsider.com/the-incredible-story-of-how-target-exposed-a-teen-girls-pregnancy-2012-2?IR=T, paragraph 2.
Lyon, D. (1994), The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society, published by
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, page 223.
Mac, R. (2013), Who Is Ross Ulbricht? Piecing Together The Life Of The Alleged
Libertarian Mastermind Behind Silk Road, posted onto Forbes (2nd
October), available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2013/10/02/who-is-ross-ulbricht-piecing-together-the-life-of-the-alleged-libertarian-mastermind-behind-silk-road/#ad5a70f586dd, paragraph 17.
Marshall, S. (2013), How journalists can enter the 'deep web' to stay secure, posted
onto journalism.co.uk (9th October), available at https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/-wpe13-how-journalists-can-stay-secure-by-entering-the-deep-web-/s2/a554394/, Alarm bells-part 4 paragraph 1, Security Warning-part 7 paragraph 1.
New Scientist (2016), New UK surveillance law may see mass data
shared with Trump’s US, posted onto newscientist.com (22nd November),
available at https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113659-new-uk-surveillance-law-may-see-mass-data-shared-with-trumps-us/.
Pearce, A. (2013), Deep Web for Journalists: Comms, Counter-surveillance, Search, (ed.)
Horner, S., published by DeepWebGuides.com, pdf available at https://www.ifex.org/international/2013/06/24/deep_web_for_journalists_ifj_2013.pdf, A Dangerous Digital World-page 4, What is the Deep Web and why is it useful
to Journalists?- page 6.
Schneier, B. (2015), The Need for Transparency in Surveillance- Schneier on Security,
posted onto schneier.com (27th October), available at https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/10/the_need_for_tr.html, paragraph 1.
Smith, D. (2016), From liberal beacon to a prop for Trump: what has happened to
WikiLeaks?, posted onto The Guardian (14th October), available
at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/14/wiileaks-from-liberal-beacon-to-a-prop-for-trump-what-has-happened, paragraph
9.
Solove, D. (2011), Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide'- excerpt
taken from Nothing to Hide: The False
Tradeoff Between Privacy and Security, posted onto The Chronicle of Higher
Education (15th May), available at https://web.archive.org/web/20151116013709/http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/, paragraphs 16,
18, 19, 22.
Solove, D. (2014), 10 Reasons Why Privacy Matters, in Big Ideas & Innovation, posted onto linkedin.com (13th
January), available at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140113044954-2259773-10-reasons-why-privacy-matters, parts 1, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
Sui, D. et al. (2015), The Deep Web and Darknet: A Look inside the
Internet’s Massive Black Box, in Science
and Technology Innovation Programme, published by Woodrow Wilson Centre, pages
4, 10, 11, 9, 14.
Wickham, G. (2008), The social must be limited- Some problems with Foucault's approach
to modern positive power, in Journal
of Sociology (Vol.44 issue.1 pp 29-44), published by The Australian
Sociological Association, pages 41, 29, 33, 32.
