How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders? (2007)

In order to function, a state requires some monitoring capability of the goings on both internally and externally. While we find espionage distasteful, even if it means gathering intelligence from outside a state, it is with even more apprehension that we think of “Big Brother” (Orwell, George. 1984) watching us and everything we do within our own state. However, without monitoring capabilities, a state will not be able to make crucial decisions on state regulation and socio-economic policy. Hence, the need for the monitoring capability of the state is not an issue, but how intrusively it is used into our daily lives determines the extent a state should be allowed to use these capabilities.

A state’s internal monitoring capabilities takes place both periodically and in real-time. The state census, for example, keeps track of population and demographic trends and identifies any changes since the last census. The Egyptians, Romans and the Chinese kept detailed records of their populations, as modern nations still do today. But today’s governments have the advantage of modern technology that helps them gather real-time information, for example, the security camera installed in practically all public locations. Government agencies involved with internal security, emergency response and traffic control monitor the video recorded in these public spaces in order to maintain public safety and react in emergencies. Less obvious is that practically every commercial transaction we make these days is electronically recorded, mainly for taxation purposes. Although these records are kept by the transacting parties, the state may subpoena them if it suspects wrongful activity and an investigation needs to be carried out.

Under normal circumstances we have few qualms about having our activities monitored in this way. It is comforting to know that our security is being taken care of; but even if something untoward should occur, someone is on hand to rescue us. And if we are injured or killed, at least there would be video evidence to bring the perpetrator to justice. Likewise, it is to our convenience that traffic flows smoothly; and that when we buy and sell – whether making huge business deals or just shopping for groceries – our economy is running, our transactions are trustworthy, and the tax-collector isn’t ripping us off like his kind was once wont to do.

Although we know we are being watched, we assume that our authorities are monitoring broad-sweeping trends of social behavior and a sea of anonymous faces such that no person is immediately recognizable. Under normal circumstances, our state monitoring apparatus makes us feel like we are being well taken care of rather than being singled out from the herd, victimized and stalked as prey.

This is not to say that the state can not bring its monitoring capabilities to scrutinize a particular individual’s behavior. If there is sufficient cause to suspect a threat to public safety, then a state may use its monitoring capabilities to target the suspect, identify his motives and if necessary terminate the activity before it occurs. Particularly with modern technology, a state’s surveillance capabilities have advanced beyond that of monitoring groups of people but can now focus specifically on a particular individual’s activities. Modern digital technologies allow governments to maintain databases of each resident’s personal information including their fingerprints; DNA profiles; and health, credit card and travel history. Intercepting correspondence via “snail-mail” and electronic communication is possible if the authorities choose to exercise this capability. Wiretaps and microphones that can record sound at a distance; easily concealed cameras that can record a person’s whereabouts and activities in real-time are also tools government agencies are able to use if necessary. These capabilities are personally intrusive and thus, they should not be used arbitrarily or casually but only used under very critical situations.

Living in a free and democratic state, we value our right to personal freedom, to our privacy, and to the assumption that we are innocent until proven guilty. For a state to turn its monitoring capabilities against individuals in their own society in this way is a violation of the rights of a citizen of a democratic state. To be so closely monitored without cause is to live under such repressive circumstances that we must constantly be aware of our behavior in private or in public; to be guarded in every conversation in case a careless word could be overheard, misconstrued and thus put us and our loved ones in jeopardy from the authorities; to never be able to express ourselves in case we attract undue attention. We would be living in a society ruled by fear and where no one can trust anyone else. Many North Korean families suffer in forced-labour camps as a consequence of living under such a paranoid regime.

On the whole, a state must have its internal monitoring capabilities. As long as it keeps monitoring general trends and respects the individual citizen’s privacy, there is no issue. Nevertheless, it is within the right of a state to closely monitor individual behavior that appears to be acting against the public interest, but such behaviour must stand out as clear anomalies first before the relevant authorities can invoke just cause to enable closer scrutiny.

By Xmac2006 (15 August, 2012)

(858 words)