How and When Organisations and the State Can Monitor Your Actions - Essay Example

How and when organisations and the can monitor your actions The Internet has changed much of the way that people function in modern society. It is relatively simple enough for most anybody to use without understanding the technology behind it, but this leads to people’s susceptibility to an invasion of their privacy without their even knowing. Surveillance techniques have evolved to allow anybody using a computer to be monitored directly or indirectly, and it is one of the most ethically concerning dilemmas of the modern era in regards to how much of a priority is to be set concerning civil liberties and surveillance for security reasons. Of course, security reasons are not the only purposes for Internet surveillance; corporations also use surveillance for marketing purposes. Paul Mobbs, in the article “How and when organisations and the state can monitor your actions,” discusses the “potential threats to civil liberties posed by the use of electronic networks for the purposes of surveillance, by the state and private companies, and the potential damage of these for civil society in the long term.” Karen McCullagh, in response to the growing security concerns after 9/11, also states that the modern use if the Internet has provided companies ad states with opportunities of surveillance that were not open to them previously. As she sees it, privacy and security are interconnected issues: “It is submitted that privacy and security are necessarily interrelated and interdependent. Therefore neither principle should ever be applied to the exclusion of the other, as they are both essential tenets of a liberal democratic society.” These are difficult issues, and there are no easy answers to them. It is necessary, though, for people to be aware of the extent to which they are or can be monitored. Security is a necessity, but no will could argue that civil liberties are not also a necessity. Mobbs splits surveillance into two different categories, indirect and directed. Under indirect surveillance, the practices of dataveillance and data profiling are the two most commonly used. These practices are used typically for the purposes of marketing, political lobbying, police investigations, and the protection of intellectual property. As most users of the Internet do not understand the technology behind the Internet, these users are particularly susceptible to invasions of privacy. This is not to say that people are not aware that their privacy has been violated, though it does mean that people might attempt to protect their privacy by means which could be damaging in themselves: “The public’s non-volatile and growing concern about privacy… appear to suggest that state and business organizations are failing to gain trust and indeed are engaging in practices that lead to mistrust among web users” (Samatas 3). Citizens concern for privacy could possibly stunt the growth of the Internet and not allow it to reach its full potential. Dataveillance refers to the monitoring of networks of people through computers and databases of information. It can be used for market research in various ways for companies, and this use is not so much a threat to civil liberties. However, there is a push to use some sort of “standard machine identification.” Mandating the verification of identity is not a problem in itself, though it does leave a person open to having information stored in a database for later use. There are ways to authenticate a transaction without the verification of identity, but as this is not in the interest of companies and states, its unlikely this will take place: “Because of their interests in tracking peoples activities, states and security services may also resist any change to the current system that makes identification a condition for authenticating transactions” (Mobbs). Data profiling can be a more invasive approach than dataveillance. It works through the monitoring of “paper or audit trails that you leave behind as you go about your everyday life” Mobbs). By extracting information from various databases, people are capable of producing a profile of the kinds of activities that you might partake of, and this information can be used to attempt to market to your particular interests. Without knowing it, agreeing to it, or even wanting it, people are having their information drawn from these sources and used to have things sold to them. Both of these processes can be used in police investigations to track credit cards or mobile phones. This is only done when an individual is targeted as part of a crime investigation. DNA samples are also being used and kept in databases. Genetic information is now apparently part of security and surveillance measures. Also, it should be noted that many of the tools used for the Internet are also being used as tools of surveillance. For instance, “some of these programs, such as Real Networks RealPlayer, try to connect to the Internet to transfer information even when you are not using them” (Mobbs). Also, many products must be registered online, and often times information about you and your computer is automatically transferred without your knowledge or permission. Directed surveillance can be used even more invasively than indirect surveillance. It does generally require more scrutiny and justification in regards to being authorised by state officials. Directed surveillance has a more limited scope than indirect as it focuses on an individual or a group, though it does reveal more pertinent data. Mobbs categorises directed surveillance into “tapping communications; bugging places of work; using human operatives to monitor or infiltrate the target’s activities.” Generally, directed surveillance can only be utilised in cases in which there is evidence of serious crimes. After the World Trade Centre attacks, many countries increased the powers of surveillance in terms of suspected terrorism. Often racial profiling can occur, and there is all the more opportunity for your civil liberties to be violated with these increased surveillance powers. Direct surveillance has also been used to monitor mass protests, just as it is now easier to organise a mass protest through the aid of the Internet, it is also easier for these protests and people organising the protests to be monitored through the Internet. Police are then able to monitor protests, use cameras to record the events, and create a database of fingerprints and identities of those arrested during the protests. Mobbs also discusses the dangers of the inaccuracies often inherent in surveillance: “As with direct marketing or the keeping of public records, many errors can occur within the process of data collection and collation.” There are two main problems which are referred to as false positives and false negatives. False positives occur when profiling data makes a mistake. The result is people’s lives being needlessly intruded upon and their privacy destroyed. The opposite problem can occur too; actual terrorist groups can be overlooked due to oversight in data. False negatives can be particularly damaging to individuals. Even if it has been proven that an individual that was investigated and had certain data used against them in damaging ways, even though the person turned out to be completely innocent, there are limited venues in which to seek reparations. Unless libel can be proven, which is not an easy task, there is not much a person is able to do. Surveillance was once limited to video cameras, microphones, and other analog devices. These devices left a serious gap in intelligence in regards to security. The Internet and digital devices have gone a long way to eliminating these gaps: “With the rise of ICT’s in particular, surveillance techniques have attempted to solve the problem of ‘disappearing bodies’ coping with the increased mobility and invisibility of individuals” (Dubbeld 152). However, with the increased ability to monitor people in their homes through their computers without their knowledge, it is necessary to monitor the extent to which we are being monitored. Karen McCullagh suggests caution and security measures to avoid governmental privacy invasions, and she also suggests extremely limited access to surveillance technology to private companies as there could result in greater oversight and more risks to personal freedom and civil liberties. Mobbs and McCullagh both advocate caution and knowledge as ways of preventing the breaking of civil liberties. While neither deny that security and surveillance have their uses, McCullagh is a stronger advocate of surveillance in times of such as our post 9/11 political landscape. Both of their arguments boil down to the advocacy of balance between surveillance and privacy, and this is really the only possible solution to this sort of ethical dilemma. Works Cited Bagby, John W., “Balancing Network Security Duties against Constraints on Electronic Surveillance Techniques of Network Management.” Available from Dubbeld, Lynsey, (2003)“Observing bodies. Camer surveillance and the significance of the body.” Ethics and Information Technology, iss. 5, 151-162. Mobbs, Paul, (2002) “How and when organisations and the state can monitor your actions.” Available from Read More