Tim McBride is a former HRF Chairperson. This is the longer version of Tim’s op ed in today’s NZ Herald.
Welcome to the surveillance society
Surveillance is back in the news again, now that the government has received the Independent Review of Intelligence and Security Services by Sir Michael Cullen and Dame Patsy Reddy. Before the end of this year there may be a new law in place, with enhanced surveillance capacity for our intelligence agencies.
The UK government has done just that in the latest version of its draft Investigatory Powers Bill, unveiled at the beginning of March this year. Its proposed powers include tracking anyone’s web browsing history – known as internet connection records. No wonder the bill has been dubbed the “Snoopers’ Charter” by some of its critics.
So, what is ‘surveillance’? Why should we be concerned about it?
Our Law Commission considered that surveillance largely involves ‘the use of devices to monitor, observe, or record people’s actions or communications’.
Surveillance is not new. It’s been an aspect of organised societies (eg, the ancient Greeks, Romans, Persians), since their inception.
Surveillance is an important aspect of modern bureaucratic systems. It is intended to encourage compliance with the current social order. Those who challenge that social order, for example, by advocating or engaging in acts of possible civil disobedience, to highlight their opposition to the Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Agreement (TPPA); are undoubtedly under official surveillance.
So should we be concerned about ever-increasing surveillance; or should we simply accept it as a fact of life these days? “Privacy is dead, get used to it”, as Steve Zuckerberg of ‘Facebook’ fame, was reputed to have said.
Let me make my position clear. I am not opposed to all forms of surveillance. I recognise that surveillance can be good or bad, depending on whose doing it.
I have real concerns about mass surveillance. My concerns predate the disturbing revelations of US whistle-blower, Edward Snowden.
However, his revelations have shaken badly any confidence I might have had that intelligence agencies will always keep within the law when it comes to mass surveillance. The pressures on them from their political masters are just too great, when it comes to monitoring potential terrorists, and others considered to have the potential to cause serious harm to our way of life.
I am not opposed to targeted surveillance where, for example, a person is suspected of involvement in serious criminal offences, or involvement in terrorism-related offences. That is, provided there is a credible judicial process for the granting and review of a warrant to undertake surveillance in relation to that person (or persons).
Mass surveillance is everywhere these days. How many surveillance devices recorded your movements today? If you need any convincing, just go your local supermarket – (or look no further than the ‘smart phone’ in your pocket).
New surveillance technologies are being invented and refined all the time. If such technologies can keep us safe, surely we should use them, say some. Others argue that there have to be meaningful limitations on ever-more intrusive surveillance.
In a 2009 report, our Law Commission highlighted the negative aspects of surveillance. These included the impact on the exercise of traditional civil liberties (e.g., freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly), in particular, the chilling effect of being under surveillance; loss of anonymity; stress and emotional harm; excessive collection of personal information; insecurity and loss of trust; use of this information for questionable purposes; discrimination, profiling and misidentification; desensitisation.
That’s quite a list. Leading experts in comparable countries have said broadly-similar things in recent years.
In the words of leading Australian privacy expert, Dr Roger Clarke: ‘psychologically, people need private space; sociologically, people need to be free to behave, and to associate with others, without the continual threat of being observed; economically, people need to be free to innovate; politically, people need to be free to think and argue, and act. Surveillance chills behaviour and speech and threatens democracy’.
The UK Information Commissioner’s panel of experts found that today’s ‘surveillance processes and practices bespeak a world where we know we’re not really trusted. Surveillance fosters suspicion. Surveillance practices have implications for privacy and a host of other important values: justice, dignity, self-determination, social inclusion, security and others’.
Social scientists have discovered that many of us tend to change aspects of our behaviour when we think we may be under surveillance. In fact, we may not be. This is often referred to as the ‘panopticon effect’, given its conceptual similarities with the ingenious prison design of the legendary Victorian thinker, Jeremy Bentham.
Former Australian Privacy Commissioner, Malcolm Crompton’s words struck a chord with me. “The threat of terrorism may decline … but its monument may be a surveillance society. Individuals want both secure and private lives.”
A former Privacy and Access Commissioner for the State of Victoria put it more bluntly – “a people surveilled become a people paranoid”.
Some people, seemingly untroubled by any form of mass surveillance, appear to believe that we should be prepared to give away all of our privacy, in both public and private places – as long as we are ‘safe’ from those who might cause us harm. That worries me greatly.
Even if we were prepared to do so, would we be much safer as a result? Until, heaven forbid, technology exists that enables those undertaking surveillance to know what any individual may be thinking (ie, their innermost thoughts) together with the capacity to stop that individual from putting their thoughts into effect: the possibility of random acts causing loss of life, be it politically motivated or otherwise, will continue.
Wherever we may stand on the political spectrum, would any of us really want to live in such a society? I think not.
It makes George Orwell’s “Big Brother” seem downright ‘clunky’, (in the words of a recent English commentator).
The very remote possibility that we may be caught up in a situation involving some form of terrorism-related criminality, is one of the prices we pay for living in a ‘free society’. Long may that cherished freedom continue.
Human rights author and commentator
Former Chairperson, Human Rights Foundation of Aotearoa New Zealand
9 March 2016