You started this course by answering a survey worksheet asking for your thoughts on various technologies and providing a breakdown of your overall thoughts o

1

The Dangers of a Surveillance State: Ethical and Legal Considerations

Student’s Name Garlin Saintice

Course :Stem470 B002

Date : 2024/23/10

2

The Dangers of a Surveillance State: Ethical and Legal Considerations

In the last few years, there has been an increasing concern on the topic of the

surveillance state, especially at a time when insecurity and crime are on the rise.

Governments worldwide have raised the stakes on these events, calling for massive data

collection, people scrutiny, and the decline of privacy rights. Those who support the

surveillance state argue that such measures are necessary to protect society; however,

expanding surveillance raises ethical, legal, and social issues. Regarding the topic of a

surveillance state, this essay argues against its implementation due to the violation of

civil liberties, violation of ethical norms, and legal concerns that are not compatible with

democracy.

Surveillance Society: Ethical Considerations

In regards to ethical questions, the first major question refers to the infringement

of privacy as a fundamental human right, which cannot be denied by creating a

surveillance society. This fear of being watched results in the eradication of personal

freedoms and rights of the citizens, as they cannot indulge in their freedoms knowing that

they are being monitored. This chilling effect on behavior stifles the soul, talent, voice,

and the protection of rights and liberties. In the words of Michel Foucault, the idea of

surveillance is meant to ensure social control, in which individuals behave appropriately

because they assume that their actions are being monitored. This behavioral modification

is ethical because it prevents personality development and freedom of expression, which

are crucial values for any working democracy.

Moreover, the pro-arguments used by utilitarian surveillance states are that

surveillance is for the general welfare of society and fails to consider how the oppressed

3

groups feel the brunt of the surveillance. The use of surveillance technologies is a tool for

the persecution of certain groups of people, such as people of color or activists, which

only adds to the oppression. Therefore, employing surveillance in this way is ambiguous

from the perspective of ethicality, fairness, justice, and decency. For instance,

surveillance features such as facial recognition technology in the United States were

found to have problems such as racially profiling people of color, with some of them

being arrested or otherwise subjected to injustice. However, it is essential to emphasize

that these discriminative practices are not only ethically objectionable but also

counterproductive, which runs counter to the aim of achieving safety through

surveillance.

The other ethical dilemma is the potential for exploitation by the authorities. In a

surveillance state, there is a huge database of people's data collected by the government

or any other interested parties, who can then use this data to control them politically or

economically. Indeed, experience has revealed that governments employ surveillance to

suppress opposition, remove liberties, and establish control over the populace. The ethical

problem in this case pertains to surveillance as it creates scenarios of abuse and

corruption that are detrimental to the society's bond with the government. It is very

difficult to build trust once it has been violated, and the aftermath of such a situation

negatively impacts the country's social fabric.

Legal Ramifications of a Surveillance Society

Surveillance also poses legal questions in constitutional and human rights law.

Democratic countries offer protection for privacy both in domestic laws and international

human rights instruments. For example, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of

4

Human Rights stipulates that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his

privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation

(Chin-Rothmann, 2023)." Likewise, the Fourth Amendment also grants the country's

citizens the right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures (United States

Courts, 2024). These legal measures check the state's power and ensure that the rights of

the people are protected. However, in a surveillance state, such measures are typically

lacking or disregarded as the authorities justify their violation of privacy in the name of

security.

An example of this legal degradation can be seen after the September 11, 2001,

terrorist attack when the U.S. government enacted the USA PATRIOT Act. This

legislation also allowed the government to listen to phone calls, read emails, and monitor

other forms of communication of individuals without any probable cause that the person

being monitored was involved in a crime or without a warrant (American Civil Liberties

Union, 2024). As the act intended to improve the national security standard, it raised

some significant legal issues concerning security and privacy. Another significant

example of legal regulation can be mentioned in the American Second Circuit Court of

the United States case in 2015; the mass surveillance program conducted within the

framework of the PATRIOT Act contradicted the Constitution and, in particular, the

Fourth Amendment (American Civil Liberties Union, 2024). This ruling shows that while

surveillance is all about observing people and their activities, the rule of law is something

else and cannot co-exist with surveillance, especially not as demonstrated in this case.

However, the stigma of the surveillance state is not devoid of constitutional

ramifications like the channels of due process. It is quite evident that most surveillance

5

programs are covert, and people cannot question their surveillance or even seek legal

remedies for infringement of their rights. Since these programs are not closely monitored

and do not have checks and balances, the government can act irresponsibly and

undemocratically. Such negligence and lack of accountability diminish the authority of

law and the citizens' confidence in their government and the system.

The Social Impact of Surveillance

Beyond the ethical and legal ramifications, it has social repercussions. First, it

challenges the freedom of speech and citizens' engagement in the political process

(Murray et al., 2023). This would mean that people are inclined to self-censor when they

believe they are being watched when using or invoking their rights or any other liberty.

This chilling effect is particularly pernicious in a democracy, as it stifles citizens' dissent

and demands for better governance.

Moreover, it conceals the nature of the society in which people exist and creates a

hostile environment where people begin to view others as foes. Therefore, it is possible to

conclude that implementing trust-gap strategies to undermine social trust can lead to

long-lasting negative social consequences regarding solidarity and well-being for society.

It can also limit how people interact and their liberties to attend social functions, thus

negating their freedom and social inclusion.

Besides, it can even cause the aggravation of social status differences and the

stimulation of social injustice. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that surveillance

programs are more effective for certain categories of the population and that this leads to

discrimination and stigmatization of such categories (Sekalala et al., 2020). This type of

targeting in terms of exercising power over the targeted groups thus strengthens the

6

domination relations (Sekalala et al., 2020). Consequently, it cancels any progressive

change or justice orientation for the oppressed groups. Therefore, the surveillance state is

not a violation of the rights of privacy but is also in support of justice for all, regardless

of their status.

The Threat to Democratic Values

Surveillance as a way of invading the privacy of an individual is one way of

violating the basic principles of any democracy (Murray et al., 2023). Democracy is,

therefore, characterized by openness, leaders being held accountable by the people, and

individual freedoms. However, through discretion, authoritarianism, and the limitation of

individual rights, the surveillance state undermines these values. This mostly applies in a

democracy where the citizens are supposed to be in charge of their government through

their vote and not vice versa. However, it is quite the opposite in a surveillance state, as

the government can monitor its citizens in ways that go unnoticed most of the time.

This power shift is not only a threat to the future of the democracies but also to

the citizens of America. When people feel that they are under surveillance, they are likely

to develop a sense of distrust, thereby discouraging them from exercising their

democratic rights, such as voting and demonstrating, among others. In the long run, this

could lead to a situation where the government is in place, though it does not have to

answer to the people as required in a democracy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the idea of a surveillance state may be viewed as ambiguous in

many aspects and contemplating the ethical, legal, and social implications infringing

upon democratic principles. The infringement of individual privacy, the possibility of

7

abuse by authorities, and the weakening of constitutional provisions are clear grounds for

not allowing societal surveillance. In addition, the social impacts of surveillance,

primarily the repression of freedom of speech and participation in civil processes, are

undemocratic by nature. That is why the surveillance state has to be rejected in favor of

the security and freedom policies that will keep democratic values intact even with

complex technologies and threats.

8

References

American Civil Liberties Union. (2024). Surveillance Under the Patriot Act. American

Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-

surveillance/surveillance-under-patriot-act

Chin-Rothmann, C. (2023). The Right to Be Left Alone: Privacy in a Rapidly Changing

World. Www.csis.org. https://www.csis.org/analysis/right-be-left-alone-privacy-

rapidly-changing-world

Murray, D., Fussey, P., Hove, K., Wakabi, W., Kimumwe, P., Saki, O., & Stevens, A.

(2023). The Chilling Effects of Surveillance and Human Rights: Insights from

Qualitative Research in Uganda and Zimbabwe. Journal of Human Rights

Practice, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad020

Sekalala, S., Dagron, S., Forman, L., & Meier, B. M. (2020). Analyzing the Human

Rights Impact of Increased Digital Public Health Surveillance during the COVID-

19 Crisis. Health and Human Rights, 22(2), 7–20.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7762901/

United States Courts. (2024). What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? United States

Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-

resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0