People conscious of being watched are forced by the interference to act less free, making them, in essence, less free. Surveillance advocates would use this as an argument in favour of restraining privacy, at the very least to serve as an effective preventative measure.
They and governments, worried that it would be difficult to convince the public to forsake its prized freedom, have been left dumbfounded by how easy it has been. Privacy was arguably surrendered the day CCTV cameras were accepted, nay, welcomed, by the populace, never to be won back, only to be restricted more and more until naught remained.
Perhaps unsurprisingly in the realm of politics, where hypocrisy is a beloved mistress often brazenly paraded, the nation that pioneered surveillance and continues to revolutionise means of invading privacy is the one that speaks loudest for freedoms.
Hooverite and McCarthyist America has grown and spread its seed throughout the world. The Rubicon was firmly crossed with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act 2001.
That and the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, passed by the UK Parliament in 2014, set the state’s dogmatic hatred of the rights and freedoms of its citizens in stone. David Cameron, in hopefully his last five months in office, has promised the inevitable: Anti-privacy laws will be expanded to encompass social media and smartphone applications.
The same carnal avidity that masterminded PRISM, NarusInsight, Tempora, ECHELON et al prevents the righteous West from judging Bangladesh, the Middle East and their kin when they enforce blackouts and strict monitoring, using security as justification for curtailing rights.
There is no transparency in politics, least of all at the decision-making level. Citizens are not aware of how their money is being spent, and are, therefore, powerless to hold those responsible to account.
It is unforeseeable that leaders will be honest and forthcoming. They do not have to worry for as long as they remain leaders – it is only when they are relegated to the status of ordinary citizens that they need concern themselves with forced transparency and the death of privacy.
Absent suspicion of wrongdoing it is not only illegal, but also immoral for states to disregard the prized privacy of its citizens. When governments overreach, and justify this by claiming the feeble security defence to manipulate the universal legal system and the sacred values it exists to uphold in its sworn duty to represent the people and their interests, they are saying either that everyone is guilty until proven innocent, or that noone can be proven innocent, and it is only a matter of time until proof of guilt can be established.
If the authorities are equipped with this supreme power, they are certain to be corrupted by it as its implementation requires corruption of humanity and all Earthly constructs. Such governments cannot be good for the people.
It is ironic that their verbose claims to the contrary get louder the more they stray from the interests of the people they exist to serve, or perhaps it is telling that the protestations of these servants drip with desperation.
Much of what is conceivable in the deplorable realm of surveillance in the name of security is probably in effect already, since the world may not be aware of the technology available to security forces due to the inherent lack of transparency and honesty.
That does not make it right. Indeed, there is enough evidence on hand to assert that illegal surveillance, using advanced technology that may not even be available to the masses, is a favourite of governments and law enforcement authorities, going beyond infringing on every individual’s indisputable right to privacy.
In their insatiable lust for limitless power, the ruling class has been so concerned with whether it could do this to the naive pawns who have put it in place, that it does not stop to ask whether it should.
Despite its status as an absolute, tangible guiding principle in servitudes, morality is only an abstract concept that exists to provide boundless joy by being mocked in absolute rules.
Politicians and law enforcement agents should at least keep up the pretence of dignity by baring their all to the public that is being forced to bare all rather than being shown up for being cowardly voyeurs.
Those having the audacity to seek to justify the unjustifiable acts of the authorities need only heed Benjamin Franklin’s words: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
