They tell us surveillance makes us safer. It undermines our democratic rights.
Civil society actors in nearly every region of the world now operate under the assumption that they are being surveilled. The result is a less democratic world for everyone.
The most important outcome of increased surveillance is a chilling effect on free speech and expression. As Gina Romero, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, notes here, that extends to the organizations that have been established to protect those rights:
“As organizations operate under the constant assumption that they are being monitored, their core functions are profoundly affected. Their ability to serve as watchdogs, provide rights-based services, protect victims of human rights abuses, and educate the public is severely constrained. Ultimately, the very possibility of advancing and protecting rights, democracy and the rule of law is undermined.”
Civil society organizations and advocates have been mislabeled as national security threats around the world. It’s true in some of the nations that we’ve long thought of as being authoritarian, but it’s also true in the United States. Even places like the United Kingdom have tried to apply pressure to technology companies so that they can gain access to backdoors.
Tools like Signal have become all the more important. We need more easy to use end to end encrypted systems so that we can communicate and organize with each other without fear of government surveillance. That also allows whistleblowers and sources for journalists to reach out with less of a fear they they will suffer repercussions.
But those tools don’t stop you from being surveilled in the real world. Cameras and microphones are everywhere; license plate readers are now commonplace; even AI-enabled drones have been deployed for events like the World Cup.
It’s generally true that if government can do something, it will. So the only way to stop this kind of widespread surveillance is to make it impossible. Romero calls for legislative prevention that takes into account the whole systemic impact of surveillance rather than just the immediate first-order effects. Her report also calls out that it can be very difficult to challenge these systems because what they are and who owns them tends to be complicated or obfuscated:
“The study reveals a lack of transparency surrounding the relationship between state power and non-state actors, creating an information vacuum that makes surveillance practices exceedingly difficult to challenge through litigation. As a result, the right to an effective remedy is fundamentally weakened.”
So I think we also need more technical capabilities that interfere with how these systems of surveillance actually work. We need more spaces that are designated privacy-first and enforce an anti-surveillance rulebook. And, just as communities have taken it upon themselves to dismantle Flock cameras, we need to take back our streets.
