Some scholars of international relations have argued that the security dilemma is the most important source of conflict between states.
Global surveillance is not global only because it targets people all over the world. Global surveillance is done for and against global interests. Privacy, by contrast, is an individual right. This is not about your internet history or private phone calls, even if the media and Snowden wish it were.
Privacy is rarely seen as a fundamental right. Privacy is relevant insofar as it enables control, harming freedom, or insofar as it causes the violation of a fundamental right. But the capabilities of intelligence agencies to carry out surveillance over their own citizens are far lower than their capability to monitor foreigners.
Framing this as an issue of individual privacy is a strategic move done against the interests of individuals. The media does it to get attention. Snowden does it to get leverage. Governments may do it because they want to join the Global Espionage Club — the Five Eyes — for plausible deniability, and to increase their own surveillance capabilities.
It is well known that the private communications of the President of the United States are under surveillance by multiple intelligence agencies.
Note also that asking for a no-spy agreement is not a good strategy for setting one up; it means you are not getting any good intelligence on the other party in the first place. Other governments might want to make the debate on global surveillance about privacy so they can increase their own control over their citizens.
For instance, Brazil and some Arabic countries considered imposing a relative isolation of their internet from the rest of the world. In terms of total data collected, Brazil was one of the main targets. As far as I am aware neither of them holds sensitive private individual information or terrorists for that matter.
On most occasions, however, he and many media outlets have persistently insisted this is about your privacy. They want to make sure that every single time human beings interact with one another, things that we say to one another, things we do with one another, places we go, the behavior in which we engage, which they know about it.
If they wanted a revision of NSA practices — a goal in which they have failed — they could have attempted this with a single release of a small percentage of the data. However, if their goal was public attention, they have certainly succeeded. Data collection regulations have been relaxed instead of tightened.
The lesson NSA director at the time bulk collection was introduced took out of this was, in his own words: The fact you know that I know private information about you that I never intended to use or share — all else being equal — entails further loss of privacy.
Unfortunately, it seems nothing else has changed regarding privacy laws. Political turmoil, yes; real change, does not seem like it. Their personal histories include repeatedly legally representing neo-Nazis, bashing elderly dependence on Social Security, extreme anti-immigration views and so on.In addition, U.S.
government experts on security technology, noting that "monitoring video screens is both boring and mesmerizing," have found in experiments that "after only 20 minutes of watching and evaluating monitor screens, the attention of most individuals has .
With the expansion of surveillance, such abuses could become more numerous and more egregious as the amount of personal data collected increases.
In addition, allowing surreptitious surveillance of one form, even limited in scope and for a particular contingency, encourages government to expand such surveillance programs in the future.
Apr 13, · Do the increased surveillance power and capability of the U.S. government present an ethical dilemma? As a privacy advocate this increased in power and capability causes a huge ethical dilemma. The amount of information that being outright given to the government without the consent of the populace is a matter to taken seriously.
Mar 17, · Global surveillance is not about privacy. Published March 17, | By Joao Fabiano. and to increase their own surveillance capabilities. The US may allow it because it already decided to bite the bullet on privacy and it doesn’t want to add State/trade secrecy violation to the list.
“The objective of the NSA and the U.S. power that surveillance becomes unfavorable, as it increases the effectiveness of that abuse and helps the government stay in power. The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
The USA PATRIOT Act allows government agencies to gather "foreign intelligence information" from both U.S.
and non-U.S. citizens. According to Patrick Windham, this moved the US to the "MI-5 model" of surveillance, named after the British agency.