[Answered] “Right to online privacy of an individual and the right of the State to detect people who use the web to spread panic and commit crimes are contradictory in itself.” Comment.

Demand of the question
Introduction. Contextual Introduction.
Body. Argument in favour of privacy and for national security.
Conclusion. Way forward.

In era of internet, our personal information is digitised and available to anyone with the means to access it. This is a threat to right to privacy. Also due to rising threats through cyber-space it has become necessary for the government to keep an eye on the data for greater security of the nation. Both rights are crucial, but often come at each other’s expense.

Arguments for increased national security:

  1. Different rules apply to the government and its citizens in times of threats. We are already facing danger due to terrorism. To reduce the chances of terrorists entering our country, some loss of privacy and tighter security measures are required. Creating a wider security network via internet surveillance makes a much more effective security measure.
  2. The common good outweigh the personal preferences. In this case, the common good does include government scrutiny to prevent any bad event. Better intelligence and security measures will help prevent the loss of life.
  3. The wider net of national security measures can identify racially or religiously motivated criminals and act against them before harm is caused to others.

Arguments for safeguarding personal privacy:

  1. Democracies are established with the purpose of protecting the rights of their citizens. One of these rights is the right to privacy. A person has the right to determine what sort of information about them is collected and how that information is used.  Allowing organizations for data collection and inspection under the cloak of keeping people safe violates this right, instead of safeguarding it.
  2. The government’s surveillance may not be always about increasing security. It can be used in the to avoid transparency, leading to the loss of basic human rights.
  3. When it comes to internet surveillance, everyone is watched, without just cause or proof of suspicion.
  4. Decisions about surveillance are taken by the executive branch (including the review process), with no parliamentary or judicial supervision;
  5. An individual will almost never know that she is being surveilled means that finding out about surveillance, and then challenging it before a court, is a near-impossibility.
  6. a government that is not checked in any meaningful way will tend to go overboard with surveillance and, in the process, gather so much material that actually vital information can get lost in the noise.

In the famous ‘privacy-security trade-off’, therefore, it is exceedingly important to assess the balance on the basis of constitutional principles and fundamental rights, rather than blindly accepting the government’s rhetoric of national security. The fine line between privacy and national security is dynamic. The government must constantly reassess its need to invade citizens’ personal privacy.

Print Friendly and PDF
Blog
Academy
Community