As we know, due to the tremendous development of technology and Internet surveillance became more easier than ever. What ever we do in internet and phone can be collected, saved and analyzed. So obviously, these technology allows more value in role of government and private companies in the surveillance of internet users. But the path might be different. The private companies collect the information about special one over time and now it seems the path has been moving from minimal to maximal(might be reduction of cost of storage and time make significance ). Some example of surveillance are : “ Telephone companies collected long-distance calling information because they needed it for billing purposes. Credit cards collected only the information about their customers’ transactions that they needed for billing. Stores hardly ever collected information about their customers, maybe some personal preferences, or name-and-address for advertising purposes. Even Google, back in the beginning, collected far less information about its users than it does today. “ But due to the reduction of cost of storage and processing they are starting to collect everything.
On the government case, When surveillance was manual and expensive, it could only be justified in extreme special case. The warrant process limited police surveillance, and resource restraints and the risk of discovery limited national intelligence surveillance. Specific individuals were targeted for surveillance, and maximal information was collected on them alone. But now due to the development of technology they are easily collecting the information of everyone very easily. Most of the common example they are spying every communication channel from telephone to internet. Now, instead of watching one person, the NSA can monitor “threehops” away from that person. Government has advantage over all other private sectors, they have always used their authority to access on corporate surveillance. They never go through making their own distinct surveillance program. In short, Due to the development of technology and reduction of cost, Corporate Companies are collecting almost all information(wheather they need it or not) and Government is taking advantage of it and surveillance all the internet users’ activities.
In my opinion the regulation of these surveillance should be in some framework. First, the person/user should be aware about his/her being surveillance, most of the case they don’t know about the situation. Second, the depth and width of surveillance should be maintain, it doesn’t make sense of recording every activities of users. Third, the way of taking information should be transparent and respectable, it means while Security Agencies need information from internet vendors, they should have clear written objective that should make public.
The disclosure of U.S. government surveillance programs( PRISM ) has destroyed any remaining expectation of online privacy. So how could anyone protect the human right more. Again because of development of technology and Internet, we have lot of evidences people got lot of privilege to protect democracy and act for their right. The Pew Internet & American Life Project survey found that 36 percent of social networking site users say the sites are “very important” or “somewhat important” to them in keeping up with political news. It also found 25 percent of social network users surveyed said they became more active in a political issue after discussing it or reading posts about it, and 16 percent said they changed their views about an issue after discussing it or reading about it on the sites.
US President Barack Obama speaks during a “Twitter Town Hall” in 2011 in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC. Social networks such as Facebook and Twitter are playing a growing role in US politics by helping users stay informed and energizing activists. In Nepal, Fomer PM Baburam Bhattarai was one of the most active politicians in social network and web, and it plays crucial role for him to become prime minister. One thing is clear people love to speak virtually rather than physically and it matters. But now how people feel free to speak on internet when some one is observing, on them and may be take some action after it. It’s like threating them individually.
If you were a lawmaker in your country and had to present a bill related to the surveillance of communications (online and offline), what are the key dimensions you would propose?
In the very small, least developed countries like Nepal also clear mentioning on constitution about Right to Information and Right to Privacy. We even have also very clear act on Right to Privacy to protect the right of citizen of nation. How the developed democratic countries like United States, United Kingdom and other are changing it’s form.
To support my word I wanna go through the some points over the result of research done in Pew Research survey on Internet privacy. Which shows: For the first time since the organization began asking the question in 2004, more respondents believe the government has gone too far in restricting civil liberties (47 percent) than believe the government hasn’t done enough to protect the country from terrorism (35 percent). So there is not more weight on saying that Government is doing all these for security and terrorism.
However, half of the 1,480 U.S. citizens polled in the recent Pew Research survey approve of the government’s surveillance of Internet and telephone data to combat terrorism, while 44 percent disapprove. At the same time, 70 percent of the respondents believe the government uses the data for more purposes than anti-terrorism.
When asked about the overall impact of personal data collection, 55 percent of respondents to the Heartland Monitor poll said the practice is “mostly negative,” while 38 percent consider the data collection “mostly positive.”
As I am aware on the situation of security that may comes as the priority of nation, I would like to suggest my government to maintain the way to achieve the same objectives. As I mention earlier government or any private companies should maintain at least guidelines for themselves and my opinion is simple:
- First, the person/user should be aware about his/her being surveillance, most of the case they don’t know about the situation.
- Second, the depth and width of surveillance should be maintain, it doesn’t make sense of recording every activities of users.
- Third, the way of taking information should be transparent and respectable, it means while Security Agencies need information from internet vendors, they should have clear written objective that should make public.
The Interim Constitution of Nepal, Right to Privacy, Section 23, 2063 (2007) http://www.lawcommission.gov.np/en/prevailing-laws/constitution/func-startdown/163/