Government Surveillance: finding the right balance for democracy

Government Surveillance: Finding the Right Balance For Democracy
Candidate’s Name
Institution’s Name
What is a FISA court and why might it run counter to a ‘free and open society’?
The FISA Court is an American federal court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 1978 (FISA) with the duty to supervise surveillance orders applications made by national intelligence bureaus targeting foreign spies within the US. It has its seat in Washington D.C. comprising of 11 judges. The Court considers requests made by the government for sanctioning of electronic, physical, as well as other undercover surveillance for overseas intelligence aims (McFarland, 2012). The court works ex parte as stipulated by the establishing law to safeguard the confidential state security data.
Democratic principles in the society such as in the US require that the people should enjoy free (individual privacy) and open (government transparency) living. Therefore, the government in conducting its affairs should be transparent, and the citizens should enjoy some level of privacy. However, this is not the case concerning the orders and operation of this court and the government. The authorities presently conduct massive spying on the citizens. The government asserts that the permission to spy is founded on the secret directives given by a secret court that construe the law secretively (Arizona Public Media, 2016). These orders are also founded on the covert information regarding likely security dangers.

Whereas the security threats may be real, there exists no proof indicating that the people already spied have links to any specific scheme. At first, the court was secretive that gave surveillance orders to target foreign spies. However, following the FISA Amendments Act, 2008, the court changed to giving surveillance orders that also targets citizens’ communications (Arizona Public Media, 2016).
The court does not sanction the people to be watched by these orders. After issuing an order, the government may utilize that permission for up to 12 months, giving secret commands to the Internet corporations such as Google or Facebook indicating whose phone calls, emails, chats, pictures as well as social media data it needs (Crump, 2014). The court just hopes the state to adhere to the targeting guidelines which require only the gathering of Americans’ communications with relatives, friends or other suspected spies abroad and to avoid gathering entirely local communications. Overall, the court gives an obscure surveillance directive each time the government utters the right words (gathering outside intelligence data pertinent to non-US targets). Therefore, the court offers minimal independent surveillance supervision.
Further, the court functions “ex parte” meaning that the government applications are argued by one side only since it is just the government officers who stand before the judges. The public to be watched are not represented, and their interests in privacy are not considered. As a result, the state’s position always wins. From 2008 the government made more than 7,000 surveillance applications with just two being rejected by the court (Arizona Public Media, 2016). Therefore, the court is seen as a rubber stamp of the government to curtail people’s right to privacy. Fundamental judicial supervision occurs if the courts— different from the FISC court—make judgments from both parties’ arguments. The Fourth Amendment requires that courts give ex parte orders based on details illustrating probable cause after that consider the surveillance’s legality in an adversarial manner. The FISA court’s orders are never subjected to the adversarial procedure.
Lastly, the information gathered by the government in pursuit of the permitting orders from the FISA court is always kept secretly. This further curtails the public’s right to access information held by the state. The government can gather data of calls, people’s location, and other details through s.215 of the Patriot Act (Arizona Public Media, 2016). This metadata is so exposing and may be utilized to plot people’s private relationships or political associations. This information is collected secretively and kept in secret away from the public eye and participation.
Why is the Internet known as a ‘net loss for democracy’?
Whereas the internet in some ways advances democratic principles in the society, it may as well undermine democracy. It has made surveillance easy for the government thus violating people’s democratic right to privacy, and it encourages personalization which limits people from being exposed to various viewpoints of other society members which are integral for the promotion of democracy.
Crump (2014) asserts that presently, the internet has made surveillance easier as well as very efficient. The internet has made virtual networking as well as interactions very easy; however, it has ease government surveillance particularly within the social media websites. When more individuals congregate with the view of connecting with each other, it becomes easy for the government to conduct surveillance. Surveillance through the internet has become quicker, effective, inexpensive and very thorough when contrasted to the traditional 24/7 watch as well as placing secret cameras in people rooms (Crump, 2014). Via a user’s Facebook data as well as other online behavior, the government may establish like-minded individuals or some leaders may create a group of conspirators against the state. Moreover, face-recognition technology is utilized for surveillance to spot individuals with pictures on the internet. The government may use face-recognition technology to detect protesters or those who organized and attended anti-government conventions for victimization, arrests, and detention (Arizona Public Media, 2016). Therefore, through these consequences that are aided by the internet, citizens may be afraid to engage in anti-government protests on issues that affect them for fear of victimization. People’s online activities, as well as their pictures in various websites, may be utilized to build their profile such as their ideas and political point of view. It is easy to envisage that in the coming times, a picture of a protester shall be uploaded to the internet and give back other pictures of the protester that shall be utilized against the protester. It shall also be used recognize other conspirators involved.
Lastly, the internet has made individuals participate in “personalization” process which confines their exposure to issues as well as other people’s viewpoints since they filter in and out things they desire (Arizona Public Media, 2016). For example, Info Xtra website provides news as well as entertainment which are only valuable to the user; the user finds this news without searching across dailies, radio as well as other sites. This personalized news is provided after the user has specified the thing he desires and the time he desires to watch it. However, within a heterogeneous society, democracy demands more than free personal choices. Democracy compels two distinctive necessities that personalization enabled by the internet opposes. First, individuals must be exposed to resources which they would not have selected previously. Inclusion of all the experiences, issues, as well as viewpoints that individuals may not desire and may get frustrating is vital to democracy (Crump, 2014). Secondly, citizens ought to have a variety of shared experiences without which a heterogeneous society shall face difficulty in tackling its social challenges as well as appreciating each other. All these democratic principles are hindered by the internet personalization process.
References
Arizona Public Media. (2016). Government Surveillance. https://livestream.com/azpm/events/6643346
Crump, C. (2014). The small and surprisingly dangerous detail the police track about you. TEDGlobal. https://www.ted.com/talks/catherine_crump_the_small_and_surprisingly_dangerous_detail_the_police_track_about_you
McFarland, M. (2012). Why We Care about Privacy. Santa Clara University. Scu.edu. Retrieved 21 November 2016, from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/internet-ethics/resources/why-we-care-about-privacy/