Should the government monitor the internet?
Can you imagine hundreds of people watching as you talk to your friends about some intimate topics? A few years ago, former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the US government is monitoring Americans. This has caused a series of protests and disputes in the whole world. The government’s monitoring of Americans and even the monitoring of foreigners make people feel unsafe. In some media investigations, it has been going on for a very long time. The government even has some implicit agreements in this regard with foreign governments. However, some people think that is good for society in some ways. Are they right or not? There are several analyzes of the points. From examining the findings, the government should not monitor the internet.
Government monitoring of privacy violates people’s legal and human rights. It offends people’s privacy. People’s privacy is protected by the fourth amendment. The government cannot violate it without reasonable cause. No one wants to be monitored by a group of people when they are doing something personal. This violation of people’s privacy is actually a blow to freedom of speech. Privacy and Freedom of speech are the human rights. Human rights are the birthright of all persons, irrespective of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and freedom, the right not to be enslaved or tortured, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education and more. Everyone has the right to enjoy these rights without discrimination. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force in 1976. It advocates freedom of opinion and expression, and expressly prohibits arbitrary interference with privacy. People exchange ideas to make each other’s ideas more mature and feasible. In the process of communication, there will inevitably be positive and negative views as well as some extreme views. That’s a good thing. The government’s monitoring has inhibited the communication to some extent, because they may define some views as heretical and take action. “People who support surveillance and say they have nothing to hide are actually the most likely to avoid sharing unpopular opinions when they know government is watching. We lose the ability to discuss ideas openly when we fear we will be punished for them,” stated by Professor Elizabeth Stoycheff of Wayne State University. Prof. Elizabeth Stoycheff is an expert in online surveillance and Internet censorship. People don’t know what the government is looking at in the surveillance process, so they may reserve opinions or avoid talking about sensitive topics. Controversy has always been a catalyst for the progress of human thought. Government monitoring hinders the progress of people’s thinking. Given this information, that is not desirable. Some argue that government surveillance can collect information about the perpetrators in order to deter them. Considering the results, that is not true. The United State still keep a very high rank of crime rate in developed countries. The reason is that the vast majority of those monitored by the government are innocent law-abiding citizens. It is difficult for the government to tell whether a person is a good person before collecting information about them. That leads to some of the bad things discussed before and Low execution efficiency.
Government surveillance will create new social security risks. Society information as a whole has never been so centralized that criminals cannot imagine what they can get from the system. If criminals try to steal this information, centralized information will undoubtedly provide them with convenience. This stems from government surveillance, which concentrates everyone’s information in many authorized communications company. People in their right mind don’t want to put all their eggs in one basket, because that basket might fall to the ground for some unknown reason. They will lose most of them. These companies are like baskets, and people’s information is like eggs in a basket. They could have access to private information right away, but they risk massive leaks to aggregate it. They collect private information that people don’t want to provide even if they don’t need it before. This puts us all at risk. The importance of risk allocation is self-evident. Such a concentration of data, whether leaked by insiders or stolen by hackers, would be an unimaginable catastrophe. Malicious people use this information to attack us and steal our property. Alden Abbott, former Deputy Director of Meese Center, said that: “A 2014 study estimated that the aggregate annual data breach-specific cost to the U.S. economy was $140 billion (including direct costs to businesses, indirect costs to their customers, and indirect law enforcement-related costs), and that 500,000 jobs a year were lost due to such breaches.” This is another proof that government surveillance cannot curb crime. Like hunters and prey in Darwin’s theory of evolution, criminals “evolve” with governments.
Government surveillance is controlled by government corruption. As we discussed in the last paragraph, all people’s information is in the hands of the government. The resulting concentration of power can almost directly undo centuries of American efforts to decentralize power. Whether the government can maintain a legitimate and fair treatment of these data? It’s hard to answer, but in terms of the lessons of history. The answer is probably no. A good system does not guarantee that its enforcers are good. This is why people are always working to reduce the concentration of power rather than an efficient system. Dictatorships like Germany’s in World War II were effective, but they weren’t the kind of government people wanted. People don’t want efficient government to be used to control people. Hundreds of years ago, people tried to restrict the government by means of constitution and decentralization, so that the government sided with the people. This is one of the reasons for constitutional monarchy and separation of powers. Under a centralized government, people can’t guarantee that this efficiency is for the things that need to be solved or the things that need to be “solved” for themselves. This information may focuses on people who don’t use their hands. Some activists will have to stop their lobbying, some politicians will have to be corrupted by sin, and some journalists will have to stop spreading the truth. This poses a threat to people’s free will. “SMMS (social media management software) can easily be aimed at anyone who threatens existing power, whistleblowers, people who have reported misconduct, or someone an agent personally dislikes. In a country with a long history of targeting dissent, often in communities of color, we should be wary anytime a tool of this nature is wielded.” suppose by Kimberly McCullough, Legislative Director, and ACLU of Oregon. Opponents would say it was an attempt to counter the demagoguery of evil forces. Considering the results, that is incorrect. Just as the government can’t identify criminals in advance, we can’t know does the government really think they are criminals. So we have to and we have the right to know the objections of these people and to tell the truth.
The cost of maintaining government surveillance far outweighs the benefits. In order to collect data, governments need to obtain resources from major Internet and communications companies. After that, the government needs to analyze the data through various means. The amount of information flowing through modern societies every day is huge even after being filtered by machines. The data includes foreign languages, hard-to-identify information and encrypted information. This undoubtedly requires a great deal of manpower to complete the analysis. But are the benefits worth it? It’s obviously not worth it. It spends too much of its resources on innocent people, while criminals can reduce their chances of being found by hiding. There is no evidence to date that this surveillance model can reduce crime on a large scale.
Government monitoring involves a wide range and needs to take into account the international environment. Much of the information the government collects comes from big Internet companies. These companies tend to be multinationals. They also need to take into account the laws and policies of other countries in their operations. Some countries that are sensitive to this may regard it as an act of espionage. Countries need to communicate about these issues. This is a matter of principle that not all countries can accept. This has a negative effect on relations between countries.
In summary, government surveillance communications do more harm than good. It violates human rights and raises security concerns. It is subject to corruption and limited to costs. It has even affected international relations. The government should not be given the authority to monitor the people. Just like the difference between a market economy and a planned economy, Laissez-faire (market) can bring more impetus to development. On whether the government should regulate people’s personal privacy, the better choice is guide or not forces (Government monitoring). From previous research, monitor privacy is an unwise choice for the government.
Works cited
“Why Government Use of Social Media Monitoring Software Is a Direct Threat to Our Liberty and Privacy”
“The Case for Internet Surveillance”
“5 REASONS WE SHOULD ALL BE CONCERNED ABOUT GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE”
“The Federal Government’s Appropriate Role in Internet Privacy Regulation”
https://www.heritage.org/report/the-federal-governments-appropriate-role-internet-privacy-regulation
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
