Increased state surveillance can be thought of in several different ways, depending on where you stand. Described uncharitably, it’s a Faustian bargain that dissolves from within the very liberty
and democracy it’s meant to defend. Viewed less negatively, it’s a social contract
between state and citizen, albeit a contract one of the parties was never told
existed, let alone handed the pen to sign.
In either case, it’s a
quid pro quo arrangement where the transaction involved is relatively straightforward:
the public agrees to allow the state to violate some of its more inviolable
rights and freedoms as it sees fit, such as leapfrogging due process or encroaching
on people’s privacy by reading their emails, listening to their phone calls
or collecting other intimate personal information. In return, the state promises
to use this increased presence in its citizens’ daily lives to keep them safe
from threats by detecting possible terrorist activity before it happens, allowing
authorities to step in.
As with any contract, its
use is only as good as each party’s ability to uphold its end of the bargain.
If one or both stop fulfilling their role, whether by choice or because they’re
no longer capable of doing so, the agreement is null and void. The question
is, are western governments pulling their weight in this deal?
It’s a question particularly
worth asking a week on from what was arguably the most serious challenge to
state surveillance in the West, in the form of the expiration of the Patriot
Act, a once seemingly unassailable law that legislators regularly tripped over
themselves to renew. With its provisions expired, the NSA temporarily lost its
ability to sweep up a plethora of Americans’ private records, as well to carry
out “roving wiretaps” and spy on non-US targets unaffiliated with foreign terrorist
groups. This was despite an onslaught of dire warnings from US officials, including
President Obama, who likened allowing the law to expire
to playing Russian roulette. Congress’ inability to renew the Act, mere days
before the two-year anniversary of Edward Snowden’s leak being revealed to the
world, stands in stark contrast to the lopsided voting margins it passed
with, and shows how far attitudes toward state surveillance have changed since
the world first saw footage of Snowden in a Hong Kong hotel room.