Surveillance: A Fake Friend

-- By DahwitBerhanu - 29 Nov 2024

Introduction

The observation that virtually everything a person does is being tracked naturally leads to some easy feelings. Undeniably, the surveillance conducted by third-parties violates individual privacy and autonomy by offering such third-parties intimate glimpses into the minds and personal lives of those being surveilled. Quite surprisingly, however, there exist those who defend such surveillance and monitoring in the name of enhanced safety and protection against foreign and domestic threats. However, in the wake of the election of Donald Trump, surveillance suggests itself to offer an unlikely benefit — protection against a fascist Presidential regime.

An Inescapable Record

Following the election of Donald Trump as President, Representative Matt Gaetz was nominated by Trump as the Attorney General. However, over the next couple of days, Matt Gaetz would quickly withdraw his candidacy. What explains the voluntary resignation of Mr. Gaetz is rather remarkable. It was the fact that the Justice Department was able to access to every single financial transaction Mr. Gaetz undertook. Through the financial records, Venmo and PayPal? transactions totalling tens of thousands of dollars paid to women were on full display for the world to see. Thereby providing credible evidence in support of the allegations circulating that Mr. Gaetz had paid a minor and an adult woman for sexual encounters, it came as no surprise that Mr. Gaetz quickly withdrew his candidacy.

Suggestibly, the fact that a record of the digital payments engaged by the Representative was able to dismantle his career in a matter of a few days offers a glimmer of hope for those fearful of a second Trump presidency. With millions of Americans and foreign nations watching, it is clear that the surveillance and tracking capabilities of third-parties (such as mobile payment applications) offers itself as a formidable weapon to combat the destructive effects of a fascist presidency. With potential nominees facing the scrutiny of their digital and online records, the surveillanced data offers itself as a record against which nominees can be held accountable. As the Gaetz example demonstrates that digital monitoring of financial transactions can expose unethical and illegal behavior, all of Trump’s nominees face the test of standing in the limelight with all of their surveilled data before the world to see — potentially protecting the American population from the appointment of reprehensible individuals.

The Bigger Picture

That said, it is unfortunately the case that surveillance is a double-edged sword. While the Gaetz experience shows that surveillance can perhaps be used as a means for holding elected officials accountable, relying on surveillance as a tool against a fascist regime introduces significant risks. Though surveillance greatly helped in removing an unfit and immoral Attorney General candidate, the same surveillance can easily be weaponized against millions of Americans. From revealing the intimate information of outspoken dissidents against the President to revealing the locations of undocumented immigrants, there is nothing to suggest that surveillance systems will not be used by the new regime to insulate itself and its allies from its opponents. Accordingly, it quite dangerously appears that surveillance and the data collected presents itself to be an alarming political weapon, which will unsurprisingly be used to erode democracy.

Clearly, the situation is quite the paradox. Though surveillance threatens to compromise personal autonomy and individual liberties, when surveillance is advantageous in protecting those fearful of a Trump presidency it appears quite rational to welcome it. However, when the uneasy reality sets in that the very surveillance which halted the candidacy of Mr. Gaetz will be weaponized and used against millions of Americans to curtail civil liberties and silence dissidents, surveillance then becomes an extremely fearful tool.

Accordingly, the reality is that surveillance irrespective of the hands it falls in is problematic. Though the slight benefit the Gaetz example shows, the grave and irreparable harm surveillance poses in the wrong hands grossly outweighs any arguable benefits. What’s more, even if surveillance doesn’t fall into the hands of fascist world leaders, it is nevertheless wrong for several reasons. First and foremost, surveillance undermines fundamental democratic principles. Specifically, by gravely inhibiting the basic right to privacy, autonomy is severely undermined as individuals are no longer free to think, act, and communicate freely. By impeding upon individual autonomy, surveillance therefore threatens to weaken public discourse as a culture of monitoring stifles the free flow of open dialogue. Surveillance is additionally problematic for the reason that it creates asymmetries of power with governments and corporations being able to exploit and capitalize on the data collected. Further, surveillance undermines the rule of law and accountability due to the absence of checks on its power. That is, because surveillance monitors individual behavior discreetly with many not knowing it is going on, the lack of transparency prevents people from holding corporations and governments accountable. Ultimately then, surveillance poses no real benefit advocates claim of. Despite the limited and handful of instances in which surveillance has shown some benefit, the fact remains that such rare occurrences of tangible benefits come at the expense of the erosion of fundamental constitutional rights and the weakening of democratic principles. Clearly then, surveillance is harmful regardless of its user, and its continued unfettered existence threatens to jeopardize and undermine democracy.