Co-written by: Ardian Putra, Dustin Kochen, Harley Ennis, and Brendan Williams.
 |
| Security - Dictionary by American Advisors Group (CC BY-SA 2.0) |
The sheer volume and breadth of personal
data collected through various corporate and private endeavors, is a treasure
trove that has proven irresistible to governments and surveillance agencies who
‘have always used their authority to piggyback on corporate surveillance’ (Schneier,
B 3013). When
exposed to public scrutiny, these activities are often framed as a
necessary safeguard, one where we trade our privacy in exchange for safety.
anyone else finding that any surveillance scenario one can dream up (good or evil), is already in play? #ALC205 pic.twitter.com/0ioKdA85Ap— Brendan Williams (@Brendan_L_W) September 13, 2016
The commonly used phrase ‘if you’ve done
nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to worry about’ seems to be the foundation
for many of the justifications of bulk surveillance, however it presumes that
for those being watched life will proceed as normal. And indeed it does seem to
‘proceed as normal’. Since the Snowden revelations peoples’ online behavior has
changed little (PREIBUSCH, S 2015), and many of the products we purchase are
increasingly invasive. It would be fair to argue that many, if not most of us
are at the very least unsettled by the idea of constant surveillance, yet
paradoxically we are also instrumental in its execution.
 |
| Surveillance Camera Sign by Mike Mozart (CC BY 2.0) |
In considering what could be an entirely plausible situation, ‘The News
for Yous’ is questioning this idea of ‘life proceeding as normal’. Our current
government has done such an appalling job trying to justify the likes of meta data retention, or identified census data (not to mention the dangerous precedents that our allies and
partners have set) that we would be crazy not to be suspicious. By looking at
how the privacy we trade for security is being used, we need to consider these
trade-offs, not simply from a desire for life as usual, but with consideration
for the society we wish to build.
Such
a society that we may be building it one more inclined towards George Orwell’s 1984. Although a work of fiction and a
dystopian exaggeration of surveillance society, in recent years the parallels
between the novel and our current reality have become increasingly more
noticeable. Besides the aforementioned revelations by Snowden, attention should
be addressed to the hacking capabilities of the
FBI,
but also the phone-hacking of theIndonesian Government on the part of the Australian Government. Even Snowden
himself stated that ‘George Orwell warned us of the danger of this
information…that the conversation today will determine the amount of trust we
can place both in the technology that surrounds us and the government that
regulates it (UPI, 2013).’
That
observation has been intentionally translated into our work, outlining not only
the increasingly unethical actions of the government for the sake of ‘national
security’ but also the conversation of the public – and the subsequent actions
taken in outcry of these questionable acts of surveillance. Although other
options were taken under consideration in order to discuss surveillance and
privacy, the final decision rested with the scenario in which the government
themselves was put under scrutiny in switching of roles. This is once again
both a nod to the actions of Snowden as well as the thought-provoking
considerations that George Orwell’s 1984
reminds us of.
As much as a tradeoff is required and not have a standardized
response for gross invasions of privacy for Australian Citizens, there needs to
be a fair and equitable tradeoff for the citizens for privacy protection, and
the government to patrol potentially dangerous data manipulation. A recent
example of this can be through the hacking of the Australian Census
website. This hacking caused the website to crash and most importantly
potentially compromised sensitive information that the government was required
to protect. Furthermore, the government has come under attack for not
protecting private and personal information, and in some cases, taking
advantage of it and using it to their own benefit, and not protecting their own
software and data.
Bennett
(2015) discusses that in Australia, this tradeoff for privacy vs security is at
the very least ‘patchy’, as per the High court case of Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corp keeping
open the recognition and possibility of more general laws and rights to
privacy, however did not confirm it. This can be seen in many similar cases
throughout various national and state cases (Giller v Procopets, Kalaba v Commonwealth of Australia etc.),
however although some of these cases yield some level of surveillance and
security risks, none of these comprehensively have denied or given rise to
increases in individual violation and rights of Australian citizens.
Are security breaches on individuals or large organisations scarier? How can we trust external parties to manage content? #ALC205— Dust Kochen (@DustKochen) August 10, 2016
Data
breaches can and have occurred through Australia through data hacking and
breaches of data. Privacy breaches occur when data affects an individual’s
privacy without their consent, whether or not it was intentional. Whilst other countries
have mandatory legislation in place to notify when this has occurred, Australia
is slow do adopt this, and in turn makes recommendations of voluntary
awareness. This has been given to the Australian Law Reform Commission to
rectify, however Australia is yet to impose any sort of safety blanket to
secure private data from being released (Williams, P H & Hossack, E 2013).
 |
| Stop Watching Us by Elvert Barnes (CC BY-SA 2.0) |
There
is a dire need for a statutory privacy tort to be enacted throughout the
Commonwealth, and especially within Australia, with these acts are required to
be broken down into two separate sections: ‘intrusion upon seclusion’ and
‘misuse of private information’. These acts would allow for the safety and
security of all Australian citizens. Similar acts have been enforced or enacted
in England, Canada and New Zealand, and would allow for the ‘onus’ to remain on
the plaintiff to satisfy the court that the public interest in privacy prevails
over government, without express permission (Bennett, T 2015).
In conclusion, there will always be debates surrounding the
competition between the two. As much as the public interest is in protecting
themselves and their ‘mirrored selves’ within the surveilled platforms, the
government – on the other hand – has their own reasoning to conduct
surveillance acts under the label of security measurement. Apart from the
real-world surveillance (CCTV, etc.), the expanding realm of cyberspace becomes
an unregulated world if not watched carefully. Though its implementation is
indeed becoming controversial in an age where the ideology of freedom and
liberty becomes the main driver of the society. As what has been outlined in
the previous paragraphs, there should be a law in managing the relationship
between privacy and any kind of surveillance acts. Even though the ever-developing
surveillance technology makes it hard for the lawmaker to create a clear
boundaries and limitation within the process of conducting surveillance, Australia
and other sovereign states need to prioritize its citizens in terms of
protecting their rights under law. All in all, it may be the case of ‘the more
suspicious you are towards someone, the more recalcitrant that person becomes’.
References:
Bennett, TC 2014 ‘Privacy, Free Speech and
Ruthlessness: The Australian Law Reform Commissions Report Serious Invasions of
Privacy in the Digital Era’, Journal of
Media Law, 6,2, pp. 193-205
PREIBUSCH, S 2015, 'Privacy Behaviors After
Snowden', Communications of the ACM, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 48-55.
Schneier, B 3013, The Trajectories of
Government and Corporate Surveillance, Schneier on Security, retrieved 31
august 2016, https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/the_trajectorie.html
UPI 2013,'Snowden: Orwell's '1984' 'nothing' compared to NSA spying', UPI
Top News, retrived 3 October 2016, http://www.upi.com/Snowden-Orwells-1984-nothing-compared-to-NSA-spying/26571387949400/
Williams, P & Hossack, E 2013, ‘It will
never happen to us: the likelihood and impact of privacy breaches on health
data in Australia’, Studies in Health
Technology and Informatics, 188, pp. 155-161
