I spoke in an earlier post (Smile, you're on Camera) about the United States growing obsession with public digital video recordings and electronic monitoring following the aftermath of 9/11. The United States, as well as the rest of the world, is determined to ramp up national security to enforce laws and regulations at all costs. Many governments have claimed that they have "the legitimate power to gather, store, and distribute massive collections of information about its citizens". To many Americans, this is a clear violation of the 4th amendment which guarantees US citizens the right of privacy. Unfortunately for people who fear the extinction of privacy, we are becoming a surveillance society with few barriers and set laws regarding the use of such technology.
This growing surveillance-dominating world is not run solely on digital camera or World Wide Web monitoring. Some of the most controversial political and social issues surrounding surveillance technology has to do with the growing demand for phone records. For years, governments all of the world have dealt with phone tapping allegations or rumors of gaining public call information without proper consent. Now, it seems that many national securities around the world are becoming dependent on collecting public information from cell phone services. Their dependence is in some ways understandable; phones are rapidly expanding their uses. Cell phones are no longer used for just calls, but email, messaging, surfing online and other valuable information that is arguably relevant to maintain government protection. Recently, the United Arab Emirates has threatened to ban Blackberry services by October 11th, 2010, unless the phones manufacturers (Research In Motion [RIM]) agree to give the government open access to all cell phone users personal calls. UAE argues that under "lawful interception", RIM, as a service provider, must "give law enforcement agencies access to the communications of private and corporate citizens." At first, RIM refused such demands because it violated consumer privacy and threatened to tarnish the the BlackBerry name. Unlike all its rivals, RIM controls its own server; therefore, making the BlackBerry a very safe form of communication. So private in fact that the UAE needed authorization to collect consumer data and catch possible criminals. (There is a video below describing the early reporting of the story). The United States Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, comments that there are "legitimate security concerns" but also "legitimate concerns surrounding the right of access". Eventually, RIM folded. Taking into account the millions of cell phone users they would lose, they are now giving "initial approval" to UAE demands. Some people are outraged that RIM gave in to such an undemocratic demand and set a "dangerous precedent in limited freedom of information". UAE's success is causing others countries (Kuwait, India, China) to strive for access to public phone records. Is this the end to private calls?
Are some countries national security based on a culture of command and control or is there still hope of maintaining democratic rights of privacy?
Nice post Kathleen. My cell phone is my right hand-- I don't know if I would get half the things in my life accomplished or finished without my cell phone. I take it traveling to communicate, stay up to date, email, etc! Anything you could think of can probably be aided by owning a cell phone. It is scaring to think of all that wire taping and phone monitoring, but its true. My parents traveled to Cuba, and every phone call was listened too and monitored by the government (extreme example but true!)
ReplyDelete