Terrorism, Surveillance and Privacy: Assessing the Excesses

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine privacy rights and the relationship between those rights and business and government interests in data collected from individuals. Design/methodology/approach – This paper approaches legal issues from the perspective of the consumer or citizen. Findings – While conducting research for this paper, it was found that the issues facing the citizenry on privacy protection have been addressed extensively in the not too distant past. The distinguishing characteristic is the speed with which data can be collected and disseminated and the infinitely more vast amount of personal data being collected not only by the government and businesses with whom consumers conduct transactions, but also by independent data brokers. Originality/value – Privacy rights are ephemeral and difficult to measure. Businesses, therefore, appear to have difficulty determining the value of protecting consumers’ privacy. Additionally, governments from which citizens derive many social services accumulate substantial personal information given in exchange for those services. Businesses and governments are increasingly negligent in protecting the data collected on individuals, which has been revealed by a series of reported data breaches, disclosures, thefts, and surveillance activities. This paper addresses the inherent value in protecting the privacy interests of individuals and proposes that more robust privacy laws, derived from established tort law, be developed and used by concerned persons. Keywords: Data collection, Law, Privacy, Human rights, Knowledge management, Consumers Paper type: Conceptual paper

2015

After Edward Snowden’s leaks revealed to the public in June 2013, mass surveillance programs still exist. Considering that these practices restrain the right to privacy, there is a need to rethink the very concept of mass surveillance. The aim of this paper is to analyse this concept, sum up the problems related to its logic and methods, and question its legitimacy. Critical approach to the concept of mass surveillance is necessary on order to create the basis for resolving current issues related to it. My research shows that there are reasons to question legitimacy of mass surveillance as it not only breaches the right to privacy but also ignores the presumption of innocence and there is possibly a substantial lack of oversight by the independent bodies which is necessary to make these practices democratic. Moreover, given that mass surveillance programs were introduced to fight terrorism and crime, it should be assessed how efficient they really are and whether they are worth havi...

The International Journal of Human Rights

Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 2017

Governments around the world collect huge amounts of personal data from their citizens (as well as foreigners) for counterterrorist purposes. While mining this data has arguably increased the security of populations, the practices through which this data is currently collected in many countries have been criticised for violating individuals' rights to privacy. Yet it is not clear what a permissible data-collection regime (if one is possible) would look like, and thus also how we could reform existing regimes to make them morally acceptable. This paper explores a number of ways in which we might justify a data-collection regime to those affected in spite of the set-backs to their privacy. In contrast to existing justifications, I argue that individuals can be asked to surrender their personal data as a requirement of reciprocity in a cooperative system in which they gain security from others doing likewise. Relying on this justification, though, has significant implications for how we should reform existing data-collection regimes. In particular, more stringent limits will need to be placed on the forms which these regimes can legitimately take.

(2014) 37 University of New South Wales Law Journal 748-783, 2014

This article explores how Internet surveillance in the name of counter-terrorism challenges privacy. In the Part II, the article analyses the international dimension of counter-terrorism measures and the conceptualisation of data protection and privacy in the European Union, the United States of America and Australia. Part III compares the different concepts of data protection and privacy, and explores the prospects of an international legal framework for the protection of privacy. Part IV concludes that work on international data protection and privacy standards, while urgently needed, remains a long-term vision with particular uncertain prospects as far as anti-terrorism and national security measures are concerned.

The following is a slightly extended and amended version to the conclusion of my postgraduate dissertation into the topic of Counter-terrorism, Surveillance and Security, which adopted a comparative evaluation between the UK and USA. The full dissertation shall be posted at a later date.

The purpose of this paper is to identify and compare the evolution of key counterterrorism legislations passed into law by the governments of the United States and United Kingdom after 9/11 that have allowed for enhanced surveillance methods to be carried out. To begin, the debate surrounding a ‘definition of terrorism’ and the influence it has in the development and implantation of counter-terror laws has been discussed. Moving on, the legislations primarily scrutinized within are the PATRIOT Act of the US and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of the UK. This paper goes further to investigate the relationship and effects these new laws have had in regards to human rights privacy provisions in both states, legal cases that have challenged them and the debate between state security over the protection of rights, as well as public opinion on this debate. This study is a literature-based review that has highlighted contributions made to this area by academic experts, as well as judicial outcomes and opinions, statistical research conducted by human right activist groups and scholarly articles. The conclusion of this paper draws on the point that without the ECtHR as an external regulator, the UK might well place state security of human rights, as the US is perceived in doing. The concluding remarks also provide recommendations for future research on this topic.