This post is a summary of three articles. The first with the title above, published at https://www.privacyinternational.org/ on May,30 2012 and written by Steven Dumbleton. Second "Reflections on the right to privacy." Published at http://global.nytimes.com/ on June,28 2011 and written by Jameel Jaffer. Third "Citizens of Europe are increasingly becoming concerned about the impact smart surveillance tech are having on their personal freedom." published at http://ec.europa.eu/ on July,13 2012.
For almost three millenia, privacy and scandal have gone hand in hand. One of the most famous definitions of privacy - "The right to be alone" - was coined after the expansion of street photography. For the first time, people had the power to capture for posterity the actions of others quickly, cheaply and easily. The turn of the twentieth century saw high-profile individuals more vulnerable to scandals that stuck and thus more interested in being "let alone." There is little attempt by academics to understand privacy. This mean when we seek to understand privacy, we are looking only at victims, individuals who feel betrayed or invaded as a result of specific events. However, the value of privacy may be better understood from a more day-to-day perspective. In certain relationships, people routinely exchange information so personal that it is often considered private. Marital partners know intimate details about each other that they would never divulge to colleagues. Privacy is what makes all diferent kinds of relationships possible. If everyone knows everything about everybody, there can be no variation in quality of relationships and it becomes impossible to achieve real intimacy. We need to stop trying to define privacy and instead seek to understand the conditions under which it occurs. This is something that can benefit society as a whole, no just those with fame.
Davi K. Shipler in his article "Free to search and seize"( June,22 2011 ) correctly observes that there is little left of the privacy rights that the supreme court regonized half a century ago, but the problem goes deeper. These days, many policies that implicate privacy do not get tested in the courts at all. Most national security surveillance is conducted in secret, and the innocent people monitored never find out about it. The Obama administration, adopting one of the Bush administration`s most cynical legal arguments, has asked a federal appeals court to dismiss the case because lawyer´s clients can not prove that their communications have been monitored, something that the government refuses to confirm or deny. If the administration arguments is adopted even more, governments surveillance will fall beyond the reach of the courts.
Smart surveillance tech have been promoted as an important technological means to address security issues, but they also harbour significant risks to our privacy and other fundamental rights. They are being developed supposedly to combat crime and terrorism, but in fact are being used for a variety of purposes, many of which intrude upon the privacy of law-abiding citizens. In the area of security, this relationship is not an easy one to define. Capabilities that protect the citizen can also oppress their fundamental rights if they are not bound by the strictest respect for privacy and democratic values.
An integral part of the projects supported by the European Commission`s Security Research programme is focused on the ethical, legal and economic aspects, the commission is leading the way to ensure that private data protection goes hand-in-hand with tech such as cameras and other forms of detection and surveillance. Convenience and cost-effectiveness are two key considerations for both citizens and security forces when deciding which tech to embrace or avoid.
