Ethics
Government surveillance is most commonly justified by way of necessity. In times of extreme risk or likelihood of an attack, a government of a democratic society may enhance surveillance at the cost of individual privacy. The government justifies this by arguing that the loss of individual privacy is made up by increased national security. The ethics of government surveillance and individual tracking is very controversial. Some believe that this practice is acceptable, and even necessary at times, while others would vehemently disagree and argue it is unconstitutional and infringes upon personal liberty.
In the United States, there are a number of laws and articles of the Constitution that exist to preserve citizens’ right to privacy. This issue is addressed in further detail in the Legalities page, but in order to accurately understand the ethical implications of suspending the Constitution in the name of security, one must understand the basics of the constitution. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution exists to protect the citizen’s “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” This was tested in the landmark court case Olmstead vs. United States, which demonstrated that in the face of new electronic communication, the amendment specifically meant to protect personal privacy and security in the United States failed to do so. If the law can be interpreted like this, is it ethical for the government to breach a citizen’s right to privacy of electronic communication?
Big Brother
One work that discusses the ethical implications of surveillance is George Orwell’s iconic novel, 1984. In this, he depicts a world in which the government is constantly at war, and as a result, implements total surveillance of its citizens. While the work is science fiction, many believe that the underlying concepts are not all that far removed from the emerging reality of 21st century technological surveillance. Orwell’s main point in the book is to demonstrate the consequences of a society constantly monitored by its government.
A central theme throughout “Little Brother” is that government must not sacrifice the freedom of its people for increased security, and that it is the duty of the citizens to fight for their freedoms. After the terrorist attack on the Bay Bridge, the government detained innocent people for questioning and increased surveillance and individual tracking of its citizens. Marcus is one of the innocent people detained by the government for questioning. After experiencing first hand what it feels like to lose basic rights that are protected under the constitution, Marcus decides to take action. Marcus utilizes his knowledge of advanced technology to interfere with the government’s surveillance and tracking systems. His actions are illegal, but that does not dissuade Marcus, as he believes what he is doing is ethically right and restoring freedom and privacy to the people. An advocate of personal privacy and founding father, Benjamin Franklin would likely support Marcus’ views,
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
This begs the question, when is it ethical to break laws set forth by the government? Based on the themes and plot of his novel, Doctorow takes a Machiavellian approach to this question, arguing that it is the duty of a citizen to fight for his or her rights–even if that means breaking laws in the process. Additionally, Doctorow also develops the idea of whether or not all laws created are ethical. In the novel, most characters viewed the government’s new surveillance law, the PATRIOT Act II, as unethical, which helps justify their actions. However, Macus’ father views the law as being ethical, arguing that national security is more important than personal freedom and privacy. In an argument between Marcus and his father, Marcus argues that the new laws are an invasion of privacy. But his father responds, “What’s the big deal? Would you rather have privacy or terrorists?” (Doctorow 49). The disagreement between Marcus and his father represents the greater debate about how much power the government should have over its citizens’ freedoms, and when it is ethical for the citizens to challenge that power and fight for their rights.
