FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Reclaiming Privacy in the Golden Age of Surveillance

Until the summer of 2013, the global movement for Internet freedom was gaining momentum. Today, however, global trust in U.S. and UK leadership on Internet freedom has evaporated — ever since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden began releasing evidence of mass surveillance by the NSA and its British counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).

President Barack Obama has welcomed a debate about surveillance, but talk of safeguards and reform in the United States has led to little or no discernible change for global Internet users. In a January 2014 policy directive, President Obama announced additional protections for personal information the intelligence community collects. His administration, however, has done little to rein in the scale of surveillance the NSA conducts, especially abroad. A new version of the USA Freedom Act, the main legislative vehicle for U.S. reform, failed to move forward in Congress in November. In any case, it would have done almost nothing to address the privacy concerns of billions of Internet users outside the United States.

The UK, meanwhile, has refused to answer even the most basic questions about its intelligence-gathering practices. In an astounding act of hubris and blatant disregard for rights, the Cameron government rushed through a law in July extending its surveillance powers. Neither the UK nor the United States has been fully willing to recognize the privacy interests of people outside its borders.

Security Holes and Back Doors

The Snowden documents also reveal that the NSA has weakened encryption standards and withheld information about security holes in commercial products to exploit them before companies can fix the problems. Media reports suggest the GCHQ is also developing ways to defeat encryption to more easily monitor online communications. But these tactics can facilitate surreptitious monitoring by other actors beyond the United States and UK.

Major U.S. technology companies have redoubled efforts to secure their devices and services against abusive spying — a commercial imperative because loss of trust drives business overseas. As journalists and rights groups increasingly rely on global online tools for their work, many view these security improvements as crucial.

Government officials in the United States and UK have responded by accusing technology firms of facilitating murder, terrorism, and child abuse. Officials seek even greater cooperation from technology firms, including through “back doors,” to allow them greater access to private communications, even if encrypted. Yet this approach would leave Internet and mobile phone users — virtually all of us — less secure. Security experts confirm that hackers, identity thieves, and other malicious actors can exploit these back doors.

The United States and UK have provided a roadmap for all governments to build their own mass surveillance systems. Though few can match the NSA’s and GCHQ’s resources or capabilities today, many other governments may adopt an equally opaque and rapacious approach to digital data gathering.

The Malign Impact of Surveillance

As a global community, we have not even begun to grapple with the costs of mass surveillance to privacy and other rights.

A joint Human Rights Watch and American Civil Liberties Union report in July documented the insidious effects of large-scale surveillance on journalism and law in the United States. Interviews with dozens of leading journalists showed that increased surveillance is stifling reporting, especially when government tightens controls to prevent sources from leaking government information or even talking to journalists about unclassified topics. This damages the role of the fourth estate, particularly on matters of public concern related to national security.

Perhaps one of the biggest casualties of the Snowden revelations has been the U.S. and UK’s moral authority to criticize the surveillance abuses of other governments and lead by example.

A March Human Rights Watch report documented how the Ethiopian government uses surveillance to monitor opposition groups and journalists and silence dissenters. With unfettered access to mobile networks, security agencies intercept calls and access phone records, using them to intimidate detainees during abusive interrogations. Ethiopia is not the United States or the UK, but the actions of those governments set a troubling precedent that undermine their credibility on rights and that many other governments will cite.

The UN Responds

The picture is not entirely bleak, however. Privacy is now on the agenda of a range of states and international institutions. In the face of inaction by the United States, the UK, and their closest allies, several UN bodies have begun to lay out a principled approach to surveillance and human rights in the digital age, grounded in widely accepted international standards.

In March, the Human Rights Committee, the authoritative interpreter of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) — a treaty to which the United States is party — called on the United States to ensure that all surveillance is necessary and proportionate, regardless of the nationality or location of individuals affected. In July, the UN’s top human rights official, then-High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, issued a groundbreaking report on privacy in the digital age that directly challenges U.S. and UK arguments for secret mass surveillance. The report followed sustained action from privacy advocates and a new coalition of states, led by Germany and Brazil, to press the United States and UK to safeguard the privacy of people around the world.

Several critical themes emerging from this work undermine the rationale that indiscriminate mass surveillance is a small price to pay to counter the usual parade of criminal threats. Surveillance harms a range of rights beyond privacy, including freedom of expression, association, and movement. Privacy, like electronic communications, also does not stop at the border, and states must safeguard the rights of users outside their territory.

Developing global norms is just a first step, however. Although the Snowden controversy has focused on the United States and UK, the laws and practices of other governments are not likely to be better. Governments in Ethiopia, China, and Russia, for example, routinely use abusive surveillance as a matter of policy and design.

A New Special Rapporteur

That is why Human Rights Watch will support creating a new special rapporteur on the right to privacy at the UN Human Rights Council this March. This independent expert could be tasked with monitoring states’ practices and the relation of privacy to other rights. As new surveillance capabilities develop and governments grapple with renewed security threats, an expert rapporteur can ensure sustained and systematic scrutiny of surveillance practices in a broad range of countries.

However, there is still a desire to secure buy-in from the United States and UK at international discussions on human rights standards. The instinct to treat the United States and UK with diplomatic kid gloves, while unsurprising, may be counterproductive. In the short term, the two countries are likely to play the role of spoilers rather than promoters of principled standards.

Of course, it is critical to continue pushing the United States and UK to reform, but the rest of the world should not wait for them to act. Fears of terrorism and the staggering surveillance capabilities the digital world offers are blinding the United States and UK to the harm their practices pose, not only to their alliances but to their democratic institutions.

Indeed, they may not change course until their own citizens face comparable surveillance by foreign powers. But experience has shown that the two governments, though sometimes reluctant to be at the vanguard in developing international norms, often come around to principled rules that other countries accept.

Surveillance must remain on the human rights agenda, nationally and globally. Otherwise, we risk transforming the Internet into an all-seeing panopticon at the service of every government in the world.

Cynthia Wong is senior Internet researcher at Human Rights Watch and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
February 25, 2020
Michael Hudson
The Democrats’ Quandary: In a Struggle Between Oligarchy and Democracy, Something Must Give
Paul Street
The “Liberal” Media’s Propaganda War on Bernie Sanders
Sheldon Richman
The Non-Intervention Principle
Nicholas Levis
The Real Meaning of Red Scare 3.0
John Feffer
Cleaning Up Trump’s Global Mess
David Swanson
How Are We Going to Pay for Saving Trillions of Dollars?
Ralph Nader
Three Major News Stories That Need To Be Exposed
John Eskow
What Will You Do If the Democrats Steal It from Sanders?
Dean Baker
What If Buttigieg Said That He Doesn’t Accept the “Fashionable” View That Climate Change is a Problem?
Jack Rasmus
The Nevada Caucus and the Desperation of Democrat Elites
Howard Lisnoff
The Powerful Are Going After Jane Fonda Again
Binoy Kampmark
Viral Losses: Australian Universities, Coronavirus and Greed
John W. Whitehead
Gun-Toting Cops Endanger Students and Turn Schools into Prisons
Marshall Sahlins
David Brooks, Public Intellectual
February 24, 2020
Stephen Corry
New Deal for Nature: Paying the Emperor to Fence the Wind
M. K. Bhadrakumar
How India’s Modi is Playing on Trump’s Ego to His Advantage
Jennifer Matsui
Tycoon Battle-Bots Battle Bernie
Robert Fisk
There’s Little Chance for Change in Lebanon, Except for More Suffering
Rob Wallace
Connecting the Coronavirus to Agriculture
Bill Spence
Burning the Future: the Growing Anger of Young Australians
Eleanor Eagan
As the Primary Race Heats Up, Candidates Forget Principled Campaign Finance Stands
Binoy Kampmark
The Priorities of General Motors: Ditching Holden
George Wuerthner
Trojan Horse Timber Sales on the Bitterroot
Rick Meis
Public Lands “Collaboration” is Lousy Management
David Swanson
Bloomberg Has Spent Enough to Give a Nickel to Every Person Whose Life He’s Ever Damaged
Peter Cohen
What Tomorrow May Bring: Politics of the People
Peter Harrison
Is It as Impossible to Build Jerusalem as It is to Escape Babylon?
Weekend Edition
February 21, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Election Con 2020: Exposing Trump’s Deception on the Opioid Epidemic
Joshua Frank
Bloomberg is a Climate Change Con Man
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Billion Dollar Babies
Paul Street
More Real-Time Reflections from Your Friendly South Loop Marxist
Jonathan Latham
Extensive Chemical Safety Fraud Uncovered at German Testing Laboratory
Ramzy Baroud
‘The Donald Trump I know’: Abbas’ UN Speech and the Breakdown of Palestinian Politics
Martha Rosenberg
A Trump Sentence Commutation Attorneys Generals Liked
Ted Rall
Bernie Should Own the Socialist Label
Louis Proyect
Encountering Malcolm X
Kathleen Wallace
The Debate Question That Really Mattered
Jonathan Cook
UN List of Firms Aiding Israel’s Settlements was Dead on Arrival
George Wuerthner
‘Extremists,’ Not Collaborators, Have Kept Wilderness Whole
Colin Todhunter
Apocalypse Now! Insects, Pesticide and a Public Health Crisis  
Stephen Reyna
A Paradoxical Colonel: He Doesn’t Know What He is Talking About, Because He Knows What He is Talking About.
Evaggelos Vallianatos
A New Solar Power Deal From California
Richard Moser
One Winning Way to Build the Peace Movement and One Losing Way
Laiken Jordahl
Trump’s Wall is Destroying the Environment We Worked to Protect
Walden Bello
Duterte Does the Right Thing for a Change
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail