Mass Surveillance Ethical Arguments towards a Unifying Ideal Robert Heston

“It is sometimes morally acceptable for a society to monitor the communications and activities of all of its citizens if that information could be used to prevent violence against innocent people.” In researching arguments for and against the use of mass surveillance, I find all the information based on the facts as they relate to the actual use of mass surveillance in the world today.

When looking to history for my guide, the facts I find there are one example after another about how some repressive and violent regime used mass surveillance against its own people in an attempt to control them. I could not find examples where mass surveillance had been used to the benefit of a society. There are many others.

 The “Great Purge” in Russia during Stalin  The “Process of National Reorganization” (Dirty War) in Argentina  The Pinochet Regime in Chile  The Holocaust and related during the Nazi’s in Germany  China has been using these tactics for many years.  Any totalitarian, dictatorship, or many other fascist type governments will use mass surveillance and some sort of secret police to get rid of unwanted citizens.  The United States has been slowly progressing towards such things.

The first article: "Just Surveillance? Towards a Normative Theory of Surveillance." (K.Macnish) The Second Article: "Conditions under which Surveillance may be Ethically Justifiable: Remarks on Kevin Macnish's proposed normative theory of surveillance." (E.Palm) Elin PalmKevin Macnish I found 2 articles with a theoretical approach.

Kevin Macnish Used the “Just War Theory” Just war theory (jus bellum iustum) is a doctrine of military ethics studied by theologians, ethicists, policy makers, and military leaders. The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. It began a long time ago… St. Thomas Aquinas Saint Augustine Kevin Macnish derived these 7 points to apply to mass surveillance: “authority, right intention, just cause, necessity, declaration of intent, reasonable chance of success, proportionality of both ends and means, and adds discrimination.” Elin Palm added these 4: “privacy, autonomy, equality, and liberty”

Authority: Has authority been given correctly? Right intention: Are the reasons for this justifiable? Just Cause: What is the basis for this action? Is it ethical? Necessity: The scope of this should fit the need. Declaration of intent: Are the people made aware? Reasonable chance of success: Of course we want it to work. Proportionality: This is only used for the stated purpose then ended. Privacy: An obvious concern. All non-target data should be eventually disposed of. Autonomy: Oppression and propaganda will not be part of it. Equality: Palm added this, but did not explain it. Liberty: The people should be able to maintain their freedoms. Both sides of the argument agree these points should be met. I believe they will not be met therefore I disagree with the statement.

It is my position that if given the power to carry out mass surveillance, our government will not be able to resist the temptations presented by such power. I believe they will do what all other governments have done with this power.  Use of surveillance data to design propaganda and change the culture to pro-government  Identify and dispose of whistleblowers and problem journalists. The truth tellers.  Identify and dispose of any opposition to the government.  Identify and dispose of all dissenters. Primarily those who will hold protest marches.  Control the population with fear. Like they do now with the terrorism issues.  Discourage free thought, creativity, and higher education among the general population.  Oppress the population and take all of its wealth

I do not believe that you can carry out successful, effective mass surveillance and satisfy the checks and balances of an ethical and moral framework for doing so at the same time. It needs secrecy. The fruits of mass surveillance are power over the population. “Power Corrupts” and I am sure that the government and its big business friends will not be able to resist the temptation to use that power to control the people of this country… or would any country. I am sure they are already given to that temptation now.

Mass surveillance is a primary tool that will enable the destruction of our democracy and turn this country into a totalitarian oligarchy. The majority of people will become ignorant, powerless peasants and they will be ruled by the rich 1%. We might as well become zombies or Star Trek’s the Borg as to be citizens in this country in the future.

All these things have already begun in this country. The majority of the public is falling victim to the relentless propaganda that comes to them through the mass media and they do not resist the powers that are stealing everything that has been good about this country away from them. We are in a war with the 1% and we are being divided and conquered. More and more people are beginning to see this every day. There is very little time left to take our country back…