Public Perception Of Surveillance Top Of Form Public Support

Public Perception Of Surveillancetop Of Formpublic Support For State S

Public Perception of Surveillance Top of Form Public support for state surveillance: In the wake of the COVID-19 virus, one could expect greater demand for technology that helps to monitor and control infected people. Ziller and Helbling (2021) state that monitoring technology's main intention was to prevent terrorist attacks and crime or control disease spreading. But at the same time, mass surveillance encroaches on civil liberties and undermines citizens' support for related policies. Ziller and Helbling (2021) argued that support for Surveillance depends on the salience of security-related threats, the range of the policy measure, and the risk of data protection violations. Additionally, they conducted experiments in Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Spain, randomly assigning surveillance policies with varying characteristics.

I believe that Surveillance could help identify the coronavirus spread in crowded places to control the spread. However, it is unacceptable to punish innocent citizens if the COVID-19 spreads through a particular citizen unaware of their situation. There are two types of surveillance measures: targeted and dragnet, which focus on a specific individual or group and collect information on all members of society (Ziller & Helbling, 2021). While dragnet surveillance typically requires greater organizational effort, technological development and decreasing I.T. costs have reduced the expense of implementing large-scale surveillance. Citizens are likely to expect targeted surveillance to emphasize safety, but encroachments on the rights of privacy and personal freedoms might become more relevant compared to targeted measures.

Dark mirror: Edward Snowden and the American surveillance state: Pulitzer Prize winner Steven Gellman chronicled his reporting on Edward Snowden's revelations of the NSA's mass surveillance programs (Wescott, 2020). Snowden provided over 50,000 documents detailing how the NSA operates, including documents, instant messages, email conversations, and metadata on phone calls. Wescott (2020) argued that such data could erode privacy and lead to an increasing "tyranny of metrics." Furthermore, the author took extreme measures to ensure the security of the data trove provided by NSA contractor Snowden, independently verifying Snowden's allegations. Snowden decided to work through journalists to give independent credibility to his findings and to take a careful approach in determining which reporters should publish NSA documents.

Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the mass surveillance of Americans' telephone records. An appeals court has found the program unlawful, and those intelligence leaders lied about it. Snowden says the ruling vindicates his decision to go public with evidence. I believe that Snowden exploded after viewing how the United States surveillance program used the infrastructure to spy on the public, which was otherwise thought secure. From the public perspective, they would never trust the government if the government tracked their activities without their consent and permission from law enforcement with solid proof that they are a danger to the community.

Surveillance State: After Roe v. Wade, a Texas abortion ban that originated in the 1850s roared back to life. Doctors or anyone violating the ban could be imprisoned for life and fined up to $100,000. S.B. 8 was an end-run around the right to abortion and a weapon of fear and surveillance. Levy (2022) states that vigilante-style laws like Texas' S.B. 8 now reach into school bathrooms, classrooms, and sports. Vigilante enforcement laws allowed them to attack the government's legal and social norms and turned citizens into spies in a surveillance scheme more reminiscent of a totalitarian state. Texas citizens turning into spies would be very dangerous to society as it impacts citizens' privacy. Because of this, citizens could not live peacefully, as the vigilantes could misuse their authority to target minority groups.

Additionally, the reach into bathrooms could make girls and women feel hostile as they would live in fear. Furthermore, vigilante-style monitoring does not follow any particular training to enforce policies, which could lead to the mishandling of power to impose on immigrants. Considering the high crime rates in the United States, police and law enforcement could be overwhelmed in handling cases that arise due to vigilantism. Modern democracy: Data, surveillance creep, and more authoritarian regimes? According to Medicott (2020), surveillance creep is not a new phenomenon but has been prominent for some time. The 2016 U.S. election and Brexit showcased the erosion of privacy and the control large tech corporations have in our lives.

Medicott (2020) states that the government has highly normalized the rise of surveillance and data collection in today’s world, raising significant ethical concerns about privacy and safety. Data has become arguably the most valuable resource today. The spread of right-wing populism, along with leaders like Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, and Rodrigo Duterte, has demonstrated how data is used to influence political discourse. I agree with Medicott that surveillance creep is not new; historically, governments have spied on fewer targeted citizens. However, advances in surveillance technology increase their capacity to monitor with fewer resources. As right-wing leaders gain power worldwide, they tend to impose conservative laws that may suppress freedoms, especially if they target religious or minority groups, which should not be imposed on all citizens.

Regarding Marseille, France: Police utilized extensive surveillance to enforce pandemic lockdowns and monitor protests (Macdonald, 2022). Critics highlighted the overreach of their surveillance system, which prioritized capturing a specific class of offenders. The new mayor of Marseille pledged to halt such invasive video surveillance. The Big Data of Public Tranquillity project, initiated in 2017, aimed to analyze data from police, hospitals, public services, and cameras using AI for predicting security risks. Yet, concerns arose about privacy violations, data breaches, and racial bias, given Marseille's significant North African population (Macdonald, 2022).

The case of Marseille exemplifies how surveillance technology can be misused, misidentifying individuals due to poor image quality or biases in AI systems. Metz (2021) highlights that artificial intelligence used against Black communities has demonstrated considerable deficiencies, often perpetuating racial biases. The use of large datasets to train these systems requires demographic considerations and bias mitigation strategies to prevent discrimination and protect human rights.

Paper For Above instruction

Public perception of surveillance has become a critical issue in contemporary society, especially in response to crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, rising terrorism threats, and political upheavals. The balance between security and individual privacy remains contentious, with various perspectives influenced by technological capabilities, government policies, and social anxieties. Analyzing the different facets of public perception reveals both support for surveillance measures in the name of safety and concern over civil liberties violations.

The COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, expedited the adoption of surveillance technologies aimed at monitoring infected individuals and containing the virus spread. As Ziller and Helbling (2021) discuss, public support for such measures hinges on the perceived threat level and the scope of data collected. Targeted surveillance—aimed at specific individuals—might garner greater acceptance as it ostensibly respects privacy while enhancing safety. Conversely, dragnet or mass surveillance—collecting data from entire populations—raises fears over privacy invasions and potential misuse of information. The tension here is that while such measures can identify and isolate COVID-19 clusters effectively, they risk infringing on civil liberties if policies are not transparent or proportionate.

Beyond health crises, the revelations from Edward Snowden in 2013 exposed extensive government surveillance programs, notably the NSA's mass collection of telephone metadata. Snowden's disclosures triggered global debates about privacy, security, and state overreach. Wescott (2020) contends that Snowden's whistleblowing demonstrated how unchecked surveillance could erode civil liberties, leading to a "tyranny of metrics" where individuals are constantly monitored, and their behaviors quantified. The public's trust in government agencies diminishes when they realize that their activities—communication, location, and online behaviors—are subject to covert surveillance without their consent. Snowden's actions, although controversial, catalyzed reforms and increased skepticism about surveillance practices.

In the context of reproductive rights and the rise of vigilante laws like Texas' S.B. 8, surveillance takes an intrusive turn whereby citizens are turned into spies, enforcing laws that threaten privacy and safety. Levy (2022) notes that such vigilante enforcement blurs the lines between law and vigilantism, creating a surveillance environment that echoes totalitarian regimes. The fear is that citizens' fear of being watched or targeted might suppress their free expression and lead to discrimination, particularly against minority communities. This form of surveillance not only undermines trust but also fosters social hostility, as vulnerable groups may live in constant fear of retaliation or harassment.

In examining the broader landscape, Medicott (2020) discusses the phenomenon of surveillance creep—gradual expansion of surveillance measures disguised as safety or efficiency improvements. This trend has been evident during elections and political upheavals, where governments leverage technology to influence public opinion or suppress dissent. The normalization of data collection, especially by private tech firms, raises critical ethical questions regarding privacy rights. The rise of right-wing populist leaders worldwide signifies another dimension, as they often use surveillance and data-driven tactics to consolidate power and suppress opposition. The use of data to manipulate political discourse exemplifies the potential for surveillance systems to undermine democratic institutions.

The case of Marseille highlights the risks of overreach in surveillance practices. The deployment of AI and facial recognition aimed at maintaining public order inadvertently led to racial biases and misidentification issues. Metz (2021) confirms that AI systems, trained on biased datasets, tend to perpetuate discrimination, disproportionately affecting minority groups. These technological shortcomings emphasize the need for careful regulation, transparency, and bias-mitigation strategies to prevent misuse and ensure equitable treatment across populations.

In conclusion, public perception of surveillance is multifaceted, influenced by the perceived benefits of security and the potential threats to civil liberties. While surveillance technologies can enhance public health responses, counterterrorism, and law enforcement, their implementation must be balanced with strong safeguards to protect privacy rights. Transparency, oversight, and community engagement are essential to fostering trust and ensuring that surveillance measures serve the public interest without infringing on individual freedoms. As societies navigate this complex landscape, ongoing dialogue and ethical considerations are vital for maintaining democratic values in an increasingly surveilled world.

References

• Levy, P. (2022). Surveillance State. Mother Jones, 47(6), 42–65.
• MacDonald, F. (2022). Marseille vs. the surveillance state. MIT Technology Review, 125(4), 28–37.
• Medicott, O. (2020, October 10). Modern democracy: Data, surveillance creep and more authoritarian regimes? ORF. Retrieved November 24, 2022, from https://www.orfonline.org
• Metz, C. (2021, March 15). Who is making sure the A.I. machines aren't racist? The New York Times.
• Wescott, C. G. (2020). Dark mirror: Edward Snowden and the american surveillance state. Governance, 33(4), 976–979.
• Ziller, C., & Helbling, M. (2021). Public support for state surveillance. European Journal of Political Research, 60(4), 994–1006.
• Additional scholarly sources to be included if necessary for research depth.