THE INHERENT CONFLICT BETWEEN NATIONAL SECURITY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
There are two drawbacks to the digital age’s assurance of seamless, unobstructed global information dissemination. This technology offers quick communication, abundant information, and innovations that enhance various aspects of daily living. Concerns regarding privacy intrusions and other human rights breaches are escalating alongside the emergence of digital technology, including cybercrimes and threats. The intricate relationship between technology surveillance and human rights, emphasizing critical aspects, obstacles, and approaches for protecting human rights from widespread and intrusive monitoring. The principal The Implications for Human Rights Deference for individual boundaries Privacy is a prerequisite for nearly all other rights, encompassing the ability to associate, communicate, hold political beliefs, access healthcare, pursue education, and procreate. Nonetheless, various international instruments, including the UDHR, the ICCPR, and regional documents such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, and the Malabo Convention, assert that privacy is increasingly jeopardized by the widespread use of surveillance technologies. The extensive collecting of data, clandestine observation, and direct surveillance undermine individuals’ autonomy and their legitimate expectation of privacy in both public and private spheres. Rights of Expression: Surveillance technology is poised to compromise the safeguarding of free speech as enshrined in the UDHR and the ICCPR. Depending on their implementation, these technologies may suppress speech by dissuading dissent and prompting self-censorship, so infringing against the right to free expression. [1]
For instance, the legislation of at least 22 nations either requires or strongly recommends that social media businesses and internet platforms employ machine learning to suppress controversial, politically sensitive, socially relevant, or otherwise unpopular information. The erosion of free speech is unequivocally attributable to digital technology. The right to assemble and form associations
Monitoring individuals’ online activities, shopping habits, and communication methods may hinder their capacity to assemble and associate peacefully. This contravenes the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and the 1948 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Individuals may hesitate to arrange demonstrations, participate in protests, or join advocacy groups if they are being monitored. This may result in revenge or other unforeseen repercussions. Moreover, electronic surveillance has impacted the right to a fair trial, as ensured by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 11 and 14(2)) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 11).
Corporations, social media platforms, telecommunications entities, and public venues may be subjected to surveillance that restricts the right to peaceful assembly and association. Individuals may hesitate to arrange demonstrations, participate in protests, or join advocacy groups if they are being monitored. This may result in revenge or other unforeseen repercussions. A plethora of ethical dilemmas emerges from the advancement, deployment, and societal consequences of surveillance technologies. [2]The utilization of surveillance data in judicial proceedings presents a substantial threat to the right to a fair trial and due process. We are now evaluating the data for acceptability and quality. Data collecting and tracking techniques jeopardise the right to a fair trial by heightening the probability of biased and unjust proceedings. Obstacles to safeguarding human rights by technology surveillance.
In a world where nearly every facet of our everyday existence is transitioning online, we are becoming progressively susceptible. Privacy and the aforementioned fundamental human rights may be restricted in response to a public emergency that threatens national security, according to both international and domestic law. It is well recognized that the expansion of technology surveillance exceeds acceptable privacy considerations. Discrepancies in Legislation and Regulation: The rapid growth of technology and the slow adaptation of current legal frameworks imperil human rights protections against abuses of surveillance technology.
The absence of comprehensive and effective legislation governing surveillance technologies in numerous jurisdictions leads to uncertainty, inconsistent protections, and deficiencies. The Declaration stipulates that reports regarding monitoring in Africa must be submitted “within a reasonable time following the completion of such surveillance.” The interception order is non-appealable in several countries, including Uganda, unlike Section 18 of Zimbabwe’s Interception of Communications Act. On February 4, 2021, the South African Constitutional Court deemed the Regulation of Interception of Communication Act unconstitutional. The court referenced insufficient safeguards against ex parte interception orders and the delayed notification to the subject of monitoring, which compromised its purpose after its conclusion, as grounds for the finding. It is crucial to note that the majority of interception orders in Africa are issued ex parte to law enforcement agencies, necessitating the confidentiality of the individuals or companies involved in their coordination. Notices and appeals are ineffective in nations such as Rwanda, Zambia, and Uganda, where certain orders are enforced or granted verbally without warrants. Data Breach: The Declaration consolidates and upholds the fundamental principles of safeguarding rights, free expression, and information accessibility in accordance with regional and international law. [3]
Large-scale data collection and storage increase the likelihood of identity theft, security breaches, and unauthorized access, jeopardizing individuals’ privacy and safety.Significant documents disclosed by former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden in June 2013 and disseminated by various newspapers indicate that the US, UK, and other governments participated in unregulated and indiscriminate data interception, disregarding millions of innocent individuals who were not implicated in any wrongdoing or offences jeopardizing national security. Numerous nations have not adhered to the requirements set forth in the Declaration and international law on the scope, transparency, and administration of regional surveillance operations. A judge in Uganda have the power to indefinitely extend an interception warrant that is originally valid for three months. The Cybercrime Act of 2015 in Tanzania lacks a specification about the duration of the interception order’s validity.
By the conclusion of 2023, over eight million records may have been hacked globally. Encryption and anonymity enhance the rights to privacy, access to information, and freedom of speech. Numerous governments restrict encryption technology due to concerns that it may impede efforts to combat cybercrime, terrorism, and legal threats. The Ugandan government mandated telecom companies to limit the utilization of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and enforce SIM registration to address social media “tax evasion.” Consequently, Uganda emerged as one of the African regimes that has previously compromised encryption. Data protection, surveillance, and interception legislation across several jurisdictions requires quick unification and harmonization. Accountability is compromised, and the potential for misuse is heightened due to the covert nature of technology and surveillance operations, the absence of a transparent procedure, and independent mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, and control. Nigeria exemplifies the existence of legislation designed to guarantee transparency and accountability in technology surveillance. In many nations, such as Rwanda and Zimbabwe, legislation mandates that the agencies responsible for authorising such interceptions maintain a record of them. It is essential to furnish this data to the President, the Attorney General, or the Prosecutor General.
Despite great attempts, there is no proof of its implementation in real-world contexts. Technological Impermanence: The fundamental tenet of technological determinism posits that advancements in technology are intrinsically beneficial. By disregarding the potential adverse consequences of technological advancement, it obstinately asserts that technology just enhances human existence. [4]
Consequently, the expansion of technological surveillance jeopardises the protection of human rights. Governments that excessively depend on technological surveillance may unjustly target Human Rights Defenders (HRDs), journalists, and activists by restricting freedom of speech, expression, and access to information. The notorious “Pegasus” spyware, created by the Israeli firm “NSO Group,” has targeted human rights defenders in Morocco since 2017. Stella Nyanzi and KakwenzaRukirabashaija are among numerous journalists, activists, and writers who have been incarcerated in Uganda since the advent of the internet and the enactment of contentious cyber legislation. Moreover, in totalitarian regimes, the restricted online area for expression may be obstructed by automated censoring mechanisms. In pursuing technological oversight within the context of human rights, it is evident that states with rapid responses must act with caution. Guidelines/Solutions for the Challenges: What actions should we undertake? While human rights are undeniably important, it is essential to protect the nation from cybercrimes, terrorism, and data breaches, all while guaranteeing adherence to human rights legislation and technological progress.
[1] Alex Schmid, Political Terrorism: A Research Guide to Concept, Theories, Data Basis and Literature (North Holland Publication, Amsterdam, 1984).
[2] Arun Kumar, Secret Wars- The Shadowy World of Spies and Killers (Har-Anand Publication, New Delhi, 1994)
[3] Attar Chand, Terrorism: Political Violence and Security of Nations (Gian Publishing House, Delhi, 1988).
[4] B.P. Singh Sehgal (ed), Global Terrorism: Socio-Political and Legal Dimension (Deep & Deep Publication, New Delhi, 1996).