- 05/12/2017
- Category: Commentaries
Governing the digital society needs an in-depth understanding of the new form of interactions. In the past, the flow of information and the limitations of what could be consumed are the subject of governance and often limited by the role of government intervening the media. Truthfully, this practice is limited to government’s power sustaining maneuvers in several countries, which include Indonesia for quite some time. Nevertheless, information created the informed society, the very existence of access empowers them to be aware of their surroundings, allowing them to criticize the government or even to take action. When the issue of security is peaking, amidst terrorism, radicalism, and even illicit trading on the Internet, the government is entitled to the certain degree of authority to assure domestic security.
In the present-day, it is common to see the installation of CCTV, state registered SIM-cards, even in extreme cases granted access to social media accounts to monitor the development of possibility of malevolent actors on the Internet. The notion of surveillance had been rejected by various groups that claim the action violated one’s privacy, freedom, and there should be limitations to what the government can intervene especially in such a sensitive matter. Surveillance and often followed through by the variety of bans are what is known as short-term solutions, the kind of answer created by policymakers as a response to emerging problem.
Organized crime in the form of terrorism and illicit trades are the primary concerns of the state. As a way to assure order and national security, surveillance does sound appealing; an ideal practice knowing that everything is under state’s range. After the 9/11, the United States jacked its domestic surveillance on monitoring its people activities, with that the government foiled 39 terrorist plots which are potentially harmful to the country.[i] Nonetheless, in the context of democracy and transparency aside from national security agenda, civil society has the rights to problematize surveillance.
A Case against Surveillance
Surveillance has been a security approach exercised by several countries, e.g. the United Kingdom is primarily known for the abundance of CCTV in every corner of London and the new Investigatory Powers Act that legalize a whole range of tools for snooping and hacking by the security services.[ii] In 2006, WikiLeaks under Julian Assange also released the withhold information that testify against the United States government for non-consensual e-mail surveillance.[iii] People’s Republic China bans mainstream sites and currently planning to develop a project that will strengthen the authorities’ hands against unexpected social unrest.[iv] Moreover, another digital leak which also claimed discreet surveillance conducted by the government of Russia spying on peoples’ internet and mobile activities also occurred.[v]
Surveillance in all forms has been the subject of ethical debate, a debate which allows us to understand the extent of freedom. Humans as sovereign entities attached itself to the identification provided by the state to exercise their rights as citizens (including the right to be represented and protected). In the case of the removal of one’s freedom against national collective security, these incomparable variables are being used to promote surveillance and various bans by governments. However, it does not answer the notion of how these methods open up the chances for institutions to abuse information, especially when countries are granted the justification to monitor every movement of the people. By gaining access to private and personal information, the state can expose the people to their vulnerability. The state must remain impartial and critical in handling information as it can be easily used against the citizens regardless of the context.
Moreover, the idea of non-consensual surveillance or even spying will cause deepening distrust. The creation of ‘surveillance society ‘i.e. when people became aware of the need to be spied and that creates a reality where citizens see themselves as untrustworthy. Reciprocally, citizens may feel that the governments are untrustworthy.[vi] Moreover, the increasing forms of mass surveillance send a clear message to the public ‘that everybody is untrustworthy. Even though according to Raab, there is a discourse for trust versus risk in the context of policymaking. In addition to that, he points out that face-to-face and other interactions amongst mutually known actors, virtual transactions with strangers and abstract systems extend chains of (inter)dependence into new territory in which familiar ways of establishing trust are absent, and the reliability of newer mechanisms remains to be tested.[vii]
In order to equally fulfil the rights’ of citizens in pertaining their freedom and privacy, a holistic approach must be taken by a country. By that, surveillance, under necessary circumstances (which explain the degree of national security) must be defined by the government which includes the limitations of the policy, with high regards to transparency and citizens’ rights in defending their privacy. More importantly, in combating free flowing harmful information on the Internet, promoting users’ digital literacy would give people the capability to distinguish the kind of information which is substantial to the digital users.
Indonesia: to see or not to see
Indonesia, in particular, has not proposed a new regulation on national intelligence form. In the past, to assure security, the government allows societal surveillance for reporting suspicious behavior linked to terrorism.[viii] However, the new policy of SIM card registration does perpetuate discussion among the people regarding the means of action. Taufik Hasan, in explaining the measure of this new policy, explained the urgency of this policy as it is important for policymakers to identify mobile users in particular, and it gives chances for the government to avoid spam, hoax, fraud, and such roams freely.[ix]
Indonesia’s Ministry of Communication alongside the President wanted to introduce this initiative alongside the ongoing fight against hoax, online radicalization, and to promote digital literacy. Despite the new SIM card registration policy does have a slight surveillance nature into it, the government is trying to apply two sides of the action by pushing the digital literacy agenda further.[x] Transparency and public emancipation should be the leading preposition offered by the government in comparison to blatant surveillance on private information. The government should uphold its legitimacy by not constructing inherent distrust with the people even further, and this issue should not be used as a way for polarizing the people especially in preparation for the 2019 election. In fact, it should be able to reform the Internet as a safe space that protects both the users’ freedom and domestic security.
Picture :
References :
[i] Heritage Foundation (2011). 39 Terror Plots Foiled Since 9/11: Examining Counterterrorism’s Success Stories. Terrorism Report. Washington DC: The Heritage Foundation.
[ii] MacAskill, E. (2016). ‘Extreme surveillance’ becomes UK law with barely a whimper. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/19/extreme-surveillance-becomes-uk-law-with-barely-a-whimper [Accessed 7 Nov. 2017].
[iii] Gao, G. (2015). What Americans think about NSA surveillance, national security and privacy. [online] Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americans-think-about-nsa-surveillance-national-security-and-privacy/ [Accessed 7 Nov. 2017].
[iv] Wang, M. (2017). China’s dystopian push to revolutionize surveillance. [online] Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/08/18/chinas-dystopian-push-to-revolutionize-surveillance/?utm_term=.65c171c63e07 [Accessed 7 Nov. 2017].
[v] Lomas, N. (2017). Wikileaks releases documents it claims detail Russia mass surveillance apparatus. [online] TechCrunch. Available at: https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/19/wikileaks-releases-documents-it-claims-detail-russia-mass-surveillance-apparatus/ [Accessed 7 Nov. 2017].
[vi] Ellis, D., Harper, D. and Tucker, I. (2013). The Dynamics of Impersonal Trust and Distrust in Surveillance Systems. Sociological Research Online, 18(3), pp.1-12.
[vii] Raab, C. (2002). Electronic confidence: trust information and public administration. In: I. Snellen and W. van de Donk, ed., Public Administration in an Information Age: A Handbook, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
[viii] Sofwan, R. (2016). Stop Terorisme, Aplikasi Pelapor Aktivitas Teroris. [online] CNN Indonesia. Available at: https://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20160128113159-185-107320/stop-terorisme-aplikasi-pelapor-aktivitas-teroris/ [Accessed 7 Nov. 2017].
[ix] Center for Digital Society (2017). Responding to the SIM Card Card Re-Registration Policy, Kominfo holds a Public Discussion at FISIPOL UGM – Center for Digital Society. [online] Cfds.fisipol.ugm.ac.id. Available at: http://cfds.fisipol.ugm.ac.id/article/185/press-release-responding-to-the-sim-card-card-re-registration-policy-kominfo-holds-a-public-discussion-at-fisipol-ugm [Accessed 7 Nov. 2017].
[x] Siberkreasi (2017). Tentang Kami – #siberkreasi. [online] Siberkreasi.id. Available at: http://siberkreasi.id/tentang-siberkreasi/ [Accessed 7 Nov. 2017].
