George Orwell’s classic novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, illustrates a dystopian state

where ‘Big Brother’, the supposed leader of the state, has an omnipresent surveillance

system. This system was used to crack down on potential dissidents. The popularized phrase

‘Big Brother is watching you’ sums up such fear of government surveillance. Luckily, we are

still a long way from the materialization of this reality. However the recent Snowden affair

has set alarm bells ringing, on the direction that surveillance by governments is taking.

Edward Snowden, an ex-NSA (National Surveillance Agency) contractor released

several papers that confirmed the existence of several governmental surveillance programmes

such as PRISM which have been stealthily collecting information on American citizens.

While trying to fish for a few selected terrorism suspects, NSA employed a dragnet approach

to data collection, assuming to use the seine instead of a fishing rod. Data were collected

from all possible sources: wiretaps, online social media information, web history, location

updates etc. These large untreated raw data are then stored in huge servers marked for future

use. Many have deemed NSA’s actions as unconstitutional as it conflicts with USA’s Fourth

Amendment, which prevents authorities from conducting searches without probable cause to

believe that a crime has been committed. The unwarranted probe into the average citizen’s

life did not come with any reason to believe that a crime has been committed.

This whole debacle opened up the can of worms that is ubiquitous government

surveillance, the true crux of the entire Snowden affair. On one hand government surveillance

is seen as a necessary evil, on the other, government surveillance represents a threat to

democracy and the ideals of freedom. The question that we as citizens need to consider is

whether there is enough reason to warrant ubiquitous government surveillance, especially

when the targets are ourselves and if not, what is an acceptable alternative? Also, should we

have a say or should we blindly believe in the system to keep us safe.

1

Before we answer these questions, there is a need to identify the key stakeholders at

play. They are namely the government, citizens and large corporations, which aid the

governments in collecting data. Each of these three stakeholders has a unique stand on the

issue of government surveillance.

From a global perspective, the total spending on security by governments worldwide

skyrocketed following the events of 9/11. It increased by six fold to around USD$59 billion

in year 2006 from year 20001 while the US intelligence budget doubled2. The increase in

spending was justified by the threat of terrorism; there was a dire need to protect key national

resources and interests from potential attacks. Large corporations were roped in to satisfy this

increase in demand. In the US, Snowden’s employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, was a huge

beneficiary of this flow of event. This privatization of national security helped to fill up the

gaps but made national security more brittle than ever, as contractual workers like Snowden

are exposed to a wealth of information that they would normally not have access to.

Detractors of NSA’s surveillance programmes argue that the sheer scope and size of

surveillance programmes, which NSA employs, ensures a far greater amount of false

positives than actual sinister plots of terrorism. Innocent law-abiding citizens may have their

day-to-day lives disrupted because of a few choice words that set off the algorithms used by

NSA to identify potential suspects. Analogically, the NSA are wiretapping everyone to find

evidence for terrorism, when they should be wiretapping only when there is evidence for

terrorism.

However, this ignores the fact that there are simply no viable alternatives for

governments to prevent terrorist attacks. Terrorists operate covertly and the war against terror

does not share the same mechanism of conventional warfare. Hence, conventional warfare

1 Gary, S. (2006, October 09). Homeland security generates multibillion dollar business. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/2006-09-10-security-industry_x.htm2 Ewen, M., & Johnathan, W. (2013, August 29). Us intelligence spending has doubled since 9/11, top secret budget reveals. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/us-intelligence-spending-double-9-11-secret-budget

2

methods of data collection, such as tapping on radio signals, simply are not viable options.

Moreover, the increase in penetration rate of the Internet has extended the sphere of influence

exerted by extreme ideologies. The threat of terrorism has shifted from foreign shores to our

backyards. This has made it increasingly hard for authorities to keep track of terrorist

suspects, as they often do not fit into the typical mold that we have come to expect. Therein

underlines the need for such surveillance programs, which theoretically would be able to

identify such homegrown threats to national security. Governments are charged with the duty

to protect their citizens from harm, thus there is a need for them to be always one step ahead

in this cat and mouse game.

However, even though there is a reason for government surveillance, it does not mean

that the methods employed are effective in safeguarding the people. The recent Boston

marathon bombings were a painful reminder of one that got away. Dzhokhar, the younger

brother revealed that they had downloaded the plan for bomb making off the Internet3. How

did such a big red flag get past the multi-million dollar analytics system of NSA? This

failing has rendered the many supposedly foiled terrorist attack, trumpeted proudly by NSA,

hollow and irrelevant. They had failed in their core mission identifying threats before they

become reality. Therefore, government surveillance is not the panacea to terrorist threats.

Moreover, the sheer scope of the ubiquitous surveillance methods employed

represents a real cause for concern to citizens. As our social media presence increases in size,

the wealth of knowledge to be mined by and utilized also increases. This coupled with

advances in analytical technologies allows anyone who holds these data to create a scarily

accurate profile of the user. It is precisely from analyzing such information that large tech

companies like Google and Facebook are able to generate obscene amounts of advertisement

money. At the hands of these profit driven private companies, what we would encounter are

3 Pete, W., Michael, I., & Eric, M. (2013, April 23). Search of tsarnaevs. Retrieved from http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/23/17877288-search-of-tsarnaevs-phones-computers-finds-no-indication-of-accomplice-source-says?lite

3

only targeted advertisements, hardly an infringement upon our freedom. However, documents

leaked by Snowden revealed the deep connections that large IT companies such as Google

and Yahoo! have with governments. They were revealed to have sold user data to the US

government on request4. In the hands of the government, the same information used for

targeted advertising can potentially become tools to identify potential dissidents and

subsequently become weapons to bring down these dissidents. The culmination of business

and state on the matter of government surveillance heavily threatens the stand of citizens. A

surreal democratic state is but one step away from becoming a totalitarian police state.

Citizens were also not given any say on the matter by the other two stakeholders. The

deliberate concealment of NSA’s surveillance ensures that the US public has had no say on

the matter whatsoever. This ‘blind consent’ was justified on the grounds of the need to

conceal surveillance methods from terrorists, a threat to the state. However, this irony is

evidently lost on the decision makers. While trying to counter threats to their democratic

state, they themselves are trampling upon the ideals of democracy. Terrorists would normally

always operate under the assumption of constant surveillance, rendering the justification that

revelation would undermine counter terrorist efforts null. Public consent does not equate to

public knowledge of surveillance methods, which would otherwise truly undermine the

authorities’ efforts. In a democratic state, citizens should have a say in decision matters with

regards to government surveillance.

The debate on government surveillance does not only apply to the US as most if not

all countries partake in some form of governmental surveillance on their own citizens.

Government surveillance is a precursor to censorship as without constant surveillance, it

would be hard to maintain effective censorship. Singapore is no exception to the rule. The

Media Development Authority (MDA) of Singapore recently announced a new ruling which

4 Edward, M. (2013, August 23). Nsa paid tech firms over prism, says latest snowden leak. Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57599952-38/nsa-paid-tech-firms-over-prism-says-latest-snowden-leak/

4

require news sites that post more than one story related to Singapore per week or attract more

than 50,000 unique views from Singapore IP addresses to apply for a license5. This can act as

a form of surveillance on sites that post opinions that are politically charged and against the

governmental point of view.

In 2013, 58.66 percent of all Singaporeans have a Facebook account6. This means that

if our government were to choose to (most likely they already do), they would be able to

gather data from half the population’s profiles, everything from the innocuous hobby to the

more politically charged, such as views on politics. This has far reaching consequences

considering the incumbent party’s checkered history in dealing with dissidents. This coupled

with the Internal Security Act (ISA), which grants the Internal Security Department power to

detain anybody suspected of disruption to national security without trial, presents great

potential for abuse. Citizens who voice out opinions against the ruling party on social media

sites could potentially be hauled into jail on grounds of disruption to national harmony

without the need for trial. This is a dangerous tool for any government to have over their

citizens, as there is very little check and balance mechanism in place.

In conclusion, there is a need for citizens to be concerned about the direction which

government surveillance is taking. Democratic governments cannot assume ‘blind consent’ of

their citizens on the matter of surveillance, which infringes upon their rights, and should at

least keep them informed. Hence, there is a need for a system of check and balance with

regards to government surveillance. Governments and businesses have to be open about what

information they are collecting and how these information are being used. Only with

increased transparency on government surveillance would the citizens be able to monitor and

evaluate the doings of the government, keeping in faith with the true spirit of democracy.

5 Tessa, W. (2013, May 28). Mda rolls out licence scheme for news websites. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/new-licensing-scheme-news-websites-reach-50000-people-month-201305286 Singapore facebook statistics. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/singapore

5