We do not have enough legal protections for this kind of surveillance currently. The technology has outstripped our system of laws, and checks & balances. We need new legal protections. Urgently.
------------
Here is a good essay from the Washington University School of Law in 2012. This one talks about the "chill" on discussion of political and social issues--ie. the way that societies censor themselves when there is too much surveillance.
I read this whole essay in a short time--it is so well written and clear. I urge everyone to click on the link to the PDF and read this now, and send it to others. It will give you an overview of the issues in a very readable format:
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/symposium/papers2012/richards.pdf
"The Dangers of Surveillance" by Neil Richards
Excerpt:
"Existing attempts to define the dangers of surveillance are often unconvincing, and they have generally failed to speak in terms that are likely to influence the law. In this essay, I try to explain the harms of government surveillance. Drawing on law, history, literature, and the work of scholars in the emerging interdisciplinary field of “surveillance studies,” I offer an account of what those harms are and why they matter. I will move beyond the vagueness of current theories of surveillance to articulate a more coherent understanding and a more workable approach.
At the level of theory, I will explain when surveillance is particularly dangerous, and when it is not. Surveillance is harmful because it can chill the exercise of our civil liberties, and because it gives the watcher power over the watched. In terms of civil liberties, consider surveillance of people when they are thinking, reading, and communicating with others in order to make up their minds about their political and social beliefs. Such intellectual surveillance is particularly dangerous because it can cause people not to experiment with new, controversial, or deviant ideas. To protect our intellectual freedom to think without state oversight or interference, we need what I have elsewhere called “intellectual privacy.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
