top of page

The Surveillance State: Balancing Security and Privacy

In an increasingly digitized world, government surveillance has become a pervasive reality. From democracies to dictatorships, governments worldwide have developed policies and bureaucracies for maximum data collection and mass surveillance. The centralized nature of modern communication grids facilitates various forms of surveillance, raising critical questions about privacy, security, and the role of citizens in this surveillance state.


Before the internet, authorities tapped into telegraph and telephone lines to intercept communications. Intercepting mail sent by post was also common. As communication systems evolved, so did government surveillance techniques.

The switch from copper wire phone systems to fiber optic cables and the spread of the internet initially challenged the National Security Agency’s (NSA) ability to monitor communications in the US. However, various acts required communication companies to build back doors for remote monitoring by the NSA.


The 2013 Snowden Leaks exposed the NSA’s efforts to “insert vulnerabilities into commercial encryption systems.” The agency constantly pushes for backdoors into encryption software to access communications and devices. Major mobile carriers also include preinstalled surveillance and data mining technology in devices, often without users’ consent.


US companies participate in what’s known as “surveillance capitalism.” They capitalize on data and surveillance capabilities for both government and private purposes. Most US internet traffic flows through a handful of large entities, making user data more accessible to the private sector than in the EU. Companies like Facebook and Google even compile dossiers on non-users to enhance targeted advertising.


A YouGov survey across 13 countries found that there is no majority support for surveillance. Only 26% of people agreed that their government should monitor the communications and internet activity of its own citizens. Similarly, 29% felt their government should monitor overseas citizens. Interestingly, France, Britain, and the Philippines were more accepting of surveillance, while Spain and Sweden were strongly opposed.


As things stand, the surveillance state presents a delicate balance between security and privacy. While governments argue that surveillance is necessary to prevent terrorism and maintain order, citizens worry about the erosion of their privacy rights. Efforts to escape surveillance tend to be counterproductive, often leading to more comprehensive surveillance infrastructure.


As technology advances, the surveillance state is here to stay. Citizens must engage in informed discussions about the trade-offs between security and privacy, ensuring that surveillance practices remain transparent, accountable, and respectful of individual rights.


bottom of page