George Orwell has already warned us: ‘Big Brother is watching you’. In his novel ‘1984’, written in 1948, he paints a picture of a chilling, dictatorial state, where the ubiquitous leader of the party is called ‘Big Brother’. The expansion of government surveillance tasks, the explosion of personal data on the Internet and the installation of surveillance cameras on the streets have revived Orwell’s criticism. The privacy debate has reopened…
The right to be left alone
Orwell’s novel was a direct indictment of the then Soviet communism and Stalin’s policies. But the picture he painted is a universal doomsday scenario. Cameras are installed in the houses, every citizen is monitored 24/7. No one can escape it. Very creepy. The first definition of privacy right (Warren and Brandeis) is also the right to be left alone. Law is the legal protection of our privacy and revolves around the protection of personal data, the protection of our body and our home and the protection of family life. It also includes the right to communicate confidentially by letter, telephone, e-mail and the like. In the Netherlands, the right to privacy is laid down in articles ten to thirteen of the Dutch Constitution. An important part of privacy, the protection of personal data, is laid down in the Implementation Act of the General Data Protection Regulation (UAVG). The right is also guaranteed in various international treaties.
Conflicting interests
The right to privacy is at odds with other interests. Safety is one of them. Particularly since September 11, the start of the manhunt for terrorists, privacy has come under further pressure. The attack on the World Strate Centers, the Pentagon and the attempted attack on probably the White House have shown how the American security services (the NSA, CIA and FBI) have systematically failed. In response to the then flaring up war on terror, the US introduced the Patriot Act, among other things. This law gives the US government far-reaching powers to eavesdrop and investigate all kinds of private data. Supporters of this law point out the major advantage: terrorism can be combated much better. Opponents of this law say that it would affect the privacy of citizens too much.
The super chip
More than 85% of the Dutch population considers more camera surveillance desirable or very desirable. Even almost 100% consider the broader application of DNA techniques to identify perpetrators desirable. The growing desire for more security and the threat of terrorism seem to mean that citizens have less and less difficulty accepting the limitations of privacy, according to the Social Cultural Planning Office in 2004. But although there is not much resistance from society privacy restrictions, there is criticism, especially from the left. There were also internet providers who protested against storing internet traffic. The Socialist Party believes that the European Commission is giving in far too quickly to American diplomatic pressure. PvdA MEP Edith Mastenbroek thought the plan to place computer chips in passports went too far. You could track citizens throughout the country via such a chip. On August 28, 2006, the biometric passport, which contains a wafer-thin RFID chip, was introduced.
Who are really scary?
In recent years there has been a lot of activity aimed at improving disaster response. These measures should prepare the Netherlands for so-called catastrophic terrorism. The government must make every effort to track down and eliminate potential terrorists. It means that we have to give up parts of our privacy, for the sake of our security and the national peace of mind. The ideology behind it is that everything can be investigated: we have nothing to hide, right? And people who do not believe that the state should look at everything are certainly terrorists themselves. While proponents of more state control mainly emphasize security, the smaller group of opponents talk about what they call the private sphere. Opponents probably don’t trust the government that much. They are more likely to point to the great lessons of history, to the Stasi, the Gestapo and other dark intelligence services. The idea behind this is that ultimately we always have more to fear from the state than from a number of terrorists who blow something up every now and then. After all, there are more traffic victims than there are people who fall prey to terrorists.
No way back?
It turns out that state security and the fear of terror weigh too much: privacy will have to pay the price. The tapping of telephone conversations has now increased significantly, internet traffic is registered, e-mail messages are recorded, transport and trade in dangerous substances are closely monitored, Schiphol has increased security, and identification documents have been made mandatory. And the possibilities in the field of ICT continue to increase rapidly. This means that the government has almost no choice but to continue to fulfill its supervisory duties in order to remain in control.