{"id":366,"date":"2019-06-06T09:45:13","date_gmt":"2019-06-06T09:45:13","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2019-06-07T12:37:39","modified_gmt":"2019-06-07T12:37:39","slug":"human-rights-mass-surveillance-7252","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/human-rights\/human-rights-mass-surveillance-7252.php","title":{"rendered":"Human Rights and Mass Surveillance"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Human Rights Act<\/a>[1]<\/a> set our fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. It incorporates all the rights which are contained in the ECHR[2]<\/a> into UK law. This allows everyone to be treated fairly and equally and sets out our specific rights to life, liberty, privacy<\/a> etc. This essay will be exploring the relationship between human rights and the state surveillance of citizens. In this modern internet age, increasing amounts of personal data is stored. This ranges from our interactions with smartphones and laptops to specific location tracking of individuals through CCTV and GPS. This poses important questions about who is entitled to accessing our data and to what extent is our private information actually private. Throughout this essay, I will be assessing the degree to which our rights are at risk with reference to the close observation of civilians.<\/p>\n

Mass surveillance is the practise of
\nsupervising the population\u2019s actions, locations and communications. It can be
\ncarried out by the government or other corporations on their own initiative. It
\nis mainly a counter terrorism measure to catch criminals in the unlawful act
\nand save thousands of lives. The UK is facing its most severe terror threat to
\ndate which is evolving rapidly. Last year, the MI5 managed to stop far more
\nterror plots than those which have caused mass casualties in the public.[3]<\/a>
\nIt can be argued that state surveillance is in fact protecting our right to
\nlife by preserving order and peace within the society. <\/p>\n

On the other hand, state
\nsurveillance can also be seen to hinder our fundamental right to privacy which
\nis an important aspect of our dignity and identity. Under the Human Rights Act[4]<\/a>
\nit states that we have a right to life \u2018without government interference\u2019. It is
\nclear how monitoring our every action can push these boundaries. Our sense of
\npersonal freedom is weakened when the intimate parts of our lives can be recorded
\nand kept without restriction. State surveillance measures are only getting
\nstronger which is severely putting our human rights at risk.<\/p>\n

In 2013, Edward Snowden revealed
\nthat GCHQ was processing and intercepting billions of our communications every
\nday and sharing all of our information with the US without adequate safeguards
\nor supervision for 17 years.[5]<\/a>
\nThis ranged from our internet histories to our phone call recordings and the
\ncontent of our private messages. This can uncover everything about an
\nindividual including their political view, religious ideas, sexual interests
\nand medical concerns. Snowden had hoped that by exposing the unlawful and
\nundemocratic ways of mass surveillance, the resulting public outcry would stop
\nit. In the UK, however, the government responded by not only legalising these
\npowers, but by expanding them. <\/p>\n

Theresa May announced the publication
\nof a Draft Investigatory Bill[6]<\/a>
\non 4th<\/sup> November 2015. She set out her view on the need for new guidelines
\nwithin surveillance and the powers that will be contained within the new
\nlegislation. She argued that \u2018The bill will establish world-leading oversight to
\ngovern an investigatory powers regime which is more open and transparent than
\nanywhere else in the world.\u2019[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

We can argue, however, that this bill has
\nput our human rights at risk more than ever before. The bill can do many things
\nsuch as:<\/p>\n