Surveillance of an individual raises moral, ethical and legal questions.
Surveillance as defined is the monitoring of the behavior, activities or other changing information of people for the purpose of influencing, managing, directing or protecting them. Surveillance of an individual would raise concerns on the type of surveillance being used and being monitored by whom.
If the government opts to monitor the activities of an individual in a safe and well organized manner then it is always recommended.
It depends on the type of surveillance being used; Computer surveillance i.e. monitoring the data and traffic of the internet could be fine if there is a secured way of doing it. Again if the data collected (which is confidential and in turn belongs to government) has been leaked out, the country would be in big trouble.
With the advancement of technology there are advantages and disadvantages. In case of surveillance, it definitely questions one's privacy but one needs to think that if the individual responsible for planning the terrorized attacks is also being monitored and probably we would be safe as a result of being watched.
Surveillance using camera's in public places, which is being implied in almost all the metros, is recommended option and provides a lot of information needed for the investigations of any criminal activity involved, there by saving lot of time and resource of the government.
Surveillance in corporate is also recommended, because it not only tracks the movements of the employees but also traces the outsiders activity in the building.
Corporate leaders in India like Infosys etc have cameras installed in the entrance of every building. Employees may not like it but the need of being watched has come.
Recently, a popular magazine in U.S. took a survey of how many would have objections to idea of surveillance? If, the survey result is to be believed, many had no problem if they are being monitored as they have nothing to hide with the government. Exactly, when there is nothing to hide and are true to one-self, the need for fear is gone.
Also many of them use snooping tools to know the whereabouts of their family, with the concern of the loved one's security. Though there is a difference between snooping and surveillance, all is good for the sake of security.
So I believe, in India if a political candidate snooped a young woman for the sake of her security, definitely does not arise the question of rights be it legal, moral and ethical.
NSA leaker Edward Snowden's appeal to stop the mass surveillance may be justified but need to think if surveillance was present, it could we have stopped the recent suicide bomb attacks in Russia.
The urge to surveillance rose because of the raise in insecurity of an individual. Had we been more moral to ourselves, more ethical to ourselves and more legitimate to ourselves we would not have to deal with such unnecessary technology for our security.
In this entire scheme of things, the government has to be honest with its citizens. If the government itself hides the truth and gets involved in the scams the meaning for mass surveillance goers in vain.
-Revati Chandrabhatta
