Glenn Greenwald's The Harms Of Surveillance

Surveillance is a highly contentious topic in the modern day and yet in a world more connected than ever through globalization and the internet, surveillance seems to be frighteningly more pervasive than ever. With the rise of Facebook, Google, and NSA data collection, privacy seems to have become a relic of the past. In this paper I will argue through an American perspective that Glenn Greenwald’s assessment of surveillance as a form of power for government oppression and control is apt and that the harms of surveillance outweigh its benefits. First, I will present an overview of Greenwald's piece "The Harms of Surveillance". Next I shall focus his argument through a Foucauldian lens comparing modern day surveillance tactics to the Panopticon

model. Then I shall discuss the counterargument about the benefits of surveillance in regards to national security. And finally, I shall prove how government surveillance through the implementation of the Patriot Act has led to a system of oppression since 2001 into modern day that has diminished civil rights.
In Glenn Greenwald’s article "The Harm of Surveillance", he argues that the government usage of surveillance is a form of power which functions in an Orwellian fashion. The idea of surveillance is ubiquitous and in a sense omniscient, those subjected to the idea of constant surveillance live in fear of it and normalize it at the same time. He notes that companies such as Facebook and Google have facilitated in this silent surveillance by taking information from the people on a forum that is assumed to be a personal and private space. The sale of this data from these companies to the government, further besmirch all sense of privacy in the digital era. He also points out that the more information the government takes from its people, the less they are willing to divulge any of their own secrets, creating an unequal power relation. Greenwald says that "the state's ability to make us believe we are always being watch is a principal tool to

enforce orthodoxies and quash dissent"(Greenwald 2014,31).This relationship becomes repressive and difficult to dissent against as there is no proof of government misconduct and there is an underlying fear of persecution if there is an attempt to uncover the truth.

Much like George Orwell's 1984 we are not monitored at all times but the uncertainty of the ever watching "Big Brother" watching over us keeps us inline, unquestioning and under control. Government surveillance dilutes the meaning of personal privacy and rejects what Greenwald claims to be the foundations of human freedom, expression, and happiness (Greenwald

2014).
Government surveillance acts in similar ways to the Panopticon model as described by Michel Foucault in his book Discipline and Punish. The Panopticon is an incarceration model in which a guard tower placed in the centre of a circular structure with prison cells all along the outside walls. The inmates cannot see within the guard tower but the guard has a three hundred and sixty degree view (Foucault 1975,200) This structure creates a power relation between the guard and the prisoner. The prisoner becomes a subject, manipulated into a relegated form of behaviour out of fear of being watched and being punished (Foucault 1975, 201-203) Without physical action the guard employs a tactic of control and imposes their will upon what Foucault terms the docile body ( Foucault 1975,222) The docile body without even realizing their restriction has internalized it. Surveillance works in an identical fashion, the will of the state is imposed upon the people ( Foucault 1977, 135-141). However, unlike a prison where ones freedom is surrendered due to a criminal act, states removes civilian agency without consent. . One would expect that the government acts in a fiduciary fashion, in the interest of the people it is sworn to protect, but under the guise of leadership and security, governments act on behalf of their own personal interests. Concrete examples of this would be internet and television

censorship in North Korea which reinforce the nationalistic ideologies of Kim Jong-un, or NSA data collection in the United States for supposed terror and security reasons.
An opposing stance to Greenwald's claims are that government surveillance can protect a society and it's people. The main rhetoric of this camp is based upon surveillance as a beneficial aspect of national security. The Patriot Act, which was passed in American Congress after the events of September 11 is a contentious piece of legislation that adheres to this ideology. The Patriot Act was written as a way to combat terror and achieve security within the borders of the United States. One of the caveats was the invasion of privacy privacy and the surrender of civil rights through technological and legislative means (Smith, Cary Stacy, Hung, Li-Ching 2010). The Patriot Act increased paranoia of what a terrorist could be and looked liked, thus allowing the government to use invasive practices to uncover homegrown terror (Smith, Cary Stacy, Hung, Li-Ching 2010, 63). However, instead of using these resources to locate terrorists the expansion of government jurisdiction into people's private lives, their homes, their phone calls and internet activity became more important for controlling and manipulating the population. Unknowingly U.S citizens have has their rights diminished without popular consent. (Smith, Cary Stacy, Hung, Li-Ching 2010)
The implementation the Patriot Act in 2001 as stated before was enacted on the basis of national security and yet with this government decision, has stripped fundamental rights away from American citizen, diminishing constitutional and human rights.

The book The Patriot Act : Issues and Controversies outlines some of the ways that the act has worked to surveil individuals and suppress civil rights entrenched in the Bill of Rights. The first amendment of freedom of speech is suppressed by the Patriot Act by targeting and wiretapping groups that would be seen as potential threats to the state and arbitrarily arrest these perceived threats without due process, a lawyer, or a jury which infringe on the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments respectively (Smith, Cary Stacy, Hung, Li-Ching 2010, 191-194). The act also breaches on human rights and the eight amendment which allows for authorities to use utmost force during detainment such as torture. Also without warrant their house may be searched and personal items such as documents and computers may be seized by the authorities breaking the Freedom of Information Act (Smith, Cary Stacy, Hung, Li-Ching 2010, 199). All of these severe actions may be used in the name of government security and government surveillance though many of them break civil and human right laws. The Patriot act exemplifies the real harm that Greenwald discusses in his article, the oppressive nature of government surveillance that quashes dissent and uses fear

as a tactic to maintain control and power.