Why privacy is a fundamental human right

Governments globally have made a concerted effort to try make privacy a dirty word, and attempt to smear it as something evil. On a daily basis there are announcements being made by governments, with policy updates, expansive surveillance programs, restrictive legislation, and the erosion of digital rights, often justified under pretexts like national security or child protection.

The double edged sword of technology seems to be that in theory it should advance our freedoms, however it enables the unparalleled invasions of our privacy. Governments and Corporations no longer have respect for the autonomy of individuals, anonymous speech, Free Speech and the right to free association

Mass Surveillance and Data Collection

Governments worldwide employ surveillance technologies to monitor citizens, collecting vast amounts of personal data. This includes tracking locations via cell phones, logging online activities, and using biometric tools like facial recognition on body-worn cameras.

 All these intrusions operate under the guise of national security or public safety. These programs often target entire populations rather than specific suspects, creating a pervasive surveillance environment.

Your cell phone may help you keep in touch with friends and family, but it also makes it easier for the government to track your location.

Your Web searches and other general internet activity are routinely monitored and analysed, by numerous third parties and by government and near government agencies. about sensitive personal information might seem a secret between you and your web browser, but companies like Google, Meta, Twitter, LinkedIn are creating a treasure troves of personal information by logging your online activities, and making it potentially available to any party wielding enough cash, political influence or government department.

The mass surveillance and data collection by the Big Tech is a valid and important concern, the primary concern addressed in this post is the ever increasing intrusions on privacy by nation states. There are a number of reasons why the intrusions of privacy by nation states and governments are far more dangerous and cynical than that of corporations.

Monopoly of violence

The monopoly on violence is a foundational concept in political theory that defines the modern state. It was most famously articulated by the sociologist Max Weber in his 1919 lecture Politics as a Vocation.

Weber defined the state as a human community that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. This definition has three key components:

• Monopoly: The state is the sole institution within its borders that has the right to use violence. All other groups and individuals are forbidden from using violence. If a citizen uses violence to, for example, collect a debt, that is a crime. When the state's police use violence to arrest a person, it is a legitimate exercise of authority.
• Legitimacy: The state's use of force is not just about raw power; it is considered legitimate by the population. This legitimacy comes from the belief that the state's violence is used to uphold law, order, and the public good, not for arbitrary or personal reasons. Citizens generally accept the state's right to use force because they see it as a necessary function of a governed society.
• Territory: This monopoly is geographically bounded. The UK government has a monopoly on legitimate violence within the United Kingdom, and not France, Germany or other European country.

Governments maintain this monopoly through several key mechanisms:

• Law and Legal System: The state creates laws that define when violence is permissible (e.g., self-defense) and when it is prohibited (e.g., assault, murder). It also grants its own agents (police, military, prison guards) the legal authority to use force under specific circumstances.
• Armed Forces: The state maintains professional, organized forces to enforce its will. This includes:
  • Police: The domestic enforcers of the state's monopoly, responsible for internal security and law enforcement.
  • Military: The protectors of the state's territory from external threats and the ultimate enforcers of its power.
  • Prison and Court Systems: These institutions manage and punish those who break the state's laws, reinforcing the monopoly through coercion and rehabilitation.
• Delegation of Force: In some limited cases, the state delegates its authority to use force. For example, private security guards have limited powers (like citizen's arrest) that are granted and overseen by the state. Even in cases of justified self-defense, the use of force is later judged by the state's legal system to ensure it was legitimate.

Authoritarian legislation

Governments often enact laws that undermine privacy under the pretence of safety and security. Often use spin tactics associated with protecting children from harm. Nothing quite exemplifies this more in the UK, than the Online Safety Act, which initially sold to the British public primarily as a measure to protect children from harmful and illegal online content, particularly pornography and material promoting self-harm or suicide. The government framed the legislation as a necessary step to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online, emphasising its goal of holding social media companies and search engines accountable for the content hosted on their platforms.

The Act was introduced following the 2019 Online Harms White Paper, which outlined a regulatory framework to address online harms, and was presented as a response to growing public concern over children's exposure to dangerous material.

The act was originally introduced in 2019, as the Online Harms White Paper, to outline a regulatory framework to address online harms and as a response to growing public concern over children's exposure to dangerous material.

The tragic death of Molly Russell, whose suicide was linked to her exposure to harmful content online, was cited as a key driver behind the legislation. The government also highlighted the spread of misinformation during the pandemic as justification for stronger online regulation, although the final law excluded provisions targeting legal but harmful content like disinformation. 

Despite these assurances, critics argue that the Act’s true function extends beyond child protection, serving as a tool for mass content control and surveillance under the guise of safety.

The actual outcome of the Act is Age Verification legislation , which supposedly restricts access to online content, but in reality has lead to broader data collection and censorship.

Data Localisation and Geopolitical Control

Personal data is increasingly treated as a strategic asset, with governments enforcing strict data localisation laws to bolster sovereignty. The EU’s Data Governance Act (DGA) and Digital Services Act (DSA) expand control over cross-border data flows, while countries like India and Vietnam are implementing their own comprehensive data protection laws that limit international data transfers.

 This fragmentation forces companies to navigate a complex web of regulations, often at the expense of user privacy.

Exploitation of emerging technologies

AI and other technologies introduce new privacy risks. Governments are pushing for AI governance frameworks that include "unconditional opt-outs" and discretionary rights to object to data processing, but these measures often fail to prevent bulk data harvesting for AI models.

 Additionally, the rise of AI companions for decision-making increases reliance on systems that can be co-opted for surveillance.

Inadequate Enforcement and Hypocrisy

While some governments enact privacy laws, enforcement is inconsistent. The U.S., for example, lacks a federal privacy law, leaving compliance fragmented across states.

 Meanwhile, data breaches continue at alarming rates, exposing millions of users’ information and highlighting the gap between regulation and reality.

 Governments also pressure tech companies to comply with bulk surveillance requests, often without warrants or transparency.

Erosion of Anonymity and Encryption

Claims about "anonymised" data are often misleading, as re-identification is frequently possible.

 Governments exploit this by mandating back-doors or weakening encryption, undermining tools like Tor that protect privacy.

 This trend is exacerbated by the normalisation of surveillance capitalism, where corporate data collection is often indistinguishable from state surveillance.