A report has been presented to the Human Rights Council by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, stating that surveillance technology must be banned until effective controls can be put in place to regulate its use. He explains that both states and companies are using the technology “without constraint” and that this can lead to interference with our human rights. It was highlighted that this technology can have a “harmful impact” on our right to privacy, freedom of expression, and rights of association and assembly; to name but a few. 

There are also claims that surveillance of journalists, activists, and critics can be linked to arbitrary detention, torture, and extrajudicial killings. Methods including hacking computers and using facial recognition tools have been used to “shadow politicians, UN investigators and human rights advocates”. 

THE DANGERS OF SURVEILLANCE TECH FOR PROTESTORS AND ACTIVISTS 

There have been calls for a suspension on the use of facial recognition technology during peaceful protests, as this could lead to an increase in discrimination against those from minority backgrounds. It is argued that this suspension must remain until states can meet certain standards, including adequate protection of human rights by introducing risk assessments, for example. Whilst new technology can be beneficial in organising protests and spreading awareness, there is a risk that it will be used to ‘”restrict and infringe on protesters’ rights, to surveil and track them, and invade their privacy.” Ultimately, this may lead to a repression of debate, criticism, and essential journalism. 

Furthermore, “license plate readers, facial recognition and wireless text message interception” have been identified as just a handful of the tools used to monitor Black Lives Matter protestors in the US. There is a risk that such tools may reinforce the inequality faced by minorities. For example, the history of surveillance technology in the US highlights how it has either entirely targeted or had a worse impact on minority communities. For instance, surveillance of Muslim communities following the 9/11 attacks, as well as FBI programmes which specifically targeted Black and Puerto Rican communities, amongst others. These examples highlight how targeted surveillance technology interfering with our rights may have a more detrimental effect on communities who are already suffering from oppression and inequality. 

THE “HARMFUL IMPACT” ON MINORITIES 

The disproportionate effect of facial recognition technology has been highlighted in many studies which shows that it is ‘flawed and biased’, with significantly higher error rates when it comes to people of colour and women. One example is the case of Robert Williams, a man who was wrongly identified by the technology. Williams was arrested by the police in front of his family and spent the night in a police cell, before being interrogated and telling the police that he was not the man in the photo. The only similarities between them was their build and the colour of their skin. Whilst the charges against Williams have been dismissed, the harm has already been done. His DNA sample, mugshot, and fingerprints have now been recorded, as has his arrest. Given recent events highlighting police brutality against people of colour, incidents like this may even become deadly. The most concerning part, perhaps, is the fact that this technology is often used in “secret”, without any kind of regulation. 

THE EFFECT OF COVID-19

With the pandemic presenting a large-scale threat around the world, many countries have introduced surveillance technology such as phone tracking to trace infections and avoid the spread of the virus. However, this may create further problems. In some countries, monitoring where people go and who they meet may create a risk of violence or discrimination against those identified as ethnic or religious minorities. Furthermore, in countries where homophobia is common, collecting health data such as whether people are HIV-positive may put them in danger, as this is often wrongly “seen as an indicator of homosexuality”.

IS IT NECESSARY?

Whilst many governments may claim that such surveillance is “vital to national security”, it is still important to adopt safeguards protecting the rights of vulnerable people across the globe. Transparency and independent oversight on the use of such technology would be central to this. Otherwise, governments risk causing more harm than good with their use of surveillance technology.

Tanya is a Law student heading into the final year of her degree at the University of Manchester. She is interested in bringing attention to human rights issues arising from her Pro-Bono work at University (volunteering at the Legal Advice Centre and taking part in volunteering projects). Her main goal is to become a Barrister practising in either Criminal or Family Law. 

LinkedIn