Digital surveillance and control

Our government’s efforts to control the now ubiquitous internet by banning certain popular websites, such as YouTube (the ban on the site marks a year today), Al Jazeera and others, are as futile as they are undesirable. Massive, overwhelming surveillance efforts by authorities in today’s digital era, rest upon very shaky foundations. They involve a false dichotomy between the need for security and the necessity for freedom. These objectives need not be mutually exclusive.

Today’s technological tide cannot be stemmed by administrative measures. Even down the ages, discoveries such as the printing press, radio and television were met with suspicion and failed efforts for control by authorities. In making such attempts officials were wholly oblivious to the beneficial aspects of these innovations. Every innovation or tool can be used for good as well as ulterior purposes. The aim should be to harness it for the good and to adapt it towards progress.

The most outstanding example of surveillance gone wrong is the recent disclosures of the US National Security Agency’s monitoring of nearly everything and everyone. This immense, gigantic programme, costing trillions, came to naught and achieved no worthwhile specific, substantial result. Involving over half a million ‘trusted’ agents, the massive surveillance programme was punctured by a single individual — Edward Snowden.

Entities and organisations, ranging from terrorist networks, criminal gangs and external intelligence agencies, all rely on secrecy as their basis. Our own state apparatuses also need some measure of secrecy. But such secrecy must operate within a sensible, legal framework. It should only be tactical, short term and targeted for a specific purpose.

If our aim is a vibrant political democracy, openness must be inculcated and light shed on policies and actions. This might be somewhat irksome to the administration. But it is still nevertheless desirable. The basic question is what type of society do we wish to live in — an open one or a closed one. In these advanced modern times, the security dimension has to be viewed within a healthy, democratic political context. It should not be left completely to government officials, some of whom may be myopic and incapable. It is true that crucial state secrets need to be protected. But, in terms of my own experience in the government, the really secret matters are actually very few and far between. There is always a tendency to over-classify everything as secret.

This then becomes counterproductive. We need to adapt our statecraft towards more openness and less oppression. The state need not and should not become Orwellian. The more open a society, the smaller, more temporary and more closely held would be its secrets. This does not imply circumscribing the role of the security agencies. They have an essential part to play in our nation and they need to be made more effective. The solution does not lie in blinding our watchdogs. Instead, these outfits and organisations must become leaner and greater stress should be laid on sound analysis and intellect, within a strengthened legal framework.

Truth has to be searched for and established within a proper, accountable legal context of a successful, functioning democracy. Practical dilemmas are best resolved by checks and balances. The dialectic of reconciling opposites is the key to progress in such diverse fields as science, politics and economics.

In Pakistan, we tend to lose sight of the bigger picture whenever the state exercises control upon the populace. This is usually the case when policies are framed by officials having a limited vision. That then exacerbates difficulties instead of resolving them. The recent actions by the PTA in banning useful internet websites are a prime example of this mediocrity.

When we cannot stem a tide, we must adapt to it. Fighting inexorable technological advances with an out-of-date mindset will lead to inevitable failure. The trend towards an open, global world cannot now be arrested by curbs and bans imposed by governmental authorities. Enhancement of knowledge and information is by far more preferable than placing restrictions on the people.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 17^th, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.