Big Brother and Democracy
When, in 1949, George Orwell wrote the novel “1984,” he portrayed a futuristic society in which the state controlled citizens absolutely, watching them in the most intimate moments of their private lives, ascertaining how they were thinking.
It depicts an omnipresent state, represented by Big Brother, who saw and knew everything. However, "1984" was about a totalitarian regime. In the 21st century, Big Brother has come to democracies.
In the last weeks, with the revelation that the government of the United States is gathering data from telephone intercepts and the irregular access of emails and Internet accounts of thousands of people, the subject of state control of citizens has resurfaced.
No individual right is absolute. The life of society requires a mitigation of certain individual rights in the face of certain collective needs, such as security. Thus, if people are under a significantly serious threat, the state can violate even privacy to protect them, by virtue of the justification of a security imperative.
This is President Obama’s argument. It is accepted by more than half of the United States. According to recent polls, 56 percent of those interviewed approved of the monitoring of telephone communications, while 41 percent consider the practice unacceptable.
At least in the United States, the subject now stirs discussion. And there, it seems reasonable that the state monitors its citizens so as to protect them. From the point of view of the North American people, the guarantee of collective security and the protection of democratic values are the fundamental principles of the nation and would give plausible justification for limiting the liberties of individuals.
It is true that fundamental rights can be limited for reasons of the state, especially when the society is the target of actions contrary to the established democratic order. However, for the state to limit the rights of its citizens, it is fundamental that there are criteria that will impede public officials from acting arbitrarily.
Monitoring the accounts and communications of individuals, if it occurs, must be done under rigid legal mechanisms and institutions of control. Otherwise, abuses will be committed by security organizations and intelligence, since they deal with information and power.
In fact, something that differentiates democratic regimes from authoritarian regimes is that, in the former, the secret services protect the citizens and are under the rigid control of the judiciary and the legislature. An organized civil society, especially the press, should also have this prerogative.
Perhaps in Obama's country it is possible and even acceptable in accordance with the laws that the state monitors the citizens, but in Brazil this practice has clear limits. The constitution permits telephone interceptions as part of a criminal or legal investigation, but only with judicial authorization.
However, it will be very difficult to stop the United States government from monitoring the communications of Brazilians. In the end, who will control the foreign policy actions of the United States? What power do other countries have to impede or neutralize technological initiatives from the superpower?
It would be naive to imagine that if there is determination on the part of a government such as the United States based on laws and judicial or legislative authorization, the personal information of any person on the globe will be safe from monitoring.
In the era of knowledge and virtual reality, people must be conscious that they may be objects of surveillance, legal or not. Big Brother is here, even if we do not like him.
It depicts an omnipresent state, represented by Big Brother, who saw and knew everything. However, "1984" was about a totalitarian regime. In the 21st century, Big Brother has come to democracies.
In the last weeks, with the revelation that the government of the United States is gathering data from telephone intercepts and the irregular access of emails and Internet accounts of thousands of people, the subject of state control of citizens has resurfaced.
No individual right is absolute. The life of society requires a mitigation of certain individual rights in the face of certain collective needs, such as security. Thus, if people are under a significantly serious threat, the state can violate even privacy to protect them, by virtue of the justification of a security imperative.
This is President Obama’s argument. It is accepted by more than half of the United States. According to recent polls, 56 percent of those interviewed approved of the monitoring of telephone communications, while 41 percent consider the practice unacceptable.
At least in the United States, the subject now stirs discussion. And there, it seems reasonable that the state monitors its citizens so as to protect them. From the point of view of the North American people, the guarantee of collective security and the protection of democratic values are the fundamental principles of the nation and would give plausible justification for limiting the liberties of individuals.
It is true that fundamental rights can be limited for reasons of the state, especially when the society is the target of actions contrary to the established democratic order. However, for the state to limit the rights of its citizens, it is fundamental that there are criteria that will impede public officials from acting arbitrarily.
Monitoring the accounts and communications of individuals, if it occurs, must be done under rigid legal mechanisms and institutions of control. Otherwise, abuses will be committed by security organizations and intelligence, since they deal with information and power.
In fact, something that differentiates democratic regimes from authoritarian regimes is that, in the former, the secret services protect the citizens and are under the rigid control of the judiciary and the legislature. An organized civil society, especially the press, should also have this prerogative.
Perhaps in Obama's country it is possible and even acceptable in accordance with the laws that the state monitors the citizens, but in Brazil this practice has clear limits. The constitution permits telephone interceptions as part of a criminal or legal investigation, but only with judicial authorization.
However, it will be very difficult to stop the United States government from monitoring the communications of Brazilians. In the end, who will control the foreign policy actions of the United States? What power do other countries have to impede or neutralize technological initiatives from the superpower?
It would be naive to imagine that if there is determination on the part of a government such as the United States based on laws and judicial or legislative authorization, the personal information of any person on the globe will be safe from monitoring.
In the era of knowledge and virtual reality, people must be conscious that they may be objects of surveillance, legal or not. Big Brother is here, even if we do not like him.