The term electronic police state describes a state in which the government aggressively uses electronic technologies to record, organize, search and distribute forensic evidence against its citizens.
Contents |
Electronic police states are characterized by government surveillance of telephone traffic, cellular telephone traffic, emails, Internet surfing, video surveillance and other forms of electronic (including fiber optic) tracking. A crucial characteristic of this process is that the data is gathered universally and silently, and only later organized for use in prosecutions in legal proceedings.
The inhabitants of an electronic police state may be almost fully unaware that their communications and activities are being recorded by the state, or that these records are usable as evidence against them in courts of law. Those who are aware of these facts may be restrained in their complaints or actions against their governments, knowing that any embarrassing, juvenile or unlawful actions in their past can be pulled from pre-existing databases, which could lead to humiliation and/or criminal trials.
In addition, there is also a risk of such databases being widely used in civil proceedings, wherein opposing attorneys demand access to all evidence related to an individual, including vast government databases. This issue seems not to have been addressed by the legal system of any nation thus far.
The term "electronic police state" was first used no later than August 14, 1994, in a post by Jim Davis in the Computer underground Digest[1], Volume 6: Issue 72[2].
The term was popularized with the publication of "The Electronic Police State: 2008 National Rankings"[3], by Cryptohippie USA[4].
The classification of a country or regime as an electronic police state may be debated. Because of the pejorative connotation of the term, no country has ever identified itself as an electronic police state. The classification is often established by one or more external critics.
Seventeen key factors for judging the development of an electronic police state have been suggested:
This list does include factors that also apply to other forms of police states, such as the use of identity documents and police enforcement, but go considerably beyond them.
Electronic police states may outwardly be either dictatorial or democratic. The crucial elements are not politically-based. So long as the regime can afford the technology, and the populace will permit it to be used, an electronic police state can form.
Some people maintain that it is the appropriate job of a state to monitor anything and everything it can to keep its citizens safe. Concerns over privacy and abuse may be considered far less significant than the gains to be provided by surveillance. Often the discussion may hinge on an estimation of the state’s morality.
Specific examples are often used to justify surveillance activities, usually both sides have an absence of counter-examples.
Many states have developing electronic police state attributes. A few examples are listed below. It is important to understand, however, that these examples do not reflect upon the databases of evidence that are integral to an electronic police state. A crucial element of such a state is that its data gathering and sorting seldom or never are exposed.
The United Kingdom is often seen as an advanced electronic police state, with mass surveillance[5] and detention without trial having been introduced by the government, followed by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s MTI[6] program, which aims to intercept and monitor all e-mails, website visits and social networking sessions in Britain, and to track telephone calls made over the internet as well as all phone calls to land lines and mobiles.
A 16 year-old boy from North Carolina (U.S.) was seized in his home by a dozen FBI agents and local police officers and held without trial for over two months under the USA PATRIOT Act, based upon Internet tracking of bomb threats that appeared to be connected to his IP address.[7]
The government of China has been credibly accused of monitoring a huge amount of Internet traffic in reports from the New York Times[8] and Rolling Stone.[9]
Recently, Buenos Aires' city government has installed numerous cameras around the city, explaining that they are not for citizen control but to maintain social order and to fight insecurity. No sizeable protest has yet been made.