Online regulation: beware turning over the skeleton key to privacy

An increasingly digitised world holds great possibilities for all of us – but also great risks. One of these is the erosion of privacy. To deal with dangers lurking online, governments are increasingly seeking wide-ranging powers which effectively places the whole of society under surveillance.

This is the argument developed in a new paper by futurist Bronwyn Williams, Online Risks and Harms: Citizens under Surveillance, published by the Institute of Race Relations.

Speaking at the launch of the paper, Williams acknowledged the reality of the dangers arising from the online world, but warned about the use of “skeleton key” legislation. Discussing legislation introduced in democracies around the world – in Australia, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United States – she pointed out how concerns about online safety, particularly of children, were being invoked to justify laws with extensive ramifications for society as a whole.

Attempting to filter out “harmful” content (itself a contentious issue) is likened to a drag-net. It grabs and sorts masses of information which threatens us all: official agencies gain access to information that is of little value in protecting society, which does not indicate anything illegal, but gives undue insight into individuals’ behaviour.

This is all the more important where surveillance is paired with Artificial Intelligence; this is able to learn about people’s activities and affiliations, and to produce responses in a manner that humans are generally unable to.

Williams noted that legislation intended to defend society against specific concerns, such as intercepting terrorist planning, had a habit of expanding to encompass ever more expansive swathes of behaviour. Combating “hatred” in some jurisdictions, for example, has moved from acting against statements and threats made to pre-emptive bans on expression by people deemed likely to do so.

All of this portends grave dangers for privacy and society’s civil rights. Indeed, Williams notes, online security legislation is transforming the principle of presumption of innocence to the pre-emptive assumption of guilt.

These are matters of direct concern to South Africa as it attempts to navigate online safety concerns and intelligence imperatives through such measures as the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70 of 2002 and the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill.

South Africans would be well advised to be aware of these encroachments on their liberties as they are unfolding, and to recognise the considerable downsides to legislation introduced in the interest of online safety.

As Williams notes: “We would do well to understand the difference when it comes to accepting greater and greater levels of government scrutiny of our personal and online lives in the name of ‘security’. Yes, security is a tradeoff between freedoms. But we should question whether we are getting any more actual security in exchange for the vast range of rights and freedoms we are being asked to curtail.”

Click here to read the report and watch a recording of the webinar.

Media Contact: Terence Corrigan Tel: 066 470 4456 Email: terence@irr.org.za

Media enquiries: Michael Morris Tel: 066 302 1968 Email: michael@irr.org.za