Democracies’ path into Digital Authoritarianism: Zooming into Digital Surveillance during the COVID era

Introduction

Not long ago was the whole world marked by the emergence of the COVID virus and its rapid surge across the globe. The fear of the virus and its dangerous impact on health has allowed governments to use specific un-democratic measures to control the virus and protect their citizens. Unfortunately, the emergency nature of the event has overshadowed a disturbing side effect that has quietly begun to strike in some corners of the world – democratic backsliding. This development leads to the following question: How have democratic countries autocratized by adopting surveillance tools during the COVID pandemic? This question is critical for research due to its recency, meaning not all angles have yet been fully explored by academia. Considerable amount of research, such as the one of Dr Phil Febbo (2020), has been concentrated on how the surveillance tools help governments tackle the COVID crisis; however, there is not enough attention put into how governments may use this as an opportunity to increase their power and autocratize. This is alarming for society, as the use of autocratic tools threatens the state of democracy, leaving the liberties of its citizens at severe risk of infringement. To contribute to this knowledge gap, this paper aims to answer the research question by depicting two case-studies – France and Israel, which have used surveillance tools in a way that has challenged human rights and presented shock to democracy. By zooming into these cases, this paper will use the perspective of Bentham and Foucault to display how different forms of surveillance have undermined human rights and what were its implications on the state of democracy within those countries.

Theoretical framework

The purpose of this paper is to accumulate more knowledge on top of the existing literature on democratic backsliding, from a specific angle that demonstrates how certain democratic countries are adopting digital surveillance tools during the COVID pandemic. More specifically, this paper aims to explore the role of governments in contributing to this trend by using extraordinary circumstances in their favour.

One of the main concepts used in this paper is digital state surveillance which “involves the monitoring, collecting, and/or processing of personal data by a government” (Eck and Hatz 2020). This can involve the “monitoring of online activity, location tracking via Bluetooth or Global Positioning System (GPS), tracking financial transactions, video surveillance, facial scans, and the collection of biometric data” (ibid). In the context of this paper, digital surveillance will be associated with the COVID pandemics, which has driven policymakers to expand beyond traditional public health mechanisms of surveillance to implement new technologies, such as global positioning systems, facial recognition, and cell phone apps that serve to regulate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 (Sekalala et al. 2020).

This paper will focus on two specific types of digital surveillance: security cameras and phone surveillance. The security cameras surveillance “records images in or outside a building or in a public place, in order to prevent or help solve a crime” (Cambridge University Press 2022). On this occasion, the surveillance tool is used to detect whether people are wearing face masks or not, thus whether the citizens are complying with the government restrictions (Gershgorn 2020). On the other hand, phone surveillance is “the act of performing surveillance on phone conversations, location tracking, and data monitoring of a phone” (Digital Bank Vault 2019). During COVID, this tool was used for various purposes, such as tracking citizens’ locations to locate people diagnosed with the coronavirus and signal those with whom the infected person might have interacted (Gershgorn 2020).

As the COVID pandemic was classified as a public emergency, democratic governments were allowed to use emergency powers that allow them “to respond rapidly to a public emergency by: making regulations without an act of parliament; taking actions without complying with statutory duties that it would normally have to comply with; taking actions that it would not normally be allowed to take” (Institute for Government 2022). Thereby, during the COVID crisis, governments were able to increase surveillance due to their emergency powers, which they justified as it helps them to track the coronavirus outbreak and prevent the spread of disease (Kharpal 2020).

However, these new surveillance technologies contradict the human rights of the citizens – privacy in particular. Privacy is a fundamental human right that is covered under Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which protects everyone from arbitrary or unlawful interferences with their “privacy, family, home or correspondence” (ACLU 2022). Throughout the COVID pandemics, public health surveillance is deemed critical for averting the spread of the disease. Nonetheless, these public health data are often personally classifiable and may expose details about an individual’s routine, activities, and health (ibid). Thereby, the development of such surveillance technologies has continuously been complemented by rights-based concerns on how the data are being used (ibid). The interference to human rights in this matter contradicts with the basic principles of democracy, which secures “an environment that respects human rights and fundamental freedoms” (United Nations 2013).

By undermining human rights which are core to democracies, certain democratic countries have experienced democratic backsliding due to the “gradual setbacks in democratic qualities” (Pelke and Croissant 2021). The trend of democratic backsliding was witnessed when democratic countries applied tools of digital authoritarianism, which is “the use of digital information technology by authoritarian regimes to surveil, repress, and manipulate domestic and foreign populations” (Baron 2021). In addition, the mass use of surveillance of citizens during the COVID-19 pandemic can establish a turning point in the formation of a surveillance societywhich is “a society where surveillance technology is widely used to monitor people’s everyday activities” (Collins 2022). This can be the case if the surveillance tools adopted during COVID would be used for other purposes that are invasive to people’s private lives, which is against the core democratic standards.

Moreover, the use of surveillance during the COVID era will be analysed from two theoretical perspectives. Each of the theories will be used for different case as their content can be applied to distinct use of surveillance. Exploring the cases from these theoretical perspectives allows us to gain an alternative understanding on how governments used the specific surveillance tools.

Firstly, through the lens of Bentham’s theory of Panopticon control which is primarily an architectural idea—a ‘strategy of space’ forming an illusion of constant surveillance within that space through a physical design (Timan et al. 2017). In the centre of the space is an “inspector” watching from one static point—surveillance here is static and top-down (ibid). This theory also states that the objective of surveillance is to reform the individual (all characteristics of the person), in order to form complete and internalised discipline and make punishment needless (ibid). This is because “people will obey the prevailing rules and norms when they know they are being watched” (Strub 1989). In the context of COVID, this theory can be linked to the physical tools of surveillance such as security cameras that governments are applying to monitor people and further to influence them to act responsibly and thereby prevent the spread of the SARS-CoV-2.

Secondly, Foucault’s theory of surveillance states that governments use surveillance technology to access ever more private aspects of citizens’ lives (New Historicism 2002). Foucault saw people as subjects of power—disciplinary regimes of a modern society where the state applies disciplinary power to achieve the internalisation of morals, values, and control over the citizens (Timan et al. 2017). Furthermore, in the system “the subjected bodies, once inducted, will come to accept the disciplinary measures as the norm” (Sheridan 2016). This system of control has, disputably, been supported by new technological advancements that allow governments to track the movement and behaviour of the citizens through “the internet, telephones, cell phones, social security numbers, the census, ATMs, credit cards” (ibid). This theory will argue that the use of surveillance is not just a temporary trend to halt the spread of SARS-CoV-2, but rather an opportunity for democratic governments to extend their access into the everyday life of citizens and use this data for their own purposes to manipulate and control its people. This theory can be applied to the use of phone tracking that allows governments to gain access to the citizens’ privacy.

The research question of this paper will be answered via portraying two case studies of different democratic countries – France and Israel. First, by zooming into the case of France, this paper will depict the security camera surveillance by applying Bentham’s theory of Panopticon control and further exhibit its undemocratic nature. Secondly, the case of Israel will be used to describe the phone tracking surveillance by applying Foucault’s theory of surveillance to portray the other extreme that allows democratic countries to autocratize.

Analysis

 France

 

Security Camera Surveillance in France   

To combat the spread of the COVID disease, France has adopted a surveillance camera system that appeared during the country’s COVID-19 lockdown, with state-owned public transport firm RATP collaborating with a start-up Datakalab (Rosemain 2020). The aim was to control the proportion of travellers wearing masks at the Paris central station of Chatelet-Les Halles (ibid). This surveillance tool, however, faced critique as CNIL (Data Protection Authority for France) have claimed that: “While the technology was well-meaning in its intent, the artificial intelligence empowered surveillance falls short of respecting Europe’s stringent laws on data protection” (Limam 2020). As a response, privacy activists feared that the monitoring has given rise to excessive surveillance which prompted a legal challenge that have resulted in France’s highest court to suspend the practices in Paris (Noack 2021).

Through the lens of Bentham    

By looking at this case from Bentham’s point of view, the security camera surveillance can be related to his theory of Panopticon control. The theory explains how physical surveillance is adopted top-down – by the government, to create a feeling of constant monitoring. In the case of French camera surveillance, the government had adopted physical surveillance in public places to monitor whether the citizens are wearing a facemask. This matches the Panopticon architectural idea as the cameras are physical constructions monitoring from one static point. Through the lens of Bentham, this surveillance method implemented by the French government could be viewed as a strategic move to achieve the compliance of individuals. As stated in the theory: “the goal of surveillance is to reform the individual (all aspects of the person), in order to create perfect and internalised discipline” (Timan et al. 2017). Therefore, the government had used security camera surveillance under the assumption that if the citizens are monitored, they would respect the government’s restrictions and wear face masks. Thus, this form of surveillance was, from Bentham’s perspective used rationally, with the goal to prevent the spread of the disease.

Invasion of Privacy    

Contradicting the theory of Bentham, French privacy activists would argue that the government’s monitoring could serve as an experiment for more-expansive surveillance programs (Noack 2021). This argument can arise from the fact that there are certain human rights violations stemming from this surveillance tool, that are undermining a core democratic principle – privacy. The opportunistic attitude of the French government to enhance the capabilities of video surveillance in times of health crisis threatens to normalise privacy-intrusive practices (Ziniakova 2020). What makes the use of physical surveillance concerning from the privacy standpoint is the potential to integrate it with facial recognition technologies which was the case in France. This alarmed the digital rights activists, who claim that although “public health crises may require extraordinary measures in favor of the public good,” it is not in the public’s interest to resort to invasive face surveillance (ibid). Hence, the use of facial recognition through the camera surveillance in France displayed clear signs of privacy intrusion that is violating the human rights of its citizens. This means that the way France has adopted surveillance tools as a response to the public emergency has caused democratic backsliding, which was however confronted by the mass public opposition.

By analysing the French case, we gained insights on how a democratic country has used physical surveillance through the adoption of security cameras, placed in certain locations to monitor people and motivate them to act responsibly. By applying Bentham’s theory, the physical surveillance strategy, chosen by the French government, was rational and implemented to stop the spread of the disease. However, its obtrusion to the privacy of the citizens have eroded the human rights principle of democracy, and therefore resulted in democratic backsliding.

Israel

  

Phone surveillance in Israel    

As early as March 17, 2020, the Israeli government passed a set of emergency regulations authorising the Israel Security Agency (ISA) to assist in limiting the spread of the COVID virus (Keshet 2020). This was achieved by gaining permission to collect, process, and use citizens’ personal data, which had allowed ISA to use a collection of mobile-phone-location records to identify people who had been in contact with patients testing positive for COVID-19 (ibid). In addition, the parliament of Israel passed a bill authorising the Shin Bet security service to use cell phone data and other sensitive information to track Israelis who contract the coronavirus and those they are in contact with (Staff 2021). The Shin Bet was made mandatory for all citizens as it was viewed as an efficient way to cope with the pandemic. Therefore, the government perceived the inevitable infringement of the right to privacy as justified and of little importance (Altshuler and Hershkowitz 2020).

Foucault’s Surveillance Society     

Unlike Bentham in his theory, Foucault explains a form of surveillance that is not tied to one physical entity but is monitoring every aspect of citizens’ lives. In the case of Israel, this has been achievable by using a surveillance tool that is not physically limited to one place, which was the case in French security camera surveillance. The Shin Bet security service could constantly track the personal data from the citizens’ cell phones at any time and place. From Foucault’s viewpoint, this form of surveillance was used by the Israeli government via emergency powers to assert more control over their citizens by fully internalising their dominant beliefs and values (Pollard 2019). Conversely, the Israeli government would counterargue this statement by claiming this invasion of privacy, what in Foucault’s theory was labelled as “mistreat” – was justified, in order to help the subjects by tackling the health crisis. Another point that his theory asserted, is that the citizens accept this form of surveillance as a norm and become in favour of such disciplinary model (ibid). This applies to this case as Israelis are keen to trust the security agencies, which may clarify the relative equanimity with which they accepted the widespread tracking (Altshuler and Hershkowitz 2020). This means, the likelihood of Israel becoming a “surveillance society” has amplified as the public opinion, in this case, is not determined to prevent the democratic backsliding witnessed within their country.

Israel’s Digital Authoritarianism   

The use of digital contact tracing constitutes a violation of the privacy of extraordinary proportions. It gathers information on citizens who are not suspected of any wrongdoing without their consent and with no transparency. Moreover, it has created a dangerous precedent for using overly intrusive tools for purposes other than counterterrorism, which has given a massive blow to democracy and human rights in Israel (ibid). In response to the human rights violation of privacy, a petition was filed by the Association for Human Rights in Israel, Adalah, Physicians for Human Rights and Privacy Israel (Maanit 2021). They are demanding the High Court to issue an order banning the use of the Shin Bet in the fight against the coronavirus (ibid). The organisations cited precedent on the matter, claiming that the High Court has previously ruled that the costs of permitting the service to use cell phone geolocation outweigh the advantages and violate the right to privacy, freedom, and dignity (ibid). This demonstrates the occurrence of democratic backsliding within Israel, as the used surveillance tool has infringed a core democratic value – privacy. Hence, this case also pinpoints how a democratic country used an opportunity of emergency to extend its powers by applying the tools of digital authoritarianism that are against the norms of a democratic society.

Fundamentally, the use of location tracking in Israel depicts another example of how democratic country has used surveillance tool however, not for the sole purpose of combating the COVID virus. In this case, by using Foucault’s theory, the government’s goals were focused on gaining control over its citizens in every aspect of their lives, due to the specific surveillance device that they have implemented. Despite the erosion of democratic values, the citizens were tolerable which enhances the creation of “surveillance society”, transforming Israel towards a more authoritarian-like county.

 

Conclusion and reflection

In conclusion, the use of physical surveillance in the case of France has been rationally adopted to motivate people to act responsibly. However, this strategic move has intruded on the citizens’ privacy, eroding the human rights principle causing democratic backsliding within France. In the case of Israel, phone tracking surveillance has been employed beyond fighting the COVID virus to establish control over every facet of citizens lives. Due to the relative tolerance of the citizens, this paper argues that Israel is moving towards a “surveillance society”, making the case of democratic backsliding even more alarming.

Since this paper has collected findings from two specific cases, it may be hardly generalizable to other democratic countries, decreasing the paper’s external validity. Moreover, as the findings are operationalized to the specific theories, it provides only an alternative explanation for the use of surveillance, which decreases the reliability of the results. Additionally, this paper has contributed to the literature on democratic backsliding by providing an alternative explanation of how two cases of democratic governments have autocratized during the COVID pandemic by using surveillance. However, due to the mentioned limitations, this paper calls for extending this research into a broader range of democratic countries and examining the subject from different angles and theoretical perspectives. An interesting angle for further research can be on how countries have used surveillance during COVID to oppress certain minorities by applying the theory of opportunistic repression.

Fundamentally, as this topic concerns the state of democracy and poses a threat to human rights, it calls policymakers to modify certain emergency powers with checks and balances so they cannot be misused for wrong purposes. Because, as Edward Snowden argued in his recent interview for Vice, once we abdicate certain civil liberties due to an emergency, it might be hard to get them back or a least fully back (Barriga et al. 2020).

Bibliography:

ACLU (2022). “THE HUMAN RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE”, https://www.aclu.org/other/human-right-privacy-digital-age, Consulted on January 13 2022.

Altshuler, T.S. and Hershkowitz, R.A. (2020). “How Israel’s COVID-19 mass surveillance operation works”, https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-israels-covid-19-mass-surveillance-operation-works/. Consulted on January 15 2022.

Baron, J. (2021). “Fight Digital Authoritarianism by Giving People the Tools to Counter It”, https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/06/fight-digital-authoritarianism-giving-people-tools-counter-it/174579/. Consulted on January 15 2022.

Barriga, A., Martins, A.F., Simoes, M.J., and Faustino, D. (2020). “The COVID-19 pandemic: Yet another catalyst for governmental mass surveillance?”, https://repositorio.iscte-iul.pt/bitstream/10071/21499/1/1-s2.0-S2590291120300851-main.pdf. Consulted on January 17 2022.

Cambridge University Press (2022). “Security camera”, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/security-camera. Consulted on January 15 2022.

Collins (2022). “Definition of ’surveillance society’”, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/surveillance-society. Consulted on January 14 2022.

Digital Bank Vault (2019). “Smartphone Surveillance Meaning”, https://www.digitalbank.global/smartphone-surveillance-meaning-definition-of-cellphone-surveillance. Consulted on January 16 2022.

Eck, K. and Hatz, S. (2020). “State surveillance and the COVID-19 crisis”, Journal of Human Rights, 19(5): 603-612.

Febbo, P. (2020). “How sequencing-based surveillance helps fight COVID-19”, https://www.illumina.com/company/news-center/blog/sequencing-based-surveillance-helps-fight-covid-19.html. Consulted on January 17 2022.

Gershgorn, D. (2020). “We Mapped How the Coronavirus Is Driving New Surveillance Programs Around the World”, https://onezero.medium.com/the-pandemic-is-a-trojan-horse-for-surveillance-programs-around-the-world-887fa6f12ec9. Consulted on Janury 15 2022.

Institute for Government (2022). “Government emergency powers and coronavirus”, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/emergency-powers. Consulted on January 14 2022.

Keshet, Y. (2020). “Fear of panoptic surveillance: using digital technology to control the COVID-19 epidemic”, Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 67(9).

Kharpal, A. (2020). “Use of surveillance to fight coronavirus raises concerns about government power after pandemic ends”, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/coronavirus-surveillance-used-by-governments-to-fight-pandemic-privacy-concerns.html, Consulted on January 15 2022.

Limam, A. (2020). “Should I worry about mass surveillance due to COVID-19?”, https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2020-07-03/Should-I-worry-about-mass-surveillance-due-to-COVID-19–RNQLZgoHWE/index.html. Consulted on January 14 2020.

Maanit, CH. (2021). “Israel’s Top Court Hears Rights Groups’ Petition Against Shin Bet COVID Tracking”, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-s-top-court-to-hear-rights-petition-on-shin-bet-covid-tracking-1.10430902. Consulted on January 15 2022.

New Historicism (2002). “Modules on Foucault”,https://cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/newhistoricism/modules/foucaultcarceral.html. Consulted on January 14 2022.

Noack, R. (2021). “In victory for privacy activists, France is banned from using drones to enforce coronavirus rules”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-victory-for-privacy-activists-france-is-banned-from-using-drones-to-enforce-covid-rules/2021/01/14/b384eb40-5658-11eb-acc5-92d2819a1ccb_story.html. Consulted on January 15 2022.

Pelke, L. and Croissant, A. (2021). “Conceptualizing and Measuring Autocratization Episodes”, A Political Science Perspective, 27(2): 434-448.

Pollard, CH. (2019). “Explainer: the ideas of Foucault”, https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-ideas-of-foucault-99758. Consulted on January 15 2022.

Rosemain, M. (2020). “French watchdog warns against COVID-19 smart surveillance”, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-france-privacy-idUSKBN23O2T7. Consulted on January 14 2020.

Sekalala, S., Dagron, S., Forman, L., and Meier, B.M. (2020). “Analyzing the Human Rights Impact of Increased Digital Public Health Surveillance during the COVID-19 Crisis”, Health and Human Rights Journal, 22(2): 7-20.

Sheridan, C. (2016). “Foucault, Power and the Modern Panopticon”, https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1564&context=theses. Consulted on January 14 2022.

Staff, T. (2021). “Ministers okay limited Shin Bet tracking program in bid to head off Omicron threat”, https://www.timesofisrael.com/ministers-okay-limited-shin-bet-tracking-program-in-bid-to-head-off-omicron-threat/. Consulted on January 15 2022.

Strub, H. (1989). “The theory of Panoptical control: Bentham’s Panopticon and Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four”,The History of the Behavioral Sciences, 25(1): 40-59.

Timan, T., Galič, M., and Koops, B. (2017). “Surveillance Theory and its Implications for Law”. In: Brownsword, R., Scotford, E., and Yeung, K. (eds) Oxford Handbook of the Law and Regulation of Technology, 1-27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

United Nations (2013). “Democracy”, https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/democracy, Consulted on January 14 2022.

Ziniakova, T. (2020). “Privacy, Mass Electronic Surveillance, and the Rule of Law in Times of COVID-19”, https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/Surveillance%20COVID_v4.pdf. Consulted on January 14 2022.