The Decline Of Privacy And The Rise Of The Surveillance
The concept of privacy, as a fundamental right, often fails to resonate with the masses. While some individuals are highly concerned about safeguarding their personal information, particularly from governmental intrusion, privacy rights do not seem to generate widespread emotional engagement among regular citizens.
Two distinct categories of rights exist: inherent rights from ancient times and more specialised, modern rights. The former, rooted in primal human instincts, are taken seriously due to their fundamental nature. In contrast, modern rights, such as the right to privacy, are inventions that require marketing to gain traction. Privacy, for instance, emerged from a campaign initiated by the American aristocracy to curb press freedom, rather than from an inherently noble cause.
The privacy movement originated in an 1890 article by lawyers Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, who aimed to counter intrusive gossip columns about the American elite. Despite being spoken by the media today, the movement”s inception was far from selfless. Activists who criticised the Indian Aadhaar system as coercive to collect biometric data often failed to recognise their compliance with similar demands from the US embassy for obtaining tourist visas. The defense of “consent” against coercion proves inconsistent.
Privacy, like liberty, is not an untamed freedom but rather a negotiated privilege granted by the state. Although India”s Supreme Court designated privacy as a “fundamental right” in 2017, the term “fundamental” implies a primal instinct, which privacy is not. It is protected from government intervention by the constitution, but its elevated status is a relatively modern construct. This raises questions about whether a new right can truly be considered “fundamental.”
The government retains substantial power to shape definitions of national interest, thereby overshadowing even the most sophisticated rights. The intrinsic inequality between rulers and subjects has historical roots and, consequently, seems more natural than attempts to reform it through difficult means.
The government”s adeptness at guarding official secrets illustrates its grasp of privacy. This further reinforces the notion that state secrecy represents the government”s right to privacy.
The limited mass appeal of the right to privacy stems from its relatively recent invention, making it less instinctual than more deeply rooted rights. Its intricacies, coupled with the government”s ability to define national interests, contribute to the challenge of establishing privacy as a universally embraced fundamental right.
