Surveillance in Digital Technology as a Threat to Democracy
Bana Nourkeyhani
Graduation Research Paper
Capilano University
April 23, 2018
LBST 490
Dr. Christopher Gratham
Introduction
The impressive rate at which digital forms of technology have been advancing over the
past 20 years has placed us in an era unlike any other. As time has progressed and so have new
types of digital technology, which are released so rapidly, the dangers and risks of these
advancements have become increasingly more apparent. The world took a drastic turn for the
worse following the events of the 9/11 attacks that took place in New York, killing thousands of
civilians. Given this massive tragedy and threat to the American people, it is expected that the
government would take extra steps to ensure the safety of its citizens. Despite the fact that the
event took place in the United States, the consequences of the actions of those that committed the
crime have changed the way in which we are surveilled on a day to day basis worldwide.
Surveillance has been around for an indefinite amount of time; however before the 20th-century
surveillance was typically associated with espionage and traditional spying as a means of
acquiring information. The evolution of surveillance with the progress of digital technology has
altered the methods used to collect information as well as the intention and meaning of
surveillance altogether. The original purpose for surveillance was to use it merely as a tool for
monitoring; however, surveillance in digital technology is a threat to democracy as a result of the
unexpected and abrupt evolution of these technologies; our privacy, autonomy, and democracy
are being threatened. Additionally, as a result of the constant growing forms of mass
surveillance, laws and regulations are altering globally. Many people both in Canada and around
the world are under the impression that mass surveillance is predominantly an American issue,
when in fact it is international as a product of the Five Eyes, and it is far worse than we could
1
have imagined. Laws are being used to further accessibility to citizen’s personal information via
mass surveillance, and therefore it is crucial to not only inform citizens but to also take it one
step further by actively being engaged. Seeing that surveillance has wrapped humanity in an
invisible net, this should not discourage people from being their true selves. If anything, these
breaches of privacy that have intertwined within our justice system should motivate us to keep
ourselves up to date and educated on the topic, and engage in conversation with others who may
or may not be aware of what is going on. This paper will begin with an overview of what the
definition of democracy is and how - in correlation with the description- it is under threat. Then,
the role in which cyberspace and thus the internet plays in connecting digital technologies and
surveillance will be considered to establish the linkage between the two. In exploring both
democracy and cyberspace, the definition and purpose of surveillance will be examined and will
be applied to further sections throughout to demonstrate how it is a threat to democracy in more
than one way. With these observations, the importance and lack of privacy, as well as the sudden
expansion of social sorting will be considered as a result of constant surveillance and how
individualism and autonomy are becoming more difficult to obtain with democracy being under
threat. Lastly, the Canadian government’s role and involvement in mass surveillance via the Five
Eyes, and Canada’s anti-terrorism act(s) will be examined to demonstrate how these laws are
threats to our democratic society in secrecy.
Research Methods and Research Questions
In approaching my graduation project, I was encouraged to narrow down my research
questions as much as possible. Although I experienced great difficulty when I first attempted to
2
do so, the more research I did, the more focused my vision became. After weeks and even
months of making an effort to find the question(s) that I want to tackle the most, I was finally
successful. The two questions that I have chosen to answer are as follows:
1) How is surveillance in digital technology seen as a threat to democracy?
2) Is our democracy in Canada under threat as a result of this?
Upon doing my research on these topics, I noticed how effortless it is to find information
that is outdated. My research thesis is current, and the Canadian national security laws are still
under debate, and thus as a result of this, I have come across many outdated sources. Despite
this, it has been incredibly fascinating to read the evolution of surveillance since 2001, and I
have found that it has assisted me greatly in generating an accurate representation of its history. I
used a vast variety of sources to ensure the absence of limitation for my sources. I acquired much
of my information from databases such as JSTOR and Google Scholar. The website for the
Parliament of Canada provided me with an array of information regarding Canada’s current and
past national security laws. Most of the information that I gathered was acquired by a variety of
books, which are all now a part of my library. The works of David Lyon ( a professor at Queens
University who specializes in Surveillance Studies) have inspired me the most, followed by
Glenn Greenwald (a journalist for The Guardian). I, therefore, did quantitative research, and I
used literature review as well as a thematic analysis in hopes of answering my research
questions.
3
Critical Theory of Technology: Analysis and Placement
In preparation for beginning this paper, I have reviewed Andrew Feenberg’s Critical
Theory of Technology to find a proper theoretical approach or two that I identify with the most
following technology. One of the most emphasized theories in Feenberg’s work and one in
which I can relate to is the substantive theory. This specific theory argues that the entire social
world is being restructured and used as an object of control as a result of the new types of
cultural system in which is being constituted by technology (Feenberg, 7). Substantivism
characterizes technology as an autonomous and valuable concept that can help to obtain the
desired life and therefore does not view technology as neutral (Gratham, 22). Although this
theory has often been criticized as it grants absurd powers to technology, the more research I do
on this topic, the less ridiculous and more relevant this theory seems to me. Another theory - one
in which I have become familiar with, in this past - presented by Feenberg that I find intriguing
is the Critical Theory approach. Critical Theory views technology as an environment of struggle
that has connected with this virtual battlefield in which political, social, and even personal
matters are debated and criticized and therefore contribute to civilizational change (Feenberg,
12). New forms of oppression associated with modern industrialism are analyzed in this theory,
and as a result, it emphasizes the need to modernize technology to contribute to the needs of a
free society regardless of the new challenges societies might be facing (Feenberg, 11). Critical
theory and Substantivism share an essential characteristic, and that is that they are both
value-laden, and as a result of this I consider myself to be somewhere in between the two
theories. The reason for my indecisiveness in choosing just one theory is because although I
4
believe that technology is controlling the world with its unfathomable powers, I have hope that
we can maintain control over these technologies.
Democracy
There is no conclusive definition of the term democracy, as the individual most often
determines the meaning of the word in question. Even though there are copious ways of defining
democracy, there are characteristics that can connect the variety of interpretations, such as
equality, and both political and individual freedom. In its original layout, democracy is a system
of government meant to consist of power that is exercised with the consent of the people, voted
by the people from within themselves. There are, of course, many different branches of
democracy that have been altered and recreated throughout the decades. In the book titled Strong
Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age, Benjamin R. Barber focuses on two forms of
democracy: strong democracy and liberal “thin” democracy (Barber, xxxvi). Liberal democracy
is outlined as the most dominant modern form of democracy that exists today and is rooted in
premises about knowledge, human nature, and politics that are leaning more towards liberalism
than democracy (Barber, 97). As well, thin democracy emphasizes the notion of individualism
and implements an excess of political theory in liberalism, causing it to limit the role of
democracy by undermining democratic structures and contributing to citizens lacking autonomy
and individualism (Barber, 98). The most natural and accurate branch of democracy, which
follows closely to its original design, is Strong Democracy. A strong democracy can be defined
as a way of life; meaning that instead of delegating their power to a representative to be their
voice, citizens govern themselves to the best of their ability as free individuals (Barber, 118).
5
This form of democracy envisions politics as a way of living while seeing active citizenship as a
way of life.“Effective dictatorships require great leaders; effective democracies need great
citizens” (Barber, p. xxxvi). Strong democracy does not rely on political leaders to survive, as it
accomplishes a truly democratic society with competent and responsible citizens who
re-establish the true meaning of democracy as individuals. This classification demonstrates how
strong democracy can thrive and how liberal “thin” democracy cannot, as it lacks democratic
characteristics and favours liberalism over democracy. Democracy is a way of life as opposed to
merely just a political system orbiting around rules. It’s about the daily struggles of individuals
who are striving to better their lives as well as themselves, and it is the only system that was
initially built on the respect for an individual's search for justice, freedom, and autonomy
(Barber, 128). Democracy encourages open-mindedness and thus as a result of this, citizens
ought to defend it when it’s under threat. This specific analysis will be my definition of
democracy moving forward in demonstrating how it’s under threat.
One of the most vital parts of what it means to live in a democracy is to know what the
government in power is doing and to have the ability to question their decisions if need be (Lyon,
92). If citizens are unaware of the power that the state holds and thus subvert to it, they are
unable to approve of these powers being implemented and in turn defeating the purpose of
democracy; this is a fundamentally dangerous threat that democracy faces. “Our capacity for
justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy
necessary” (Niebuhr, 2011, p. xxxii). Since human beings appear to be the only species that are
morally responsible, democracy is necessary to create a society with more freedom, liberty, and
justice for all. Be that as it may, the balance of power between citizens and governments is
6
shifting and becoming less focused on the elected and electorate and more on the ruling and the
ruled (Poitras, Snowden, Citizenfour). With the rapid growth of power - as well as surveillance comes the decline of freedom, privacy, and autonomy within societies that label themselves as
democratic states. Nowadays, the amount of personal information we share online is
unprecedented and does not fit into previous models of understanding exactly how a democratic
society should function (Hennig, 1). The fundamental understanding of how politics works is
shifting at an alarming rate due to the evolution of technology, and thus, for proper regulations to
be in place in a democratic society, we need to reevaluate our idea and understanding of what
democracy is. Moving forward, we must proceed with this definition to ensure that it is
functioning as it should be. In Canada, bills such as Bill C-51 and Bill C-59 are (partially) being
introduced as an attempt to prevent terrorism in the country; however, in the midst of this effort,
our democracy is severely under threat. With all of this taken into consideration, this does not
mean that all forms of technology are considered a threat to democracy. The emergence of new
forms of digital technology allows everyday citizens to communicate online with one another
and creates more opportunity to reach an audience worldwide and this represents a
democratization of communications generated by cyberspace (Deibert, 20).
Cyberspace and the Internet
Cyberspace is an unavoidable reality that has absorbed the globe in the complex skin of
information and various forms of communication (Deibert, 11). It refers to an immersive
environment that exists within the scope of the internet and is increasingly embedded in societies
and communication forums and provides a safe space for people to vocalize without the
7
immediate fear of discrimination. This environment has allowed two-thirds of the world to
connect virtually at a remarkable speed; an unfathomable rate in which it has and continues to
spread (Deibert, 12). The reality of cyberspace is unavoidable; no one is immune no matter how
hard they try. Even those who claim to be disconnected - in comparison to the average internet
user - are still indirectly in contact with this form of “new” media (Deibert, 18). If you receive all
of your local or international news via television news stations, the chances are that some (if not
most) of the information that you’re being exposed to was obtained via the internet. The original
designers of the internet “built a system of interconnection based on trust … and how it might be
abused was never predicted” (Deibert, 7). Since before the 21st-century we have never
experienced being so dependant on and surrounded by large forms of technology, future
generations will grow up relying on the internet and will live in a fragile and untrustworthy
world (Deibert, 8). Given the quick evolution of cyberspace and the internet, it is inevitable that
some governments use this as a tool for state control. States with authoritarian regimes - such as
Iran - take advantage of the freedom provided by the internet as another excuse to assert control
onto their citizens and thus gain control by decreasing the “freedom” aspect of “internet
freedom” (Deibert, 18). However, it is not only authoritarian regimes and corrupt states that take
advantage of cyberspace. American, Canadian, and European firms that used to pride themselves
in their ability to connect people and wire the world together are now transforming those wires
into tapped wires and secret weapons of war and repression without informing their citizens
(Deibert, 20). This invasion exhibits how democracy is under threat as a result of the continuous
growth of cyberspace and demonstrates the level of secrecy in said democracies. The core values
of cyberspace must be discussed to ensure its security as a communication system for citizens as
8
we are at risk of degrading and destroying it (Deibert, 20). By having governments withhold the
fact that they tap our communication wires via cyberspace from citizens, they are slowly but
surely stripping us of our privacy. The purpose of this environment is to communicate and speak
freely without having to face significant discrimination, especially from the government of the
country in which you reside. The fact that democratic states such as Canada have deemed it
necessary to invade this space shows how privacy is being threatened as a result of surveillance
via digital technology. Although the internet can distract users from aspects of the real and
physical world, it cannot be seen as an autonomous realm, and mass surveillance demonstrates
how the offline and online worlds are interconnected (Lyon, 42). Throughout the years, the
internet has been transformed from a tool of democratization, into an ambiguous and unknown
zone of mass surveillance (Greenwald, 120).
Surveillance
The nature of surveillance has altered excessively since the 9/11 attacks to the point
where it does not only change the quality of our democracy, but it also modifies our capability of
having control over the government as voters (Renzetti, 2015). Surveillance used to be defined as
merely watching in the most literal way; with the constant growth of digital technologies, it has
changed its focus to “seeing with data” (Lyon, 6). It has shifted its form into a tool used to keep
track of virtually everyone regardless of their clean criminal and personal records (Poitras,
Citizensfour). Surveillance could be defined as any systematic focus on personal information to
control, manage, and influence those whose data is collected with a definitive purpose (Bennett
et al. 7). It is primarily monitoring with the intention of intervention that often results in people
9
being categorized in ways that lead to different groups of people being treated differently and
targeted because of the category in which they’ve been placed in (Lyon, 109). Due to the
continuous growth in digital technologies and its availability, surveillance is no longer a matter
of tracking people who are deemed as a threat. It has altered into a way of classifying people
based on any personal data that is available; changing the idea of the target or threat from a
person to a specific profile (Bennett et al. 8). This division has created a new term within itself
called ‘social sorting’ which will be discussed later on. Surveillance is all around us, everywhere
we go. From your mobile device and laptop to your local grocery stores points card, local and
international governments are constantly keeping tabs on citizens regardless of your past. Before
Edward Snowden, a former CIA and NSA employee known for leaking confidential documents,
exposure of NSA (National Security Agency) Documents, most of the world were unaware of
the severity of mass surveillance. Countries such as Germany were appalled when it was
revealed that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cell phone was targeted by the NSA for years, causing
an uproar globally (Greenwald, 141).
The American government implemented the Patriot Act in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks,
which indirectly inspired countries worldwide to apply similar laws. The countries that have
been the most hyper-aware and active in this realm (since the cold war) are the countries in the
Five Eyes (FVEY): Canada, The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and The United
States. Once Snowden bestowed his files onto trusted journalists such as Glenn Greenwald,
anti-terrorism laws began to slowly resurface particularly in these five countries as they
collaborate with the NSA (Lyon, 59). Canada’s national security laws began to alter at almost the
same rate as the U.S; in the absolute secrecy of course. The FVEY will be discussed further in
10
the section titled The Five Eyes followed by Bill C-51 and C-59 which will be observed the
section titled Canada’s National Security Laws to demonstrate how these laws use surveillance
as a tool and therefore are a threat to democracy.
Privacy
With the advancements that have transpired in technology in the past century, privacy
and freedom have been combined into one term which is simply referred to as privacy. Privacy is
connected with living in a democratic society; a place where we are free to disagree with the
government when necessary without being fearful of the consequences and having limits on what
the governments can keep hidden from everyday citizens (Lyon, 11). Privacy is a well
established human right that is frequently seen as having multiple dimensions such as territorial
privacy, personhood, the control of personal information, intimacy, and the choice to be left
alone. It is a pivotal concept that helps to shed light on what is wrong with mass surveillance;
mass surveillance that violates rights such as freedom of speech, association, religion and other
such rights that are basic to democratic ways of organizing society (Lyon, 92). Not only does
privacy matter as a vital value in itself but it is also essential for practices such as democracy that
supports privacy (Lyon, 93). With the continuous growth of power and surveillance comes the
decline of privacy and autonomy within a democratic state. Invading the privacy of citizens
should be an arduous task to accomplish, as it is incredibly intrusive. “Privacy is the core
condition of being a free person” (Greenwald,172). For any person to be a free individual,
privacy is necessary for personal autonomy to be obtained. It is only when we believe that no one
is watching us do what makes us feel free that we feel safe enough to truly explore what it means
11
to be ourselves(Poitras, Snowden, Citizenfour). What makes the internet so unique is that it
presented us with the ability to speak and act anonymously, as if nobody else is watching, which
is vital to individual exploration (Greenwald, 174). Taking privacy away from citizens is an
immeasurable and disturbing reality that is a massive threat to both democracy and our
autonomy. Edward Snowden revealed and continues to do so via trusted journalists, NSA
documents that prove we are always being watched by the NSA as well as other government
organizations (Poitras, Citizenfour). The fact that we know that we are being watched and are
being cautious because of it limits our boundaries of intellectual freedom and exploration.
Privacy is a part of the common good and is an essential component of democracy as well as of
decent human life (Lyon, 12). A society in which the private realm is eliminated, and everyone
knows that at any moment they can be watched by the state is a society that has lost its character
and unique features on an individual level as well as a societal level (Greenwald, 174).
Many people believe that there is no harm in being watched by the government as they
assume that they are not doing anything wrong, as the only people that have anything to be
worried about are those engaged in criminal activity (Greenwald). This mentality is grounded in
the assumption that there are only good and bad people in the world and therefore good people
are not involved in bad behaviour and thus have nothing to hide. Regardless of the severity of
what it is we are protecting, everyone has something to hide from a particular audience that they
wish to conceal specific truths. Although people may claim that having the government surveil
their lives isn’t a breach of privacy and that privacy does not matter to them, their actions
indicate otherwise (Greenwald). During a TED talk given by Glenn Greenwald on the topic of
why privacy matters, Greenwald highlights the hypocrisy seen within the groups of individuals
12
who devalue themselves as harmless beings by claiming that privacy does not matter. “People
may say that privacy doesn’t matter to them, but their actions negate the authenticity of that
belief” (Greenwald). He continues by merely demonstrating that although people may say that
this is their opinion, they take many steps to ensure their private realm is not being compromised
by taking actions such as purely locking their doors (Greenwald). With the existence of Canada’s
current security laws that resemble the United States’ anti-terrorism act which revolves around
collecting information via surveillance, our privacy is undermined persistently. When we are
aware of the fact that we are being watched, our behaviour changes dramatically, and therefore
we are unable to be our true autonomous selves. Everyone in all societies shares the desire for
privacy, as it is an essential part of what it is to be a human being and that is under threat with
the existence of mass surveillance, and that is why privacy matters; it is an essential component
to being a human being.
Social Sorting
A concept coined by David Lyon, social sorting is primarily what today’s surveillance
achieves by separating one group from the other (Bauman & Lyon, 13). Surveillance is virtually
a means of social sorting generated by collecting data via digital technology which enables
trends to be found based off of the information being collected and thus creating a pattern that
leads to cynical discrimination between different groups of people. This division results in one
group being treated differently from another and targeting primarily population groups before
individuals (Lyon, 101). Despite the fact that the expression was conceived post 9/11 as a result
of surveillance, social sorting has been seen in many societies as far back as the 17th century
13
when slavery was first known to have occurred. During that time, individuals were separated
based off of the colour of their skin, class, and gender; beaten and taken advantage of as a result.
While slavery still -covertly- exists in both developed and undeveloped states, social sorting has
evolved and is evident through surveillance. Before surveillance - especially mass surveillance became prominent, it had begun moving towards the direction of systematic social sorting long
before the functions of surveillance focused its attention on profiling specific groups of people
(Lyon, 38). Trends in surveillance have solidified further since 2001, and social sorting is even
more evident now than before. Debates over racial profiling have become more prominent, and
therefore such classifications frequently occur by way of human observers (Lyon, 145). The
evolution of technology has made social sorting far more influential and potent as it has now
intertwined computer assistance into the process. Individuals falling into the wrong category as a
consequence of social sorting have their reputation and future opportunities made vulnerable by
these surveillant profiling systems that have been made more accessible as a consequence of
digital technologies. (Bauman and Lyon, 130). Alongside, proving one’s innocence has become
much more difficult for those who happen to fall under these categories, as they are considered
guilty until proven otherwise by the system which is surveilling the individual, to begin with
(Bennett et al. 12). Groups that are marginalized are susceptible to risks as desirable forms of
security that are available to other citizens are not offered to them; excluding them from the
opportunity of participating in society (Bennett et al. 47). This social separation defeats the
purpose of democracy as it excludes certain individuals solely based on their race which has
been deemed dangerous and, in turn, does not allow them to be active members of society. Not
only is surveillance a matter of personal privacy and social sorting, but it is also a matter of
14
social justice. This division is more conspicuous in the United States as a result of information
leaked by whistleblowers as well as media coverage; however, social sorting is in full effect in
Canada.
Canada’s Role in Mass Surveillance
Five Eyes (FVEY)
For my second research question, I wanted to focus on Canada’s role in regards to
surveillance. Other than the fact that I am a Canadian, I decided to do this because most of the
aspects we hear concerning this issue usually come from the U.S or the U.K., while Canada is
regarded as a perfect nation with a handsome Prime Minister. Once I began my research, the first
thing that I came across was the Five Eyes, also known as FVEY. The Five Eyes alliance started
initially as a part of a secret treaty in 1941 between the United Kingdom and the United States of
America; however, as the cold war intensified, three more countries were added in the 1950’s:
Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (Lyon, 58). This alliance has ensured that the net of
surveillance is cast globally, and thus, as Edward Snowden communicated through his manifesto
in 2013, they have imposed a system of secret surveillance around the world for which there is
no asylum (Greenwald, 23). The mass surveillance that takes place within the FVEY is initiated
by the NSA, the most substantial intelligence agency in the world who conducts most of its
surveillance work through FVEY, and all of the countries involved are subject to this as well
(Lyon, 57). The members of this alliance, however, are not the only ones that are subject to this.
Their allied countries - such as Germany and Brazil - as well as countries deemed unfriendly by
15
the US - such as Russia and China - are also subject to this mass surveillance initiated by the
NSA (57). In some of the documents released by Snowden in 2013, they revealed that the CSE
(Canada’s version of the U.S national security agency) had collaborated with the NSA
significantly (Deibert, 259). This coordinated partnership can be seen in instances such as when
the CSE allowed the NSA to use the U.S embassy in Ottawa, Ontario as a base for espionage
during the G8 and G20 summit meetings in 2010 (Lyon, 59). Canada is an active partner with the
NSA as well as a dynamic surveillance force of its own, making it one of the first countries from
the Five Eyes to sustain the impact of its mass surveillance (Greenwald, 119). This influence is
apparent in other instances that are less evident such as how Canada’s internet routing goes
through the U.S first and thus making it susceptible to interception by the NSA (Lyon, 59). The
relationship between the countries in the Five Eyes alliance is exceedingly close, and as a result
of this, the NSA’s desires are put above the privacy of the citizens of each state (Greenwald,
122). The reliance put onto the U.S infrastructure and the NSA by Canada particularly severely
compromises Canadian sovereignty and therefore the privacy rights of Canadian citizens (Lyon,
60). The relationship between the NSA and Canada’s involvement as an active member of the
Five Eyes contribute to how we see surveillance as a threat to our democracy.
Canada’s National Security Laws
The Canadian government was fast to implement an anti-terrorist act following the
attacks of 9/11. Less than two months after the Patriot Act was signed into law by George Bush,
the Canadian Liberal government passed Bill C-36, the Anti-Terrorism Act (Deibert, 255). This
act gave law enforcement and intelligence agencies new capabilities, as well as providing CSEC
16
new international powers among other things (Deibert, 255). It wasn’t until Edward Snowden
leaked CIA and NSA classified files, and the shooting on Parliament Hill in 2014, that Canada
began to upgrade its Anti-Terrorism act. Roughly 14 years after the implementation of the
American Patriot act of 2001 and Canada’s own Bill C-36, Stephen Harper’s right-winged
government proposed Bill C-51; a bill that is almost on par with its southern neighbours
governance in regards to the issue. Both the Patriot Act and Bill C-51 - and potentially Bill C-59
- contribute to, and implement, the ongoing threat to democracy that is social sorting and the
invasion of privacy.
Bill C-51 - Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
In January 2015, Stephen Harper’s government proposed Bill C-51 - Anti-Terrorism Act.
When this bill came out, there was an uproar and many protests by people who were enraged;
protests that continue to this day (McDermott). When asked about his opinion on the
Anti-Terrorism Act during a conference at Ryerson University in 2015, Edward Snowden said via Skype - that Bill C-51 “fundamentally changes the balance of power between the citizen and
the state” (Snowden). This bill gives expanded powers to CSIS, an intelligence agency that was
created intentionally to separate spying from policing, that allows it to collect and share personal
information about Canadians with other departments and agencies (Kimantas, 11). Although the
purpose of CSIS was to separate policing from intelligence gathering, this bill grants CSIS with
policing powers, which is a ruthless anti-democratic move. As a result of this, CSIS will be
allowed to violate citizens’ charter of rights by merely obtaining warrants during secret hearings
that allow for this to happen (Kimantas, 11). When talking about this bill once the Senate passed
17
it,, the leader of the Green Party, Elizabeth May, emphasized that this bill is more about creating
secret police than it is about terrorism; calling Bill C-51 the death of freedom in Canada
(Kimantas, 11). The stakes for democracy are high with this bill, as it puts a chill on many kinds
of freedom of speech and criminalizes speech acts that have no connection to acts of violence
(McDermott). The CBA (Canadian Bar Association) commented on the bill, saying that the
language of the legislation is vague. As a result of this, it wouldn’t improve the safety of
Canadians, contrary to what was publically stated by Harper’s government in regards to the
implementation of the bill (The Real Threat is C-51, 2015). Instead, this would limit freedoms
and liberties for Canadians. This bill also allows court judges to restrict all sorts of charter rights
without any democratic discussion whatsoever (Forcese, 2017). As well, this bill also authorizes
government institutions - such as Canada Revenue Agency - to share personal information with
the RCMP without the consent or knowledge of citizens (McDermott). With the implementation
of Bill C-51, CSIS powers have increased in ways that are ill-defined to a basic understanding of
what constitutes and free and democratic society, deeming it a threat to our democracy in
Canada.
Bill C-59 - National Security Act
Proposed by Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Government in 2016, bill C-59 is still under debate
in the house of commons, and changes won’t come until the Senate passes the bill. The purpose
of this bill, as set out by the Liberal government, is to fix issues caused by Bill C-51. Instead, it
adjusts specific problems but fails to correct others while also creating new ones ( McPhail &
Gill, 2017). Bill C-59 is set to constrain and soften some of the disruptive powers given to CSIS,
18
but, in turn, creates an entirely new act for CSE - Canada’s signals intelligence and cybersecurity
agency (McDermott). This bill grants CSE the power to conduct secret hacking, which is a step
backward for our security in Canada (McPhail & Gill, 2017). Although Bill C-59 is more charter
compliant, the creation of a separate law for CSE is the most significant issue with this bill, as
the powers given to CSE would be a tremendous threat to our democracy (McDermott). There is
a great deal of oversight that comes with this bill, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. However,
counterbalancing that is the actuality that the thresholds for collecting information have lowered.
Currently, CSE only obtains information if it’s necessary and relevant, but if this bill passes,
CSE will be granted the ability to gather a substantial amount of information; more than they are
already collecting (McDermott). Bill C-59 also creates new frameworks for mass data collection
within Canada and would allow CSE and CSIS not only to obtain information about Canadians
but also to use the information collected as long as it is publically available (McPhail & Gill,
2017). The government has yet to explain how the collection of this information via mass
surveillance would be necessary for protecting those living in Canada. If Bill C-59 passes
without further improvement, it would not only be a massive threat to our democracy; it would
also impact our human rights. Although Bill C-59 fills a crucial gap in Bill C-51 by improving
oversight and accountability for our spy agencies, it creates a range of troubling new powers for
CSIS and especially CSE (McSorley, 39). Alongside, it fails to address long-term problems in
Canadian national security law and continues to use vague terms in the charter which makes it
easier for these intelligence agencies to collect data via mass surveillance (Canadian Civil
Liberties Association, 2017).
19
Conclusion
Having discussed and observed ways that surveillance in digital technology is a threat to
democracy, it is easy to be taken back by technology and want to change the relationship we
share with it. Alas, we should not allow this to discourage us and alter our behaviour. “If we
change our behaviour because a government agency somewhere is doing the wrong thing … if
we sacrifice our values because we were afraid, we don’t care about those values very much”
(Snowden). Instead, we, as global citizens, need to be more engaged, educate ourselves and each
other and speak out when the time is right. By creating a climate which standarlizes these types
of activities, as Canadians, we’re accepting that we think that these types of operations are
acceptable when they’re not (The Toronto Star, 2017). These operations threaten our democracy,
privacy, autonomy, and individuality. As Canadian citizens living in a democratic society, we
need to be active and keep in mind that although Stephen Harper is no longer in office and the
Liberals are now in charge, the issue of mass surveillance is not over and still very much a threat
to our democracy. Lastly, many people currently believe that these are not issues solely because
they do not engage in criminal activity. As Glenn Greenwald said in regards to why privacy
matters, “we can try to render the chains of mass surveillance invisible or undetectable, but the
constraints that it imposes on us do not become any less potent” (Greenwald).
20
Works Cited
Barber, Benjamin R. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. University of
California Press, 2009.
Bennett, Colin J., et al. Transparent Lives: Surveillance in Canada. Athabasca University Press,
2014.
Bauman, Zygmunt; Lyon, David. Liquid Surveillance. Polity Press, 2013.
Citizenfour. Dir. Laura Poitras. Perfs. Edward Snowden, and Glenn Greenwald. Radius-TWC.
2014. Documentary Film.
Deibert, Ronald J. Black code: surveillance, privacy, and the dark side of the internet.
McClelland et Stewart, 2013.
“Edward Snowden comments on Bill C-51 and Canadian liberties.” YouTube,uploaded by CBC
News, 4 March 2015,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z31r4MfBvd8&t=58s
Forcese, Craig; Roach, Kent. “Bill C-51: The Good, The Bad, … And The Truly Ugly.” The
Walrus. 4 May 2017, p.1.
https://thewalrus.ca/bill-c-51-the-good-the-bad-and-the-truly-ugly/
Greenwald, Glenn. No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S surveillance state.
New York, NY: Picador. 2015. Print.
Greenwald, Glenn. “Why Privacy Matters.” TED. Oct. 2014.. Lecture.
21
Kimantas, Janet. "C-51'S Criminalization of Caring." Alternatives Journal (AJ) - Canada's
Environmental Voice, vol. 41, no. 3, May 2015, p. 11. EBSCOhost,
ezproxy.capilanou.ca/login?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.capilanou.ca/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=103367842&site=eds-live&scope=site.
LastWeekTonight. "Government Surveillance: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)."
YouTube. YouTube, 05
Apr. 2015. Web. 23 Apr. 2017.
Lyon, David. Surveillance After September 11, Polity Press, 2003.
Lyon, David. Surveillance after Snowden. Polity Press, 2015.
McDermott, Meghan. Discussing Bill C-59, Capilano Students’ Union, 19 March 2018, Capilano
University, North Vancouver, BC. Guest Lecture.
Mcsorley, Tim. "It's Better Than C-51, but That Isn't Saying Much: Five Reasons Civil Liberties
Advocates Are Worried about the Liberal Government's Security Policy Redo." CCPA Monitor,
vol. 24, no. 4, Nov/Dec2017,
pp. 39-42. EBSCOhost,
ezproxy.capilanou.ca/login?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.capilanou.ca/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=126094610&site=eds-live&scope=site.
McPhail, Brenda; Gill, Lex. "Five Questions Mps Must Ask about Bill C-59." The Toronto Star
(Toronto, Ontario),
22
2017. EBSCOhost,
ezproxy.capilanou.ca/login?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.capilanou.ca/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=edsgin&AN=edsgcl.515470791&site=eds-live&scope=site.
"New Spy Powers Must Be Debated; Bill C-59." The Toronto Star (Toronto, Ontario), 2017.
EBSCOhost,
ezproxy.capilanou.ca/login?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.capilanou.ca/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=edsgin&AN=edsgcl.520717017&site=eds-live&scope=site.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. The Children Of Light And The Children Of Darkness: A Vindication Of
Democracy And A Critique Of Its Traditional Defense. The University of Chicago Press,
2011.
Renzetti, Elizabeth. “Snowden’s message to citizens: Democracy itself is threatened.” The Globe
and Mail. The Globe and Mail. 20 Feb. 2015.
www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/snowdens-message-to-citizens-democracy-itself-is-threatene
d/article23138430/?arc404=true.
“The Real Threat is C-51.” Aboriginl Multi-media society, Apr. 2015, p. 5.
“ The Relationship Between Bill C-51 and Bill C-59.” Canadian Civil Liberties Association. 12
September 2017. p.1. https://ccla.org/relationship-bill-c-59-bill-c-51/
Trew, Stuart. “What is C-51 for?” CCPA, NDA, p.3.
23