Scott, J. D. (2017). The Case for Better Privacy Protections for our Newest Public Space.

From Digital Culture & Society

Jump to: navigation, search

Scott, J. D. (2017). Social media and government surveillance: The case for better privacy protections for our newest public space. Journal of Business & Technology Law, 12 (2), 151- 163. Retrieved from [1]

Alissa Reid

The article Social Media and Government Surveillance: The Case for Better Privacy Protections for Our Newest Public Space by Jeramie D. Scott, discusses the issues generated as a result of the correlation between social media and government surveillance. With an increase of information communication technology, and the number of social media users growing daily, the government is treating social media as a public sphere that can be used to actively monitor citizens. Social media users willingly interact with the medium by publicly sharing thoughts, opinions and ideas, not as a space where users are actively letting the government into their daily lives. Privacy is essential to many on social media, especially following Edward Snowden’s revelations, but the government has formed a legal approach to invade the privacy of unwilling- citizens. Officials use these technological mediums to monitor citizens as a means to prevent issues, however, this threatens the democracy that many have come to know and trust.

Scott examines the public’s use of social media, and how as a result of the government being able to monitor all public posts, democracy is being impaired. Social media is believed to be a relatively safe space to practice First Amendment rights, but Scott illustrates how this is no longer the circumstance. Software has been developed that allows for the government to screen the data provided on social media, and as a result they have billions of data points available daily to readily analyze. With the access to information that can be analyzed to such an extent, it is evident democracy is being weakened as users lose their First Amendment rights. The main argument asserted is the importance of privacy in public, and how social media users are entitled to this as a way to uphold a healthy and functioning democracy. Public discourse is likely to degrade as a result of being fearful of government surveillance, especially because there currently is a lack of legal protection for citizens, which means there are no tight regulations the governments must follow. Scott advocates for better legislation with a goal of making social media monitoring viable for a healthy democracy.

Overall, this article provides a strong argument as a result of identifying the important issue of social media monitoring undermining society’s democratic rights, and proposing a viable solution to aid in making sure this government practice is done appropriately. Scott contributes high-value work to scholarship, as he brings attention to an issue that requires discussion. Scott states “As social media monitoring increases and becomes more sophisticated and the mass surveillance of public spaces increases, it will have a detrimental impact on our democracy” (p. 156). This is an important issue as democracy is vital to society. He also draws attention to the issue of limiting free speech, and how this will eventually lead to further weakening of democracy. Another issue discussed is how the government does not need to disclose much regarding the use and collection of data. Scott argues, “The law currently provides little recourse to protect publicly available social media posts and information from government monitoring” (p. 157). The article effectively situates this issue in a larger context as to why this truly is an issue many should care about. Scott does an excellent job at articulating what needs to be done, and utilizes current frameworks that could be utilized to create an effective solution. His first solution is to better define and understand what privacy in public is, and why it is essential for a healthy democracy. In terms of legal solutions, which he deems the most necessary, there are valid, research-based suggestions provided. The protections need to be deep and effective in order to have the desired impact on protecting basic rights. Scott’s main suggestion is, “the installation of community oversight at the local level and baseline protection at the federal level are essential” (p. 161). Community oversight would allow for appropriate protection and regulation of privacy, and he supports this claim with an example of a city who has implemented regulations regarding privacy. He discusses the Oakland, California government who have created an effective framework, by explaining the regulations involved, what this framework helps with, and how this is an effective format for combatting this issue.

A weakness of this article could be a potential bias as a result of Scott’s career. He is EPIC’s National Security Counsel, and Director of EPIC’s Domestic Surveillance Project. It is evident he is the right person to be writing about this issue, and why he has clear solutions to the issue, but this may be a weakness as his whole career is based around discovering privacy concerns. As a result of this bias, he does not include one positive of the government utilizing social media as a monitoring tactic. Many scholars agree with Scott, but usually include some positives to the argument, such as elaborating on how it can effectively thwart terrorism, or locate criminals. Having a bias does create a slant to the article, but at least it was established and made very clear on the first page that he did have these affiliations. Another weakness is the lack of elaboration on certain topics. In scholarly work, the conclusion needs to be strong and effectively reiterate the main argument with a call to action. Scott’s conclusion features four sentences, and does not elaborate enough on the grave importance of the privacy and surveillance issue. Many of his arguments are strong, but do not feature enough of an analysis at times. By creating a more in-depth articulation, this could strengthen his argument further. In addition, an inclusion of a literature search, or at least mentioning a bit of previous literature conducted on the topic would be beneficial. This field may not have a plethora of research conducted on this specific issue, but there is enough on other privacy and surveillance issues, that he could have used it to strengthen his opinions, or illustrate the negative implications of mass government surveillance.

In summation, this article features a strong argument articulating the negative implications of the government utilizing social media as a way to actively monitor citizens on a daily basis. Through this act, democracy is being undermined and citizens are losing their right to privacy in public. As technology progresses, and the need for surveillance grows, this issue will continue to develop until there are proper legal frameworks. Scott does an excellent job at explaining why this is an issue, and provides possible solutions. In new research, he could benefit from providing a deeper analysis.

Personal tools
Bookmark and Share