lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
GEORGE ORWELL’S BIG BROTHER IS BIGGER
Savannah Nalls
GOVT 475
February 25th, 2018
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
FACTS
George Orwell’s novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, is perhaps the world’s best-known account of an all
intrusive government and its core concepts have crept into the consciousness of all those concerned
about civil liberties and democratic institutions. Despite the fact that it was only written as a warning
about the looming threat of totalitarian communism, its concerns still resonate today. Evolving
technologies have made its science fictional account of a government that literally oversees and
regulates every aspect of life more science than fiction.
Orwell loathed oppressive totalitarian governments such as those of Hitler’s Germany and
Stalin’s Soviet Union because they denied citizens the right to think freely for themselves. He asserted
that “totalitarianism demands, the continuous altercation of the past and in the long run probable
demands a disbelief in the very existence of the truth” (Shafritz et al., 2014). Furthermore, the novel’s
most famous catch phrase was, “Big brother is watching you” (Shafritz et al., 2014).
Surprisingly enough, the warnings echoed within his literature has come true in modern day
America. In fact, in 2009 because of copy writing issues, Amazon deleted Orwell’s books from the Kindles
of thousands of its customers. This resulted in a massive outrage and concomitant bad publicity for the
company.
Additionally, nearly every aspect of individual life is currently under surveillance in areas such as
banks, grocery stores, offices, and busy intersections. Police departments can use video cameras to
instantly scan the faces of thousands of people and in a fraction of a second compare each face to those
of known criminals or terrorists (Shafritz et al., 2014).
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
The larger implications of electronic surveillance go far beyond the political and legal issues of
civil liberties. Today many companies utilize these programs to track the efficiency of its workers on the
company’s computer.
DECISION
The utilization of software’s and complex tools to invade the privacy of American citizens in the
midst of the threat of terrorism and other safety concerns is one which has started great controversy.
Proponents of the increased surveillance claim that it will increase the safety of country and is necessary
to protect the country from additional terrorist attacks like those seen on 9-11. Those who vehemently
reject the increased surveillance on citizens claim that it creates a slippery slope of over powerful and
unethical governmental practices.
Ultimately, while surveillance in America does have the ability to enhance safety, the freedom
that it intrudes on have larger risks than any positive aspects it may have to begin with. Additionally, this
lack of freedom and evasive intrusion on the government’s part can easily led to more serious infractions
in the future. In the words of president Abraham Lincoln, “American will never be destroyed from the
outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
SOLUTION
I. MAKING THE CASE FOR “BIG GOVERNMENT”
While a large influence of the government in the personal lives of citizens is normally considered a
bad thing, there are some positives of a “big brother”. Third world countries especially stand to gain with
a bigger government involvement in computer software which aid in identification of their citizens. In
South Asia, for example, nearly two out of three births went unregistered at the turn of the century
which ultimately caused issues of inheritance of family’s land because of the lack of proper identification
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
(Kenny, 2013). Furthermore, without such identification, citizens would be completely unable to open a
bank account (Kenny, 2013). Therefore, the promotion of a better system of distributing proper
identification of citizens could gradually develop into more economic prosperity within the country.
Within the first world, the United States have ran into some large problems when it comes to
identifying its citizens. In some states, individuals without proper identification are incapable of voting
because of laws trying to hinder voting fraud. This fact disproportionally effects minorities. In a 2007
study in Orange County California about 92 percent of white voters had proper Identifications while only
81% of minorities processed the identification necessary to vote (Wickman, 2012). It could be argued
that distributing identification of all citizens would allow for better participation in democratic elections
and more representation of minority voters.
An additional problem in governments with a lack of identification systems is the ability for people to
easily cheat lax governments out of billions of dollars each year in pensions, payments, and services as a
result of illegal fake identifications (Kenny, 2013). This can either occur in third world countries and even
the United States. In the United States, tax fraud because of identification issues cost the tax payers a
whopping $5.2 billion (Kroft, 2014). Ultimately, a more complex system of identification than what has
already been implemented may in the long run prove to be cost effective for the country.
Regarding undercover and secret surveillance, police departments across the country have
embraced undercover policing in recent decades. Undercover techniques serve a critical function in the
criminal justice system. Often, underground criminal activity can only be discovered through undercover
investigation; this is especially true when law enforcement seeks to capture large criminals and leaders
in complex criminal organizations. Another critical use of undercover operations is preventing crimes
before they occur, such as through infiltrating terrorist organizations (Wamsley, 2015).
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
Undercover techniques take on an even more important role given the Supreme Court’s growing
restrictions on typical police work. Fourth Amendment limitations are forcing police departments to
increasingly rely on undercover techniques to perform tasks that were previously left to uniformed
officers (Wamsley, 2015). While undercover officers are still generally subject to the fourth amendment
restrictions, they have greater access to information through the use of deceptive techniques that fall
within the ambit of the law. For example, while a criminal is unlikely to allow a police officer without a
warrant into his apartment, he many welcome an undercover officer he does not know works for the
police (Wamsley, 2015).
The greatest risk that this extra surveillance poses other than violating the privacy of its citizens is
becoming so great that the governmental entity decides that it is above the rule of law and above the
people that is meant to govern them. While particularly relevant for third world countries which already
have tyrannical governments to begin with, the issues posed by more surveillance can easily affect the
United States similarly.
II. Big Brother Government as a Path to Tyranny
In May of 2013, Edward Snowden stole approximately 1.7 million documents of secret data from
the NSA and delivered them to numerous news agencies in order to expose many secret programs
conducted against its own citizens, foreign leaders and various targets abroad (Verble, 2014). The
documents exposed many troubling aspects of the American government such as the fact that the
federal government had access to and eavesdrops on all telephone communication, emails, and internet
metadata of their citizens and citizens from other countries. After the reports were released, the US
government was quick to defend the NSA and its practices. President Obama defended the NSA’s
programs, claiming that “lives have been saved” and also that phone and internet surveillance
conducted by the NSA was “narrow”. Despite the attempts of the federal government to alleviate the
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
newly found panic of the American public, the citizens had to make a choice that was never given to
them; do they prefer safety or freedom?
Edward Snowden has famously disclosed extensive information about the practices of the U.S
National Security Agency (NSA) with regard to PRISM and other US surveillance programs as well as the
involvements of services in other states. Much of this information, especially about the scale, reach, and
technical sophistication of these practices, came as a surprise even to seasoned observers. One practice
of the NSA involves intercepting communication of phone calls, text messages, Skype communications
and the diverse audio and video signals that pass-through computers, smart phones, satellite
communications, and traditional landlines.
After the terror attacks of 9-11, Department of Homeland Security was formed as a national
security organization as well as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) which began major
overhauls to airport security (Verble, 2014). With the terror attacks still fresh, some didn’t mind the
overbearing security measures in place, saying that it kept people safe, despite being an inconvenience
to travelers. The mindset was people had to sacrifice a little freedom for the sake of safety and if a
person was not guilty of anything, then he or she have nothing to hide. Due to the murky laws, loopholes
and executive orders, these agencies can easily skate by with limited oversight. With the rapid growth of
technology and the ripe environment of the post-9/11 landscape, the NSA and intelligence community
could expand more which ought to be troubling to Americans.
The NSA’s method of gathering and sharing information have paradoxical effects on national
security requirements. It results in national security being no longer national in its acquisition, or even in
analysis. Digitalization creates big data gathered at a transactional scale, blurring the lines of what is
national as well as the boundaries between law enforcement and intelligence. Simply put, the slippery
slope from searching for evidence for terrorist activities to searching for evidence of smaller more milder
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
crimes is a delicate line that can easily be crossed. Moreover, these trends encourage the move from the
judicial framework of criminal policing to preventive, preemptive and predictive approaches and from a
high degree of certainty of a small amount of data to a high degree of uncertainty about a large amount
of data (Verble, 2014).
Furthermore, it has not just been the American public that was outraged learning about the
intrusive policies which Snowden announced. Some partners of the NSA such as Germany, Poland,
Sweden, Netherlands, and France have been shocked by the way they have been duped and transformed
into instruments when they thought they were collaborators. Trust between the services which was
based on a universal goal of the struggle against terrorism, largely disappeared when it became clear
that spying on politicians, industrial espionage, data mining of the personal information of large
populations in order to profile the evolution of consumer choices and even political opinions about
future elections, have been used by NSA analysts.
III. Privacy as a Right
The right to respect for a person’s privacy is the overarching international human right. It is
found in the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights and its legal form found in the UN International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Bauman, 2014). Any interference with the privacy of a person
must first and foremost be subject to the consent of that person. The right to consent or refuse use of
personal data belongs to the individual who knows exactly what he or she is consenting to.
Where the state seeks to interfere with the right to collect and use personal information and
data constitutes an intrusion, such interference must be justified by the state authorities. First, it must be
permitted by law, and that law must be sufficiently clear and public that everyone can know what it is
and how to adjust their behavior accordingly. Additionally, there must be a legitimate and necessary
objective where there is no less intrusive alternative (Bauman, 2014).
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
The right of privacy is also an implied right enumerated within the American Constitution. The
right to privacy often means the right of personal autonomy and the right to choose to engage in certain
acts. Several amendments in the Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in
determining a right to autonomy. The third amendment, for example, protects the privacy of the home
against the use of its housing for soldiers. Furthermore, the fourth amendment protects privacy against
unreasonable searches and the fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination which as a result
protects privacy of personal information. Additionally, a person has the right to determine what sort of
information about them is collected and how that information is used. The Privacy Act of 1974, for
example, prevents unauthorized disclosure of personal information held by the federal government
(Sharp, 2013).
CONCLUSION
One of the greatest lessons that can be learned from this is the fact that citizens are more likely
to be approving of having their rights taken away in exchange for some sense of security and freedom.
This is unfortunate as the founding fathers often warned that such occurrences could ultimately occur
and ruin the principles of the government While president Obama defended the NSA by stating that “it is
important to understand that you cannot have 100 percent security and then have 100 percent privacy
and zero inconvenience”, Benjamin Franklin, one of America’s founding fathers, stated, “those who
would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”
(Koffler 2013). As such, the government’s intrusion of the public’s private life ought to be considered a
civil right violation.
While the Bible does not explicitly speak towards the undemocratic principles of tyrannous
government which disregards the privacy of its citizens, Scripture does uphold the value of privacy. The
Lord informs us to “aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs” (1 Thessalonians 4:11). However,
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
while Christians are meant to refrain from involving themselves in others affairs it is important to realize
that “nothing covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known,” as God knows
everything (Luke 12:2-3).
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
References
Bauman, Z., Bigo, D., Esteves, P., Guild, E., Jabri, V., Lyon, D., & Walker, R. J. (2014). After Snowden:
Rethinking the Impact of Surveillance. International Political Sociology, 8(2), 121-144.
doi:10.1111/ips.12048.
Kenny, C. (2013, March-April). The case for Big Brother. Foreign Policy, (199), 28+. Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/A321580019/AONE?
u=vic_liberty&sid=AONE&xid=c835cfe1.
Koffler, K. (2013) Edward Snowden, Traitor. White House Dossier. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-traitor/.
Kroft, S. (2014). Biggest IRS Scam Around: Identity Tax Refund Fraud. CBS News. Retrieved from
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/irs-scam-identity-tax-refund-fraud-60-minutes/.
Sharp, T. (2013). Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws. Live Science. Retrieved from
https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html.
Verble, J. (2014). The NSA and Edward Snowden: Surveillence in the 21st Century. ACM SIGCAS
Computers and Society, 44(3), pp. 14-20.
Wamsley, N. (2015, Winter). Big brother gone awry: undercover policing facing a legitimacy crisis.
American Criminal Law Review, 52(1), 177+. Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/A398252005/ITOF?
u=vic_liberty&sid=ITOF&xid=ebc3f81c.
Wickman, F. (2012). Why Do Many Minorities Lack ID? Investigation one of the Big Factors in the Debate
Over Those New Voter-ID Laws. Slate. Retrieved from
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/08/voter_id_laws_why_do_minorities
_lack_id_to_show_at_the_polls_.html.
