They say a picture’s worth 1000 words; when I was researching for this essay, I found so much to write about that I decided to sew three of them together to illustrate the core issue at play associated with technology. Namely, the state and its respective people have much to discuss and come to an agreement over, when it comes to the growth and expansion of tech in today’s era. As is portrayed below, technology is developing at such a rapid rate that it diminishes the security rights we as collective citizens are entitled to. Although I believe this essay presents a somewhat unwelcoming reality of how technology is used and may be manipulated in the future, nonetheless it is vital to understanding and contributing to the dialogue that quite evidently must take place.
The development of technology can at its core, be defined as a blessing and a curse for the existence of humanity. Technology has (relatively recently) had a symbiotic, exponential relationship with the human species. Humans help to foster technology’s growth, which in turn has the ability to assist in growing and/or controlling human development. However, technology and the human species’ recent symbiotic relationship also possess the capability to go awry. On the international scene, pressure is placed on states to act in particular ways or avoid certain methods of enacting the rules they wish to do so. Global order is already vastly complicated, without the use of technologies to further this complication; giving stead to arms races such as the security dilemma. Although this will be explored via in-depth analysis below, technology gives rise to much more not only intricate, but interesting forms of global governance. According to the assertion that every state wishes for more power and to be the global hegemony, my research proposal seeks to answer the question; how are we to reconcile states’ lust for international power and dominance with our own rights as citizens of a community, which should be firmly held not to be overstepped?
Misperception plays an enormously underrated role in the art of global order and governance. It manifests itself throughout history in various forms; for instance, let us examine one particular instance of misperception from World War I in greater detail. Germany is located to the east of Britain and France, and to the west of Russia. During the weeks leading up to WWI and shortly after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, several states knew of an impending war, but were not aware of the specific circumstances in which they would be occurring. Germany, strategically planning for itself how to walk away victorious from the set of circumstances they found themselves in amidst Europe’s political landscape, decided they had little to no options; acknowledging that they would have to take their army and split it in two, to meet both sides of the war. They also were aware that Russia had gone under less civil and political development, and the Industrial Revolution had not yet hit them, unlike the power play states to Germany’s west. Therefore, their plan was to head west and start attacking once they begin to see signs of Russia’s mobilization. Russia, on the contrary, had itself been aware of the forthcoming war and decided to begin mobilization; in the case that their adversaries had chosen to attack them. As a result of Russia’s attempts to defend itself in case of attack, Germany had misperceived this signal as a sign that they should then take the opportunity to strike first, then hopefully have enough troops ready and available to meet Russia’s army on the east. Aside from the political implications behind Germany’s cause for war, from a strategist perspective, they did what they believed would get them to the other side of war as victors. This specific illustration of human history was highlighted with the intent of portraying the dire consequences of misread communication. Had Russia been vocal about defensively mobilizing, Germany would have not found themselves in the position where they need to attack; thus, deterrence occurs. According to Robert Haffa, a PhD holder in political science from MIT, communication, capability and credibility are three main aspects required for deterrence theory. (Haffa, The Future of Conventional Deterrence, p. 96-97) Past the bounds of the current example, I would argue that deterrence may be used to counter technological advancement specifically from other states, in accordance with the three elements required of it.
By the same token, states’ actions always have the chance of being misread by another on the international scene. This is why, for example, an INF Treaty was signed by Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev in 1987, preventing missiles with certain ranges. Until this Treaty was put out-of-effect last year, (The INF Treaty at a Glance, 2019) its purpose remained as a method of desirable actions being enacted by two “rival” states competing for power, under a realist perspective. The US then accused Russia of violating the treaty with evidence of a cruise missile being deployed by the Russians, but nonetheless, the fact remains; what is to be said about the overstepping of citizens’ rights in either of the two circumstances? Our right to security of the person then becomes as jaded as one’s right to life, despite being kept in prison. The difference being (if we have faith in our justice system), that one in prison is guilty of a crime, while our rights on the international scene are reduced to merely relative gains by which to assess if a state should take advantage of, or not; such as child soldiers, for instance. Consider the following outlook; military technology has advanced so rapidly that today if nuclear warfare was to take place and a single victor were to arise, 10 million deaths (hypothetically) from the victor’s home country would be seen as a relative win, although not a “win” by many other circumstances. How are we as citizens to protect against the overstepping of our rights and boundaries in this fashion? In some ways more than others, we are bound to the society we live in. This echoes the sentiments of Rousseau, who claimed, “man[kind] is born free, but [they are] everywhere in chains.” (Rousseau, The Social Contract, p. 1)
On the other hand, loopholes become as common to the rules we create as technology develops further down the generational line to direct our interests. The US’ “Project Thor” was established in response to finding a loophole in the existing treaties during the Cold War. To get around no explosives being allowed in space, the US Air Force created 10ft Tungsten metal rods that could be deployed and hit the Earth at 10 times the speed of sound. (US Project Thor, 2018) Just as the Second Amendment was created during a time with muskets and flintlock pistols, this particular treaty was developed before technology’s advancement into the weaponization of our space orbit. Kinetic bombardment has also made a comeback in the last year in defense-spending terms, as it is much less costly and delivers damage equal to a nuclear strike. (US Project Thor, 2018) These treaties that are known to have loopholes around them are of utter significance to be revisited and must be amended to uphold the initial values of the cause behind them.
Instances mentioned above are pertaining to our rights being overstepped on the international scene, but what of how technology has assisted to overstep our rights in our own communities? Toronto’s Police Services Board introduced ShotSpotters in July of 2018, a device that is installed and records when gunshots are heard, then the information is sent to the police. (Drange, 2016) However, where are ShotSpotters to be installed so that they capture a good majority of gunshots? Racial and neighbourhood profiling takes place to determine specifically where these objects are positioned. Furthermore, the ShotSpotter does not turn on after a gunshot is heard; it is waiting for a gunshot to be heard, then starts to record. In the same respect that Alexa possesses both the means the ability to overstep our rights to privacy in our homes, ShotSpotters possess this same capability in the streets of Toronto’s more dangerous streets and neighbourhoods. Instead of the information being up to companies to use morally, this information is used for the advantage of the police, even if it undermines the security of citizens.
Another recent key development of technology being advanced for the overstepping of our boundaries as citizens is carding. Carding describes a method of branded ‘security’ by police where they stop and question citizens for no real lawful purpose. They use the information they get through questioning and compile this data into a street-checking database. If it was not apparent how much of an overstepping of the boundaries of citizens the act of carding requires, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA at the Supreme Court, 2019) writes about one particular instance of carding where an officer went into the backyard of a citizen’s house and began to question 5 young racialized men. (R v Le, 2019) Since the police, and moreover the state, are able to set the future boundaries of technology yet to be created or methods of obtaining information involving technology, they then also become able to abuse that power and twist it to their advantage. Carding is a good example of this, because not only is it (partially) electronically based, but it is used for the purpose of obtaining information as an anticipatory, legitimate action, in the eyes of the state, against people who have no reason to indicate they are not following legal standards. On the other side of this argument however, some technology should (and does) fall within the bounds for police to use. A relatively recent case of the growth of technology being used to the state’s advantage is with the rolling out of Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) in the US and Britain. ALPR can be used to track and quickly identify license plates, and I would argue that the state should be able to effectively do that. However, ALPRs are also capable of tracking people, too. They are able to give accurate and detailed information about one’s place of residence and where they go, who they see, etc. (Police license plates, 2019) This information, along with carding, is compiled into a database and cross-checked at the state’s convenience. Convenience in this case pertains to, for instance, if a citizen is put in a database for having connections to a local gang member, and the citizen’s acquaintances get put into the system, merely because of the indirect relation. Evidently, there is a moral line being crossed by the state, so that they may pursue their end goals through the means that they set the standards for.
The overstepping of our boundaries as citizens has been evident since the birth of John Locke’s 2nd Treatise, from which the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person were held as 3 standards that a ruler must provide. (Locke, 1689) The right to life and liberty seem to be fairly straightforward, but for the purposes of this essay I’d like to analyze the security of the person and what that directly and indirectly means in-depth. By one claiming that they have security of the person under the state, they are claiming physical protection of themselves. Security of the person indeed does not account for other types of security. What about mental and emotional security, for instance? And furthermore, it is clear to rationalize that technological security of the everyday citizen is imperative as well. Canada’s 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that all in Canada have the right to life, liberty, and security of the person; in the United States however, the security of the person is changed (via Thomas Jefferson) to the inalienable “pursuit of one’s happiness.” (The Declaration of Independence, 1776) I would argue that it is much easier to ensure that a majority is able to pursue things that would make them happy, than it is to be able to ensure their protection, be it physical, mental, or other types of applicable harm.
The security dilemma is a critical factor on the topic of technology and how it must be governed. Also known as the spiral model, it is an important concept to understand for the purposes of understanding and fully engaging with the content of the question at hand. Britannica describes a security dilemma to be “a situation in which actions taken by a state to increase its own security cause reactions from other states, which in turn lead to a decrease rather than an increase in the original state’s security.” (Security dilemma | international relations, 2020) This phenomenon is due in part to the fact that there is no one to govern the governed; they themselves are the ones setting the standard for how international and global actions could take place hypothetically. The reason that the security dilemma is important for the discussion on technological growth is that it is completely recognizant of the fact that things could have the potential to go awry on the international scene. Without someone to set the standard for global trade to take place, the onus then gets placed on the political party of the day of any particular countries to engage in trade or not; this is where misperception comes in as a key to understanding how global order works. Because of the lack of a global Leviathan that Hobbes describes, misperception is allowed even more extensive grounds to infiltrate the minds of international powers.
Another variable of extreme significance is private actors or privately-owned corporations/businesses. As states are subject to the codes of international law, businesses operate, especially on their manufacturing element, with the cheapest labour that they can afford without it affecting their revenue. In states where child labour is outlawed, for instance, purely from a business or economics perspective it makes sense to outsource manufacturing to a state where it is commonplace, such as China. However, what regard for the law, and more importantly, morality, is there on behalf of the businesses who choose to find loopholes for maximum profit? This describes a structural account of war and poverty, whereby there are always people suffering at the expense of actions of rational gains maximizers. Under this structural account of war, virtually every decision made by rational gains maximizers contributes to the absence of peace. The term, rational gains maximizer, flows both from rational choice theory and organizational economic theory. Rational choice theory examines the individual under a lens of self-interested utility maximization, (Rational Choice Theory, 2020) while organizational (economic) theory pertains to efficient functioning through a rational means. (Nyberg, Organizational Theory, 1998) The two theories work in tandem and attempt to explain the decisions made by companies and businesses (as well as states for that matter) whose goals are primarily revenue and increasing profits in the best interest of the shareholders being content. For the shareholders, it is the bottom line that matters; for the employees (who are all stakeholders), the vital difference is that they could be potentially fired so that the balance sheet gains admiration in the eyes of the shareholders. In other words, the interests of the shareholders are almost always put in front of the interests of those who simply have a stake in any given company. I would consider both shareholders and stakeholders to be morally right in the context of business, but where is the line that shareholders are comfortable drawing, so that they can rationally be maximizing their gains? This line is of critical importance not to be instituted by the individual business themselves; an international standard of ethicality must be implemented and well-established, so that infringements of such ethicalities may not go unpunished. And yet, this ethical line is left up to the companies and businesses themselves to decide if they are willing to cut corners for more profit. As technology will inevitably reveal and expose new methods of finding loopholes for businesses to take advantage of, this issue will only become more apparent within the next couple decades if states do not set a moral boundary internationally. As was previously stated, technology is both a blessing and a curse on humanity’s existence; we are able to use it as how we imagine it working to our advantage.
Since states are able to mould the legal configurations of new technology that has yet to be produced, the technological future of today poses a grave threat towards our security. Even more devastating is the new dawn of tech; tomorrow’s technology certainly contains the ability to threaten our existence. We must be aware of the problem to effectively respond to it; therefore, understanding the differing methods in which our rights as citizens can be transgressed is of crucial importance. In addition to that, we as citizens must uphold the high standard that we value our security and protection to be. A rather anecdotal example that proves to illustrate the deterioration of how citizens view security is the (newer generational) argument: “I don’t mind my information being compiled [by the state] because I have nothing to hide.” This quote is an example of the younger-age school of thought present in our modern world and shows the lack of knowledge that youth today generally have concerning the state’s various uses of technology. It is vital that the society must be aware that the state owns technology exclusively used to the detriment of the society’s people. Our rights are simply not going to be maintained if we are silent when moral and ethical lines become crossed due to tech, which paints a rather bleak picture of our collective future. Nevertheless, although this is a difficult standard to maintain, we must strive to maintain it. This very essay assists in potentially starting a dialogue about how a state and its people could possibly maintain technological boundaries, as well as working together to develop an international standard of security among states, for all.
References
CCLA at the Supreme Court: The Worst Carding Case in Canadian History? – CCLA. (2020). Retrieved 22 March 2020, from https://ccla.org/ccla-supreme-court-worst-carding-case-canadian-history/
CityNewsToronto. (2020). Carding is ‘wrong and illegal’ says Ontario ombudsman – CityNews Toronto. Retrieved 18 March 2020, from https://toronto.citynews.ca/2015/09/24/carding-is-wrong-and-illegal-says-ontario-ombudsman/
Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982. (2020). Retrieved 31 March 2020, from https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
Drange, M. (2020). We’re Spending Millions On This High-Tech System Designed To Reduce Gun Violence. Is It Making A Difference? Retrieved 9 March 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/2016/11/17/shotspotter-struggles-to-prove-impact-as-silicon-valley-answer-to-gun-violence/#3186632a31cb
Haffa, R. (2018). The Future of Conventional Deterrence: Strategies for Great Power Competition. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 12(4), 94-115. Retrieved 16 March 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26533617
Nyberg, J. (1998). Organizational Theory. In A Caring Approach in Nursing Administration (pp. 38-68). Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado. Retrieved 10 March 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1d8h969.9, Page 48
R. v. Le – SCC Cases (Lexum). (2019). Retrieved 22 March 2020, from https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17804/index.do
Rational Choice Theory – an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. (2020). Retrieved 25 March 2020, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/rational-choice-theory
Rousseau, J., Tozer, H., & Bosanquet, B. (1895). The Social Contract. London: S. Sonnenschein.
Security dilemma | international relations. (2020). Retrieved 27 March 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/security-dilemma
Police license plates readers are still exposed on the internet (2020). Retrieved 28 March 2020, from https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/police-alpr-license-plate-
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty at a Glance | Arms Control Association. (2020). Retrieved 31 March 2020, from https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/INFtreaty
US Project Thor would fire tungsten poles at targets from outer space. (2018). Retrieved 8 March 2020, from https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_Project_Thor_would_fire_tungsten_poles_at_targets_from_outer_space_999.html
Jeruson J., ARCHIVED. 