Globally, digital surveillance is now a standard practice, used by both commercial businesses and governments. Drawing on the definition by David Lyon, digital surveillance can be defined as “any systematic and routine attention to personal details, whether specific or aggregate, for a defined purpose” using digital technologies.” These technologies encompass a wide range of tools, including facial recognition, movement tracking, and biometric systems, all of which are increasingly utilized to monitor and analyze individuals’ activities and behaviors.

While these technologies are often implemented by governments under the guise of convenience and efficiency, civil society organizations such as the Human Rights Watch have raised numerous concerns about privacy and individual autonomy. There is universal consensus amongst scholars that such technologies have been weaponized by governments around the world. In many cases, reports suggest that surveillance is conducted without consent or transparency. Facial recognition technology is a prime example of this; it is extensively utilized in public areas and has been adopted by cities worldwide for a variety of reasons, including crowd control and security enhancement. Its use, however, presents serious privacy issues since people may be unintentionally tracked and watched in real time, with their whereabouts and actions being captured without their knowledge or permission. In a similar vein, both governments and commercial businesses frequently retain and analyze the enormous volumes of data gathered by biometric and movement tracking technologies, opening the door for misuse or exploitation.

As the use of surveillance technology grows more prevalent, individual liberties are at jeopardy due to the growing normalization of surveillance; even in democracies. Although many countries defend monitoring on the grounds of national security or crime prevention, this assurance is frequently undermined by the possibility of abuse and overreach. Consequently, a tool intended for defense can swiftly transform into an instrument of oppression, blurring the line between safety and control.

As digital surveillance continues to evolve, it is crucial for both communities and policymakers to recognize the potential consequences. To this end, advocacy and accountability becomes a vital tool for enhanced privacy rights, transparent data gathering techniques, and increased responsibility for corporations and governments. The future of privacy hinges on our ability to achieve an appropriate balance; creating systems that protect us rather than control us.