Legal and Regulatory Structure Prevailing in the UK related to Data Privacy and Public Surveillance
Abstract
Over the years, the Internet has changed from a system essentially concerned with providing data, to a channel for communication and social cohesion (Fuchs et al.,2013). Criminals go fastidious to hide illegal activities, which is why surveillance is essential for the purpose of investigation. By carrying out surveillance, detectives can discover proof required to substantiate legal suit, or imprison a lawbreaker. This paper uses the IRAC method to explain the prevailing legal and regulatory structures in the EU and UK with respect to social media surveillance. It also gives an in-depth analysis of the rights of a person or citizen to social media privacy. It outlines the dangers of social media surveillance by authorities, and demonstrate different case laws and rulings regarding violations of citizens’ right of privacy by different authorities.
Keywords
Download Options
Introduction
Surveillance can be used by detectives to track a person’s movements, in search of activities that may implicate or vindicate them of skepticism. It can facilitate in identifying delinquent groups, as well as the connection between a suspected person, and their allies. It can ultimately provide helpful insights into the formation and strategies of criminal groups. There are basically six types of surveillance, and they include: electronic surveillance, physical surveillance, computer surveillance, social media surveillance, financial surveillance, and biometric surveillance.
Creation of social applications such as the X, TikTok, Facebook, was endorsed by Web 2.0, and it laid the foundation for Web 3.0, the succeeding initiation of the web which tackles glitches in a different way using same technologies (Will Kenton, 2023). It supports users to bring contents rather than merely watching it. With the arrival of these social applications, comes enormous supply and storage of individual data, which can in turn be methodically assessed, sold, or used for targeting users. The regulation of social media is a difficult and demanding issue as it comes with certain number of challenges like, (i) Outlining harmful content; establishing what forms a harmful content is complicated, as there is no distinct agreement on what content should be regulated, or permissible to stay on social media platforms. (ii) Implementing Regulations: enforcing regulations on social media platforms can be tough, because these platforms are situated in countries with diverse legal systems, and getting assistance from oversea governments can be challenging. (iii) Counterpoising uninhibited speech: striking a balance between the need to defend free speech, and the need to protect users from harmful content can be delicate while trying to regulate social media.
Conclusion
The use of social media surveillance for investigative purposes is more consistent across forces than it is for communication purposes. A study of the internal policy documents, by Egawhary (2019), of UK Law Enforcement Agencies’ use of social media in surveillance, finds that they deliberate five surveillance aspects of social media: common surveillance of the residents, inciting residents to surveil each other, supervisory surveillance, homologous surveillance and surveillance with the intention of investigation. Several of the cases involving surveillance begins with a concern of the actions’ agreement with Article 8(2) in accordance with the requirements of the law. For example, the Article states that, “there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.
In my analysis however, I observed that Article 8(2) has failed in attaining sufficient amount of clarity regarding the limit which surveillance methods can be used, and this has intensified the danger of using surveillance in an illogical manner.
I recommend that in a situation whereby Article 8(2) cannot be amended to provide more clarity, then, in addition to whatever training is being given to public authorities entrusted with implementing Article 8(2), they should be made to understand in clear terms, the importance of moral and integrity, in ensuring that the implementation of the Article is free, fair, credible, in good fate and without bias.