2013 BROADER PERSPECTIVES The America Issue

COMPREHENSION

The
debate
over
data
COMPREHENSION

QUESTIONS ATTACHED

Personal Liberty and Collective Security in 21st Century Modern Societies

/35M
NAME

TOTAL

LANGUAGE

CONTENT

Prof Simon CHESTERMAN

/50M

/15M
CLASS

Comprehension Answers available at www.broaderperspectives.com.sg & www.twitter.com/ThinkTankMags

2013 BROADER PERSPECTIVES The America Issue

COMPREHENSION

Personal Liberty and Collective

Security in 21st Century
Modern Societies
1

How should we balance liberty and security? The answer is simple: We shouldnt. The metaphor
of a balance between liberty and security offers an attractive way to view the current debate over
massive amounts of data being gathered by intelligence agencies and the impact on personal
privacy, following whistle-blower Edward Snowdens revelations about the extent of invasion of
privacy of citizens by the US government. Balance is used by both civil libertarians and security
hawks to suggest a sliding scale in which we can choose more liberty or more security. But the
metaphor is disingenuous, misleading and a recipe for bad policies. In the breathless coverage
of revelations from the US National Security Agency (NSA) leaked by Mr Snowden earlier this
month, pundits and lawmakers have professed themselves to be shocked, to find that American
intelligence agencies have been spying on people in the United States. The outrage is echoed
around the world, with citizens in other countries questioning if their own governments are also
tracking their calls and e-mails.
The surprise is misleading because we have known since Sept 11, 2001 that the main threat
of politically motivated violence today comes not from an outside aggressor state, but from a
terrorist operating within our borders. Dig a little deeper and the outrage is often revealed to be
the fact that the spies are watching us rather than them. Yet the days of surveillance limited to
individual targeting of known terrorist agents are long gone. When security agencies no longer
know who they are, it is far more rational to gather data on everyone in the hope of looking for
behaviour that might suggest, for example, someone planning to pilot a plane into a skyscraper or
detonate an explosive device at a major sporting event.
In the past, liberty was protected by reducing the acquisition of data, limiting its retention,
and constraining its dissemination. Given the proliferation of data and the speed and ease of
retaining, retrieving and sending information, these constraints are no longer workable. That is
why defenders of the NSA programme shouldnt argue about balance either. They know the
scales have already been flipped over. In part this is because our technology has far outpaced
our laws. Why should government be prevented access to the data that our smartphones have
been gathering on us for years? There are still some restrictions, to be sure. Though the NSA
collects the metadata (the information that A has sent B an email or made a phone call to B, as
opposed to the contents of the communications) of communications between citizens within the
US, a warrant is still required to view or listen to the contents. But non-citizens and those outside
the US are fair game. The American regime allows government authorities to compel technology
and communications companies to hand over user data. Googles Transparency Report, for
example, shows that last year US made 16,407 requests for user data from Google with 90 per
cent of requests leading to some data being released. These are extraordinary powers to entrust
to any government, bringing with them the possibility of abuse. However, established intelligence
agencies have protocols to deal with misbehaviour and checks that make it difficult to deploy
national security resources for personal reasons - to spy on ones ex-wife, say, or an unpleasant
neighbour.

Adapted from simonchesterman.com/blog/2013/06/19/surveillance-society,

for the purposes of the A level General Paper

10

15

20

25

30

35

2013 BROADER PERSPECTIVES The America Issue

COMPREHENSION

But there is another kind of potential abuse that is more likely to happen. This is when liberties
of a certain section of the population may be compromised more than others. Take the most
prominent example of such potential abuse: profiling, which is implicit in the very notion of
systematic surveillance. Analysing massive amounts of data requires the choice of factors that
will flag certain behavioural patterns for greater scrutiny, and particular individuals for further
investigation. Historically, profiling has meant the use of ethnicity as a key factor in determining
whether to deploy investigative resources against a particular group or individual. Profiling raises
legitimate concerns about explicit or implicit racism and other forms of bigotry, such as when
African-American men are more frequently stopped by US traffic police for random searches.
Though it has barely been mentioned in the current furore over surveillance, profiling should
be front and centre of the debate - and shows how a search for balance can be misleading.
Profiling is clearly a part of the investigative method currently used by police and intelligence
officers. The debate often sets the civil liberties of the profiled group against the security interests
of the population as a whole. This is sometimes presented in hyperbolic terms, such as that the
choice is between profiling and lost lives.
A better analysis is that the use of ethnicity or religion as a basis for profiling imposes a cost
on innocent members of the targeted group. It might be preferable to distribute that cost more
equitably, perhaps by excluding the factor perceived as relevant but offensive, and increasing the
scrutiny of the population as a whole. This is where the balance metaphor - that gains for liberty
necessarily entail a loss of security and vice versa - leads to bad policies. For it obscures the fact
that liberty may in fact contribute to security. In the case of profiling, for example, pre-selecting all
young men of a particular faith or ethnicity might well offend public sensitivities. But it may also
exacerbate the problem that it is intended to solve. During the Bush administration, reference to
a global war on terror - a term now rightly abandoned - falsely implied that groups with diverse
aims and widely varied capacities were in fact part of a worldwide conspiracy pitted against the
US. Similarly, putting all individuals of one ethnicity or religion in a category labelled dangerous
may in fact undermine identification with the larger community and encourage radicalisation.
As systematic surveillance and the capacity for data retention and analysis expand, an alternative
to profiling may emerge. Rather than targeting a specific group for closer examination, it may be
possible to gather information on the entire population in such depth that human intervention with the subjectivity and potential for bias that this brings - is significantly reduced. Bias may still
affect the manner in which data is organised and analysis prioritised, but it should at least be more
evident than the personal choices of individual analysts. It will leave a trail - and the possibility of
accountability.
Mr Edward Shils, a sociologist writing soon after the McCarthy hearings had shaken the US half
a century ago, argued that liberal democracy depended on protecting privacy for individuals
and denying it to government. The following decades have seen precisely the opposite happen:
Individual privacy has been eviscerated while governments have become ever more secretive.
This trend increased under the Bush administration after Sept 11 and, if anything, has accelerated
under President Barack Obama. In such an environment, it seems naive to seek a balance
between liberty and security. Far better to be clear about who has access to the data that is
already being collected, and to have a little transparency for the coming debate about how this
data is to be used.

Adapted from simonchesterman.com/blog/2013/06/19/surveillance-society,

for the purposes of the A level General Paper

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

2013 BROADER PERSPECTIVES The America Issue

Personal Liberty and Collective Security in 21st Century Modern Societies

Comprehension Questions
1 Why is the metaphor in line 2 an attractive way to view the current debate? [1]

2 Why are the words us and them (lines 16) in inverted commas? [2]

3 Why are the days of surveillance limited to individual targeting of known terrorist agents long
gone (line 17)? [1]

4 Why does the author use a rhetorical question in line 26-27? [1]

2013 BROADER PERSPECTIVES The America Issue

Personal Liberty and Collective Security in 21st Century Modern Societies

5 Explain what the author means by fair game (line 31)? [1]

6 How is profiling implicit (line 41) in systematic surveillance? [2]

7 Profiling should be front and centre of the debate (line 48-49).

Explain what the author means by front and centre (line 48-49) and why the phrase is being
used here. [2]

8 How does the author propose to distribute the cost of profiling more equitably (line 56)?
Use your own words as far as possible. [2]

2013 BROADER PERSPECTIVES The America Issue

Personal Liberty and Collective Security in 21st Century Modern Societies

9 What is this alternative to profiling (line 66-67)? Use your own words as far as possible. [3]

10 What does the phrase it should at least be in line 70 tell you about the authors claims
regarding the alternative to profiling? [2]

11 Summarise the challenges of trying to ensure security in a country. [8]

Using material from paragraph 2-4, write your summary in no more than 120 words, not counting the
opening words which are given below. Use your own words as far as possible.

Ensuring security in a country has become more challenging because

13 In the final paragraph, Chesterman writes that In such an environment, it seems naive to
seek a balance between liberty and security. (line 78-79) How far do you agree with his
assessment? How much would you be willing to give up to be safe? In giving your views,
explain where and why you agree or disagree with the author. [10]

2013 BROADER PERSPECTIVES The America Issue

Personal Liberty and Collective Security in 21st Century Modern Societies

Comprehension Answers
1 Why is the metaphor in line 2 an attractive way to view the current debate? [1]
It is an attractive way to view the current debate because it offers a convenient method (1/2) to frame
liberty and security in a zero-sum game / it necessitates the decrease of the former in order for an
increase in the latter and vice versa (1/2).

Or any other plausible answer.

2 Why are the words us and them (lines 16) in inverted commas? [2]
The words are placed in inverted commas firstly to express the conventional perspective (1/2) that
excludes those who are different and who are thus seen as threatening (1/2) as opposed to those who
are familiar and hence included in the community (1/2), whilst also highlighting the authors suggestion
that such distinctions are false/simplistic/inaccurate (1/2).
3 Why are the days of surveillance limited to individual targeting of known terrorist agents long
gone (line 17)? [1]
Times have changed quite radically from the past (1/2) in that the governments can no longer be
certain who the terrorists are as they can also emerge from within the community (1/2).
4 Why does the author use a rhetorical question in line 26-27? [1]
He uses the rhetorical question to suggest that since we do allow our information to be collected
by our devices to begin with (1/2), that it only makes sense to allow the agents trying to protect our
welfare and security to access that same information (1/2).

Or any other plausible answer

5 Explain what the author means by fair game (line 31)? [1]
The author means that non-US citizens and those outside the US are considered a reasonable target
(1/2) for no-holds-barred surveillance (1/2).
6 How is profiling implicit (line 41) in systematic surveillance? [2]
Systematic surveillance involves breaking down an immense volume of information (1/2) which in
turn necessitates the selection of certain elements/components (1/2) that will result in profiling, the
highlighting of certain persons (1/2) for greater scrutiny (1/2), and hence profiling will inevitably be
implicit in systematic surveillance.

2013 BROADER PERSPECTIVES The America Issue

Personal Liberty and Collective Security in 21st Century Modern Societies

7 Profiling should be front and centre of the debate (line 48-49).

Explain what the author means by front and centre (line 48-49) and why the phrase is being
used here. [2]
The author means that profiling should be the first thing to be studied/given attention (1/2), and kept
as the main focus (1/2) of the debate as a closer study of it will reveal (1/2) the futility of our search for
balance (1/2) between privacy and security/surveillance.
8 How does the author propose to distribute the cost of profiling more equitably (line 56)?
Use your own words as far as possible. [2]

Line
Lifted
Paraphrased
55-57
It might be preferable to distribute that cost One can achieve that by omitting
more equitably, perhaps by excluding
the component (1/2) regarded as
the factor perceived as relevant but
pertinent but disrespectful (1/2) to
offensive, and increasing the scrutiny
peoples sensibilities, and stepping up
of the population as a whole.
surveillance (1/2) of all the citizens of the
entire country (1/2).
9 What is this alternative to profiling (line 66-67)? Use your own words as far as possible. [3]
Line
67-69

Lifted
Rather than targeting a specific group
for closer examination, it may be
possible to gather information on the
entire population in such depth that
human intervention - with the subjectivity
and potential for bias that this brings - is
significantly reduced.

Paraphrased
This alternative to profiling means rather
than singling out (1/2) a certain group
(1/2) for more intense scrutiny (1/2), one
could collect data on all the citizens in
a country (1/2) in such great detail (1/2)
so that interference and prejudice by
humans is enormously curtailed (1/2).

10 What does the phrase it should at least be in line 70 tell you about the authors claims
regarding the alternative to profiling? [2]
It tells us that the author is predicting/anticipating (1/2) that the alternative to profiling will at the
minimum (1/2) provide clarity (1/2) about individual analysts bias in the organization and analysis of
data (1/2).
11 Summarise the challenges of trying to ensure security in a country. [8]

Using material from paragraph 2-4, write your summary in no more than 120 words, not counting the
opening words which are given below. Use your own words as far as possible.

Ensuring security in a country has become more challenging because

2013 BROADER PERSPECTIVES The America Issue

Line
13-20

Personal Liberty and Collective Security in 21st Century Modern Societies

Lifted
From para 2:

Paraphrased
From para 2:

.since Sept 11, 2001 that the main threat Terrorism today originates not from external
of politically motivated violence today
states, but from within.
comes not from an outside aggressor
state, but from a terrorist operating within
our borders.

21-23

25-26
39-42

Yet the days of surveillance limited to

individual targeting of known terrorist
agents are long gone.

Hence, scrutinising identified single

terrorists no longer works,

When security agencies no longer know

who they are, it is far more rational to
gather data on everyone
From para 3:

And governments need instead to

monitor everyone.
From para 3:

In the past, liberty was protected by

reducing the acquisition of data,

Previously, liberty was protected by

collecting less information,

limiting its retention, and constraining

its dissemination.

curbing the keeping of information, and

controlling its distribution.

Given the proliferation of data and

However, these limitations no longer apply

due to the rapid increase of information,
and how fast and simple it is to keep,
find and transmit them.

the speed and ease of retaining,

retrieving and sending information,
these constraints are no longer
workable.
In part this is because our technology
has far outpaced our laws.
From para 4:

This is caused by our laws inability to

keep up with our technology.
From para 4:

This is when liberties of a certain section Ensuring security inevitably involves

of the population may be compromised profiling, which infringes the freedom
more than others.

51-53

Take the most prominent example of

such potential abuse: profiling, which is
implicit in the very notion of systematic
surveillance.
The debate often sets the civil liberties
of the profiled group against the
security interests of the population as a
whole.

This is sometimes presented in hyperbolic

terms, such as that the choice is between
profiling and lost lives.
(120 Words) Award full marks for 8-11 key phrases.

of a particular segment of citizens more

than the rest.

It is also problematic that people tend to

view personal rights of the segment

as detrimental to the safety of the rest.

2013 BROADER PERSPECTIVES The America Issue

Personal Liberty and Collective Security in 21st Century Modern Societies

13 In the final paragraph, Chesterman writes that In such an environment, it seems naive to
seek a balance between liberty and security. (line 78-79) How far do you agree with his
assessment? How much would you be willing to give up to be safe? In giving your views,
explain where and why you agree or disagree with the author. [10]

This passage is about the authors views on how the debate concerning personal liberty and collective
security in 21st century modern societies is wrongly framed as a balancing game of liberty and
security. He argues that we have long lost liberty and privacy over our data, and that we should
instead focus on how data about us is being used by those in authorities, and ensure that there is no
abuse in the process. In particular, he highlighted profiling as a problem of greater significance that
bears greater attention over the perceived problem of our data being used at all.

Key arguments/threads of thoughts that students can consider are:

a) Should we revisit the issue of whether the government can be given such broad and easy access
to information on the pretext of national security whenever it needs to? How stringent should the
guidelines be to oversee how such information is being accessed?

b) How convincing is Chestermans argument that labeling a certain ethnicity or religion in a category
as dangerous may in fact undermine identification with the larger community and encourage
radicalisation? Evaluate the issues pertaining to profiling.

c) Although Chesterman has made a strong case for the collection of citizens data when he set the
issue against profiling, are these arguments still tenable when one evaluates them in the larger context
of the principles of a liberal democracy, which is supposedly based on protecting privacy for individuals
and denying it to the government?

d) What is unique or different about the Singapore context that makes personal liberty easier to give
up in order to obtain security? Perhaps Singaporean citizens understanding and appreciation of
individual civil rights and liberties as well as penchant for stability and safety vary significantly from
Western ideals?

e) How important do Singaporeans regard security and its ramifications for our context? Are the
challenges or difficulties highlighted intensified or heightened by Singapores context of porous
borders?