Most recently, I participated in the Training IV on Cybersecurity, Privacy and Safer Internet. I couldn’t deny the fact that I am truly interested in this topic. Although there are some terms or acronyms that I have not previously heard of, surprisingly I could catch up with the presentation.
First of all, the discussion started with the presentation which was presented by two Key Presenters. When the Presenter landed in the surveillance, this theme drew my attention, because I had no idea what is best to illustrate the definition of surveillance. I began to develop my understanding of surveillance when Edmon simply highlighted the distinction between surveillance and mass surveillance. He held that “MASS surveillance has an aspect like a dragnet fishing… i.e. many non-targets become monitored without legitimate reason”.
In response, the Presenter presented two case studies that were classified based on its respective scope of electronic surveillance. In this respect, there are two types of electronic surveillance: State Surveillance and Consumer Surveillance. The case discussed under State Surveillance is about the activities carried out by the Vietnamese government who manipulated computer viruses to monitor the Internet activity and private data of dissidents or protesters who are against the government mining policy.
Moreover, the Presenter carried on with the second case study under consumer surveillance. In this case, Facebook, Inc, and other platforms allegedly enabled the disclosure of consumer’s reading habits, while electronic readers – the Kindle and the Nook – track reader behavior down to the specific page of the book which catches the reader’s attention. In response to this, I draw a conclusion that surveillance is not merely an intrusion or interference conducted by the government but also conducted by the companies or other entities which are able to intrude a group of individual.
After the presentation ended, we moved on to the break-out group session which began with a question, “Does national security outweigh the right to privacy?” I personally think this is a very broad question and not a ‘yes or no’ answer. In a discussion, the Moderator highlighted that the National Security measure does not increase security regardless of the fact that the right to privacy is protected by law. I voluntarily shared a glimpse of the right to privacy under the Indonesian Legal System by stating that the right to privacy is historically derived from the right to be let alone. In addition, Indonesia’s approach to the right to privacy is implicitly governed through the property right which every citizen has the right to be free from unlawful interference or, in other words, everyone has the right to be let alone.
Moving on to the next agenda, the Guest Speaker, Alejandra Prieto as a Program Manager of Internet Society, presented a topic of encryption. In the presentation, the Guest Speaker highlighted the importance of end-to-end encryption as the most secured form which, in this sense, no third party involved with the communication between the sender and recipient. Also, she added that everyone relies on encryption. Any entity and internet users need to protect information and likewise, without the use of encryption, we are under security threats.
Finally, the important message of the Speaker that I still remember is that:
“We cannot be successful alone!
To fully protect users with security, privacy, and trust at the core of our discussions, we all should be discussing how to increase the use of encryption, make it easier to use and harder to thwart.”
– Alejandra Prieto –
About the writer
Felicia Yunike (NeMission Ambassador of class 2019/20, Indonesia)
Bachelor’s Degree in Law, Universitas Gadjah Mada