In this blog post, we’ll explore how to strike a balance between personal privacy and public safety in the context of individual freedom and national security.
Could you believe that there’s someone who knows more about you than you do? What if someone knew exactly where I went last week, what I bought, what I searched for online yesterday, and even the expression on my face when I ride an elevator alone? The movie *Eagle Eye* features just such an entity: the supercomputer “Aria.” “Aria” is an autonomous information integration and analysis system developed by the U.S. government to prevent crime and terrorism. This system collects and analyzes various network data—such as CCTV footage installed throughout the city and call logs—in real time to identify patterns, predicting not only a suspect’s future actions and movements but also their motives and tendencies. “We are everywhere,” says “Aria,” which exerts immense influence by controlling not only cell phones but also ATMs, traffic lights, subways, and various other electronic devices and systems.
The movie *Eagle Eye* was released in 2008.
A literal translation of the movie’s title, *Eagle Eye*, refers to the sharp gaze of an eagle that observes everything with precision. In the film, the supercomputer “Aria” uses countless CCTV and traffic cameras as if they were its own eyes to closely observe the protagonist and the surrounding situation while gathering information. This premise evokes a massive surveillance system established by the government and naturally brings to mind the concept of “Big Brother.”
“Big Brother” is a term derived from the dictator in the novel *1984* by British author George Orwell. In a positive sense, it refers to surveillance conducted for the sake of public safety; in a negative sense, it refers to a surveillance system that monopolizes information to maintain power and control society. The “Big Brother” in the novel constantly monitors citizens through telescreens, a scenario very similar to that of “Aria” in the film. “Aria” also continuously monitors society as a whole under the pretext of preventing various crimes and acts of terrorism. However, such surveillance exposes individuals’ privacy and personal information to the state, which can ultimately lead to issues regarding the protection of personal information and the infringement of fundamental rights.
Today, such narratives are no longer confined to the realm of fiction in movies or novels. Governments around the world are continuously investing in technologies to collect and analyze digital footprints in order to combat crime and terrorism. A “digital footprint” refers to the various activity records left behind while using the internet and various digital services.
The United Kingdom and several other countries have been continuously discussing measures to expand investigative authority over communication records and online activities for the sake of national security and crime prevention, and CCTV is also widely used as a key infrastructure for urban safety. In the United States as well, a system is in place that allows law enforcement agencies to access personal information in accordance with court warrants or relevant laws. South Korea also operates systems for wiretapping and the collection of digital evidence in accordance with legal procedures to ensure national security and investigate serious crimes.
As such, granting the state the authority to access personal information—even if done for the purposes of crime prevention and public safety—can be highly controversial from the perspective of personal data protection. Conversely, if personal information protection is strengthened to an excessive degree, severely restricting national-level crime prevention and investigative activities, this too could pose a problem in terms of the safety of society as a whole.
As such, it is very difficult to choose just one side. Ultimately, what matters is striking a balance between societal safety and the protection of individual privacy. However, before that, we need to reconsider the starting point of this discussion.
National security ultimately refers to the safety of the individuals who make up the nation. Therefore, the conflict between individual freedom and national security can ultimately be viewed as a question of which should take precedence: an individual’s privacy or an individual’s safety. In other words, the key issue is to what extent an individual is willing to sacrifice their privacy in order to ensure their own safety. However, whether that standard should be determined by the individual themselves or established through social consensus remains a difficult question.
Is there, then, a way to protect both an individual’s privacy and their safety? Of course, since the standard of “to what extent” varies depending on each person’s values and judgment, it is difficult to find a perfect solution that satisfies everyone. Nevertheless, technical approaches that can balance personal data protection with public safety are being actively researched.
A prime example is video de-identification technology. This technology automatically identifies personal information—such as a person’s face or body—in CCTV footage and then stores it after blurring or obscuring those details. This allows the overall scene and situation to be viewed while protecting information that could identify an individual. If necessary, the system can be designed to allow for the limited restoration of the original information through lawful procedures, such as a court warrant.
By utilizing such technology, personal information can be protected under normal circumstances, while necessary information can be accessed through lawful procedures when a crime occurs. Therefore, it can help reduce the potential for misuse of personal information by public agencies while maintaining investigative capabilities.
By utilizing such personal information protection technologies, it is possible to protect individuals’ privacy to a certain extent while also maintaining the public safety functions that traditional CCTV has traditionally performed. In today’s world, where criminal methods are becoming increasingly sophisticated and high-tech, investigations must also employ corresponding technologies; therefore, it is not realistically feasible to completely abandon the various technologies used to collect and analyze digital footprints.
However, in a democratic society, no means can be justified simply because the end is legitimate. Individuals’ privacy and fundamental rights must not be excessively infringed upon under the pretext of crime prevention and investigation. Therefore, when utilizing personal information, legal and institutional safeguards must be established alongside technical measures to prevent misuse beyond the original purpose.
Ultimately, the conflict between individual freedom and national security can be viewed not as a confrontation between the state and the individual, but rather as an issue arising between the privacy and security of the individual who constitutes the state. While technology can help alleviate this conflict to some extent, a fundamental solution can only be achieved through the value judgments of each member of society and social consensus. Only when balanced standards are established through sufficient social discussion, with respect for diverse views and values, can we truly safeguard both individual freedom and national security.
