学术文献库

At some point in the history of most nations, one or more events of illegal electronic surveillance by those in power or law enforcement has occurred that has the effect of setting State against Citizen. The media sensationalise these incidents for profit, however they more often correctly express the concern felt by the general public. At these times politicians rise, either into fame or infamy, by proposing new legislation which the public is told will protect them by from future incidents of illegal and unwarranted invasion by officers of the state. Two things have occurred since these protective laws were enacted; technological advancement that is claimed has frustrated legitimate investigation, and changes in the law that are ostensibly presented as intending to facilitate the prosecution or prevention of a publicly decried offence, like child pornography, but which in context deliver expanded powers to the State, effectively weakening the protections previously enacted. This report looks at human rights legislation in three jurisdictions, starting from a position of comparing and contrasting the protections that are available from illegal search and seizure. By identifying legislative changes related to several forms of electronic surveillance and technology, and the situations that led to them, we can locate the effective peak of protection and discuss the processes that have led to a gradual yet pervasive weakening of those laws in all three nations. We are regularly diverted by those in power towards disregarding the paranoia of the outliers who have been warning us with their purple prose that big brother is watching. But if we focus on the effect of recent legislative changes in the area of electronic surveillance we can clearly see that the Orwellian dystopia is already here, and we are living it.