The Dutch Big Brother – Policing in the 21st Century

Last month, the new Dutch government proposed a bill on expanding police online monitoring powers, tied to serious public order disruptions. The Netherlands has had its fair share of demonstrations and riots over the past year and it seems that public safety and order is on top of the agenda for the new government. But is that really what this bill is about? Ministers have approved the draft legislation, the Wet gegevensvergaring openbare orde, and it is now headed to the Council of State for review before further parliamentary debate. If passed, the bill will allow Dutch police to monitor and collect data from public parts of the internet and social media on individuals and groups even if there is no suspicion of criminal activity. Politicians call it a necessary step towards public security while critics call it an attack on online freedom. In the end, how much are we willing to sacrifice for the notion of safety?

Online safety and individual freedom have always been priorities on European political agendas. However, recently all across the EU, and especially in the Netherlands, voices raising concerns regarding the limits of online freedom have swelled. The latest bill proposed examines this dichotomy between freedom and censorship, suggesting that these censorship monitoring tools will include strong safeguarding elements protecting individual privacy. Powers would only be exercised under the supervision of local mayors, in an attempt to modernise and sweeten the way law enforcement is viewed. Resultantly, the Dutch government contends police monitoring powers will always be controlled, should the bill pass. 

But is that enough? Critics lambast the bill as insufficient, orbiting in a legal grey area. The risks included in mass data collection and profiling of citizens, without cause, and continuous potential for violation of fundamental rights such as freedoms of expression, may well total to a chilling effect on individuality which can very easily spread beyond online activity monitoring to broad everyday surveillance of activism and political dissent.

What most concerns me, however, is the timing of the bill. We should not for one moment brush it off as a coincidence that such a bill is proposed in the Netherlands whilst it is rocked by sweeping protests. From anti-Israel protests to anti-government protests targeting illegal immigration, daily mini-shutdowns have become the norm. If the right to protest is not sacred anymore, not untouchable, how could we even begin to contend that we live in democratic countries? 

Of course, violence is unacceptable in any form and unfortunately there have been a lot of violent clashes over the last couple of years, with the epicenter being the situation in Palestine. Nevertheless, to my view such violence, in a country such as the Netherlands, is limited and tends to de-escalate swiftly. The main problem with this proposed bill is rather its reticence to define precisely what constitutes a potentially violent riot. For example, given soaring gas prices, if people gathered to express their dissatisfaction with paying a fortune just to go to work, would that be labelled violent by the police? Say if they blocked roads or merely disturbed the peace?

The problem with this bill is that it carries the right message but the messenger is not qualified to deliver it. A government that actively introduces new laws to punish their citizens cannot claim that they are morally right. Is this bill really about monitoring and de-escalating violent groups or is it a new tool to strengthen surveillance, especially against groups that are rightfully judging the actions of their government? When a government disregards the needs of its native citizens and punishes any political reactions on their part, then we are transitioning towards authoritarianism. If the already immense surveillance system in the country, predictive algorithmic policing and digital monitoring, is not enough to provide safety to its citizens, why do we think that new laws violating privacy and freedom of expression will make any difference? 

Unfortunately, this is the reality for many countries in the EU and beyond, such as the UK. We are transitioning from a state of foreboding vis-à-vis big brother, to actively living in such a highly monitored society. The argument “if you have nothing to hide you should not worry about it” must be erased from our minds. On the surface it concerns safety, but in reality any private information that goes public, without full consent, violates fundamental rights. When we give away those rights, at any moment a government can decide what will be allowed to be said or done. In the end, we are involuntarily selling private information on a public domain that can be used without our consent for reasons beyond imagination. The question is how far are we willing to accept certain privacy violations to feel safe and if we accept them, will we actually feel safer?

Image: Wikimedia Commons/Sanderflight

Licence.

No image changes made.