Chapter 13: Surveillance

Assuming that the state's laws and services are constrained by the NAP and NDP and governed through direct democracy, it is credible that people could have sufficient trust in the state to permit radical forms of surveillance, provided that surveillance is used only for the good of the people. Its purposes would include enabling a fast response to people in trouble, detecting crimes and identifying their perpetrators, and protecting people from false accusations by providing evidence that they were not involved in a crime.

Such surveillance could be radical in its scope. Possibilities could include extremely high-resolution video surveillance throughout cities and even suburban areas, surgically implanted devices for identification, health monitoring and GPS tracking, and GPS tracking of vehicles.

Radical surveillance could enable a radical reduction in crime if potential perpetrators expect that being identified and held responsible is virtually inevitable. This deterrent does not depend on a rapid response: the expectation that evidence will establish responsibility afterwards could be enough to deter an offence. Combined video, location, and other evidence could make crimes that previously appeared easy to commit without consequence appear impossible to get away with. A reduction on this scale could transform everyday life: people could have less need to lock their vehicles and homes, install defensive barriers and alarm systems, or pay for private security. The benefit would extend beyond fewer losses to greater freedom from fear and less time and money spent protecting people and possessions. The extent of that transformation would depend on the effectiveness of the evidence in establishing responsibility and the enforcement of the law.

Health monitoring combined with rapid assistance could also save lives. Where monitoring can reliably detect signs of a medical emergency, such as a heart attack, stroke, or seizure, it could alert emergency services and provide the person's location even if they are alone, unconscious, or unable to call for help. In this setting, rapid response is a distinct benefit: it could bring assistance sooner and reduce the chance that a person in trouble goes unnoticed.

Location tracking and distress alerts could also help protect people travelling in remote areas, including those exploring wilderness or boating offshore. Where communications are available, a transmitted location could guide rescuers to someone who is lost, injured, stranded, or unable to return safely. Even if contact is lost, a recorded route and last known position could help narrow the search area. These services could make it easier to seek help and reduce the difficulty of finding people far from ordinary assistance.

Article XIII: Public services, Section 5: Privacy of the Constitution helps protect people whose information is collected through surveillance. It restricts both public and private disclosure without consent to the cases specified in that Section, including controlled access required to operate, secure, or independently audit a service. Collecting information for a public service does not give its operator permission to sell it to an advertiser, pass it to an insurer, or let staff use it for personal purposes. Access is limited to identified duties, and service contracts must provide independently verifiable safeguards and procedures for investigating and remedying breaches. These obligations continue when an operator is replaced, giving people constitutional protection beyond an assurance that surveillance will be used for their benefit.