We tend to talk about surveillance as though it always involves a camera on a wall or somebody actively spying on us.
In reality, modern surveillance is often much more subtle. It is the collection of location data, online searches, purchases, workplace activity, facial images and countless small digital signals. Individually, each may appear harmless. Combined, they can reveal an extraordinary amount about who we are and even what we may do next.
Data can be genuinely useful. It can help detect fraud, improve public services, protect computer networks and make businesses more efficient. So I do not believe the answer is to reject technology or data collection. The real issue is whether the benefit is proportionate to the intrusion, and whether the person being observed has any meaningful understanding or control.
For me, the central ethical question is not simply, “Can we collect this data?” It is, “Should we?” An organisation may have found a lawful basis for processing information, but legal does not automatically mean it’s fair or the right thing to do. If a business tracks every movement of an employee when less intrusive measures would achieve the same objective, it should pause. A customer should not have to surrender excessive personal information simply to use an ordinary service.
Purpose creep is another concern. Data gathered for one reasonable purpose can gradually be reused for another. A system introduced for workplace security might later be used to measure productivity. Customer information collected to complete a sale might become material for detailed profiling. The original decision may have been defensible, but the later use could change the ethical balance entirely.
Consent is often presented as the solution, but we should be honest about its limits. Most people do not read lengthy privacy notices, and in relationships such as employment, there may be little genuine freedom to say no. Transparency must mean more than placing legal language on a website. People should understand, in plain English, what is collected, why it is needed, who receives it and how long it will be kept.
Artificial intelligence raises the stakes further. The concern is not only the data we deliberately provide, but what a system can infer from it. Algorithms may predict our interests, health, reliability or behaviour, sometimes incorrectly and often without our awareness. When these judgments affect employment, finance, insurance or access to services, there must be human oversight and a way to challenge the outcome.
For organisations, I would suggest five simple questions before introducing monitoring technology: What precise problem are we solving? What is the minimum data required? Is there a less intrusive option? Who could be harmed if the data is wrong, leaked or misused? And would we be comfortable explaining the system openly to those affected? These questions reflect the GDPR principles of transparency, purpose limitation, data minimisation, security and accountability, but they also go beyond compliance.
Individuals can take some control too: review app permissions, disable unnecessary location tracking, use privacy settings and question requests for excessive information. None of us can manage the entire digital ecosystem alone, however. The greater responsibility belongs to the organisations designing and operating these systems.
Ultimately, privacy is not about having something to hide. It is about retaining a reasonable space in which to live, think and make choices without being constantly monitored. Good technology should serve people without quietly reducing their freedom. That is the ethical standard we should expect, and the one organisations should be prepared to meet.
Paul Delahunty, Stryve
Listen: Bytesize E07
Paul Delahunty of tech company Stryve discusses the rapid growth of digital tech and issues around data and surveillance, and more. Stryve initially started out in Carlow and has since relocated to Kildare and is owned by Andrew Tobin.
Bytesize is supported by Coimisiún na Meán with the television licence fee.
