When Dystopia Becomes Reality: The Rise of Digital Age Surveillance
- Zertab Urooj
- May 18
- 6 min read
When Dystopia Becomes Reality: The Rise of Digital Age Surveillance
About 75 years ago, George Orwell’s cautionary tale, 1984, was released. The story followed an unlikely protagonist, Winston Smith, a rebel trying to navigate his life under the eye of Big Brother, an undying, unwavering surveillant. Orwell’s dystopia was that of a future of mass control and propaganda. With the increased digital surveillance, it’s hard not to draw the similarities between this fictional tale and our current reality. The advent of the internet promised decentralisation and free speech, with the platform being accessible to virtually anyone. However, the internet is not the haven it was first presumed to be. Though we may not be living in the extremes of totalitarianism, as depicted in 1984, our lives seem to be inching towards it, as the data may suggest.
The Rise of Data Infringement
As of early 2025, internet users have reached a staggering 5.56 billion, accounting for 67.9% of the global population [1]. Though we might like to believe that our data is protected and our privacy is respected, the truth is far from that. For instance, a report from the Federal Trade Commission examined the data collection and privacy practices of nine major companies, namely, Meta (Facebook and Instagram), TikTok, YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), Reddit, Snapchat, Discord, WhatsApp, and Twitch [2]. The findings revealed surveillance activities that raised serious privacy issues, including extensive data collection and inadequate data deletion practices. Another finding was a lack of transparency and control, with users having limited say in how their data is used.
In response, David Cohen, chief executive of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, stated, "We are disappointed with the FTC's continued characterisation of the digital advertising industry as engaged in ‘mass commercial surveillance’ ”. But if being characterised as engaging in mass commercial surveillance is an issue, isn’t the easier solution to just not engage in mass commercial surveillance? The FTC report wasn’t some targeted propaganda aimed at defaming the social media overlords; it was a comprehensive report analysing the extensive data infringement practised by prominent companies [3]. The report, therefore, understandably called for comprehensive federal privacy legislation to address these issues and enhance consumer data rights.
The Threat to Democracy
“This is a coup from above. It’s not a coup with tanks. It’s a coup with algorithms”, states Shoshana Zuboff, author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Zuboff describes Surveillance Capitalism as a new economic order, threatening to destroy the bricks of democracy. She believes that this threat to democracy won’t recede unless the fundamental flaws of the business models currently operating are addressed [4]. The concerns Zuboff expresses are nothing short of reasonable. Companies claim the human experience as free raw material to fuel their hidden interests [5]. There is an imbalance, an inequality, in the amount of information Big Tech companies know about us and the amount of information we know about them. The digital systems are designed not just to predict consumer behaviour, but to nudge it, to influence it, and shape it in a way that undermines democratic freedom. Doesn’t the average citizen have a right to an iota of digital privacy? In the 2017 Puttaswamy case, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right, recognising it as an integral part of Article 21 [6]. Why do companies act like black boxes, pretending to be outside of the reach of any societal influence and democratic control?
The truth is that despite being the world’s largest democracy, India’s legal and regulatory framework falls short in keeping up with the tech giants. These companies thrive due to the gaps in law, political ambiguity, and the absence of robust data protection laws. However, companies aren’t the only ones exploiting digital means. For instance, law enforcement agencies used surveillance technology to monitor participants during the Black Lives Matter Protests in the U.S.A. License plate readers, facial recognition, and wireless text messages interceptions were some of the tools utilised [7]. While the use of surveillance equipment is no big news, its increased prevalence highlights a greater fallacy among policymakers.
National Interests Over Privacy of the Individual?
There is often a tendency to discuss democratic tech regulation purely in terms of geopolitical competition. Many push for the narrative that it is important to minimally regulate big tech companies to meet the geopolitical interests of the nation. Some claim that big American tech companies are somewhat of an alternative to Chinese dominance, that these companies are competing with countries like China on behalf of the United States. But this logic fails to come to reason when examining the fact that many big American tech companies operate in countries like China, working with them and expanding business respectively [8]. Though nations wanting to act in the best interest of their “champion” companies are understandable, the issue lies in the fact that many major tech firms use these narratives to argue for lax regulatory oversight [9].
But the issues regarding the topic at hand aren’t limited to lax regulations; it extends to the problem that countries, including democracies, find it justified to invade digital privacy in the name of national interest. More recently, Union Minister Nirmala Sitharam defended the provisions of the new Income Tax Bill, 2025, stating that access to digital records is crucial for addressing tax evasion and financial fraud. Addressing the Lok Sabha, Sitharam quoted, “Encrypted messages on mobile phones led to unearthing ₹250 crore unaccounted money. Evidence from WhatsApp messages of crypto assets has been detected. WhatsApp communication helped unearth ₹200 crore unaccounted money”[10]. If what Minister Sitharam said is true, then yes, theoretically, the access to digital media can be used to address the tax evasion and financial fraud that taints this country. However, who is to say how this privilege may be exploited? Supriya Shrinate warns that this provision allows officials to override passwords and security settings during investigations, representing an attack on personal freedoms and digital privacy [11].
This Bill raises questions regarding whether the nation’s interests override those of the citizen. Bills such as these not only threaten digital privacy but also undermine the true nature of a democracy. A true democracy cannot be one of a surveillance state. Authorities must have a valid reason first before they start dabbling in the lives of individuals; a mere suspicion is not enough. Additionally, this bill makes no mention of procedural safeguards, highlighting the absence of judicial oversight [12]. There is absolutely no requirement for tax officers to disclose what data they access, how they access it, and how exactly it is used after the initial enquiry. Though Justice Puttaswamy held that privacy was a fundamental right under Article 21, this right seems to have become obsolete in the eyes of the new bill.
The Influence on Policy Making
Governments are supposed to influence companies, and not the other way around. However, the latter seems to be the case recently. The global electronics manufacturers, such as Samsung and Daikin, opposed India’s new e-waste policy, which aims to detangle the mounting e-waste problem. Companies argued that the mandated recycling fees increased their operational costs, affecting their budget and profit [13]. This instance highlighted how corporations tend to influence policy-making and regulations.
In closer relevance, a 2024 U.S lobby group opposed India’s Digital Competition Bill, which aimed at introducing European Union-like antitrust regulations. The lobby group represented the interests of big tech companies, such as Google, Amazon, and Apple, all of which argued that the regulations could increase user costs and hinder innovation [14].
Both of these cases highlight one of the most prominent ways in which corporations tend to influence internet governance, through lobbying efforts and engagement with policymakers. Tech companies often deploy vast teams of lobbyists to advocate for policies that align with their business interests, using the excuses of intellectual property rights, data protection regulations, and net neutrality. However, by leveraging financial resources and industry expertise, corporations shape legislative agendas and regulatory frameworks in ways that benefit only their interests [15].
Conclusion
The internet was once a place of free speech, a place of innovation and a place of ideas. However, in recent years, digital space has been weaponised by companies and nations alike. The view of the internet as a democratic space has eroded. Instead, regimes use digital age surveillance to control the narratives of the public, crush opposing views, and invade personal space. In India specifically, the state’s refusal to enact powerful data protection laws is infuriating. A country that prides itself on its democracy should not permit unchecked access to digital resources, especially by those in authority. Furthermore, the alliance of democratic countries with corporate companies demonstrates a shift to a surveillance state.
It’s imperative to understand that as citizens, privacy and digital freedom aren’t privileges; they are rights, guaranteed by the constitution, and this right must be respected by governments and companies alike. The bills, the policies and the guidelines must reflect the spirit of the Puttaswamy judgement, and big tech companies must be held accountable. If the governments fail in doing so, the slow death of democracy will continue, and along with it, the rise of a dystopia.
Article by:
Zertab Urooj
Comments