State mass surveilance and censorship about noharm HOT 5 OPEN

The UDHR has:

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

I guess the qualifier arbitrary interference may be problematic as a state would argue that surveillance is not arbitrary, it's required for national security.

I think I'm comfortable though that this is enough, unless anyone's keen to suggest better wording?

from noharm.

Here's what I know about surveillance (with 2 l's BTW) from a broader perspective. The degree of how much surveillance is allowed correlates to how much an entity will adopt it if the entity is under an autocratic government (ex. Russian Fed., the PRC, Iran, etc.). However, surveillance has caused more harm than good as it only makes the entities being watched to feel more afraid of the overseer, and neither does it prevent crimes nor detect the criminal(s) (most infamously, in the Boston Marathon bombing).

from noharm.

Here's how the For Good Eyes Only Licence defines state surveillance:

State surveillance includes the collection, accumulation, storage, processing, analysis or transfer of personal data or any other – at least pseudonymously – identifying information by any state bodies, in particular law enforcement authorities and intelligence services, or on their behalf by organisations, companies, persons or any other entities, provided that there is no sufficient initial suspicion of a criminal offence having been committed by the person concerned or that the surveillance is unlawful, unjustified or disproportionate in its invasiveness.

from noharm.

Good definition – do we still need to add it or is the UDHR's definition of arbitrary interference enough? My argument against adding it would be the same as my argument against explicitly adding war crimes to keep the license simple.

from noharm.

I don't think the UDHR's “arbitrary interference” clause is sufficient, since e.g. NSA argue that state surveillance is “required for national security”, as you have already said. I completely understand your point that the licence should be kept simple, but I don't see any way to ban state surveillance without including an explicit definition of it.

from noharm.