Postscripts for a “State of War”: Public Administration and Civil Liberties after September 11

2002 ◽  
Vol 62 (s1) ◽  
pp. 86-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melvin J. Dubnick
Author(s):  
José Rodrigues Filho

Since the end of military government in Brazil, civilian governments have sought the accumulation and exercise of power to the detriment of the citizenry. They have done this with a kind of totalitarianism that takes the form of digital or bureaucratic dictatorship. Since the 1990s, they have started to implement information technology in the public sector to regulate and run the country in a command-and-control way through technological or bureaucratic dictatorship rather democratic process. While it is evident that there is a high level of investment in information technology in the public sector (e-government) in Brazil, there are also clear signs of the violation of human rights in terms of privacy. These occur, for instance, when the public administration exercises the power to engage in a process of electronic surveillance without the supervision of the judiciary. It is alleged that thousands of individual files have been accessed in the public administration in Brazil, despite the privacy protection offered by the national constitution. In addition, there is a proliferation of biometric identification using faces, eyes, fingerprints, and other body parts, especially in the e-voting system. This chapter shows how information technology (e-government) in Brazil could lead to violations of human rights because of the proliferation of biometric identification in the e-voting system as well as other sorts of invisible electronic surveillance that are affecting civil liberties and individual rights, including privacy.


1957 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 346-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glendon A. Schubert

Textbooks in public administration customarily conclude with a section on administrative responsibility. The charitable inference is that this location betokens the saving of the best till last, rather than the appendage of an afterthought. Herbert Kaufman might explain it as the preoccupation of the past generation of political scientists with the legitimation of the efficient exercise of administrative power to subserve the goals of the social state, with a consequent sublimation of the emerging problem of the control of large, professionalized bureaucracies. However that may be, it does seem clear that, with the exception of administrative decisions which adversely affect “civil liberties,” most political scientists have been content to let lawyers and defenders of the free enterprise system worry about the restraint of administrative action.


Refuge ◽  
2002 ◽  
pp. 23-28
Author(s):  
Kate Martin

The attacks of September 11, 2002, have dramatically altered the policy andscape in Washington, but it is important to reject the notion that there is a necessary trade-off between security and civil liberties. One of the most serious threats to civil liberties has been the adoption of a policy of preventive detention that has resulted in the secret jailing of hundreds of Arabs and Muslims when there is no evidence linking them to terrorist activity. This has been done, not by using the limited new authorities granted the government in the post-September 11 terrorism legislation, but by improperly using pre-existing criminal and immigration authorities. Secret arrests are antithetical to a democratic society. A targeted investigation that focuses on actual terrorist activity and respects the legitimate political and religious activity of citizens and non-citizens would be more effective than a dragnet approach that has resulted in the secret arrests of hundreds of individuals.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 111
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Czuryk

<p>As one of the states of exception, a state of a natural disaster often makes public administration, including local governments, take actions that restrict the sphere of human rights and civil liberties. One-person bodies are entrusted with being in charge in matters related to a state of natural disaster. Actions taken during a state of natural disaster to prevent or remove its effects are managed by the commune executive body when the state of a natural disaster was introduced only in the territory of the commune. However, if the state of a natural disaster was introduced in more than one commune in a district, then the starost is in charge of the operations. As a monocratic body is entrusted with executive powers, decisions can be taken faster and time is essential from the point of view of the effects of a natural disaster. Due to a formalized method of decision-taking, a collegial body may not respond adequately to a dynamically developing threat.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document