alphaspirit - stock.adobe.com

News

Chilling effects of surveillance threaten democracy, UN finds

United Nations study finds the chilling effects of pervasive digital surveillance in modern life undermines an entire web of interconnected and interdependent human rights, representing a systemic threat to democratic norms and political participation

Sebastian Klovig Skelton
By
Published: 19 Jun 2026 15:30

The “profound” chilling effects of digital surveillance on people’s behaviour means it can no longer be viewed as a targeted measure against specific actors, but as a systemic threat to democracy itself, finds landmark United Nations’ (UN) study.

Conducted by the UN special rapporteur for freedom of assembly and association Gina Romero, in collaboration with UK-based academics Pete Fussey and Daragh Murray, the study drew testimonies from 152 activists, human rights defenders and journalists across 84 states that have been targeted by some form of digital surveillance.

“Much has been written on how technology affects privacy and individual expression, and analysis of the right to freedom of assembly is increasingly prominent,” wrote Romero in the opening. “But the institutional dimension, the impact on associations and its members, have received far less attention. This study seeks to bridge that gap.

“By gathering extensive evidence on the ability to organise, sustain movements and maintain the social fabric, this work illuminates how digital surveillance and its related chilling effects destabilises the very foundations of associative life and the long-term solidarity required to defend rights.”

In empirically documenting the harms caused by the chilling effects of digital surveillance, the study found that protests and other forms of assembly are increasingly used by governments of all stripes as opportunities for surveillance, and that the harm of such practices – which can lead to the “routine” harassment of those in its crosshairs – is enabled by a lack of meaningful restrictions on the surveillance habits of states globally.

It added that the ubiquity of digital surveillance and data harvesting practices today means monitoring is also not limited to public events, and extends deep into people’s private lives, affecting how they socialise, form relationships, access services and generally function in society.

Across jurisdictions – and regardless of whether surveillance technologies were deployed by ‘democratic’ or ‘authoritarian’ regimes – the research concluded that contemporary surveillance practices induce “serious” chilling effects, with both individuals and collectives consciously altering their behaviour in response to monitoring in a range of ways.

This can include self-censorship, deciding to not engage in certain assemblies or social activities, refraining from associating with certain actors, and stopping people from using the internet or social media. These consequences can happen regardless of whether the surveillance is real, suggested or perceived.

These chilling effects, it added, extend well beyond the individual, and can vicariously impact entire communities or social movements – severely undermining the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association and participation in public affairs – with impacts felt across generations in some instances.

However, the study noted that chilling effects of surveillance are varied and not exclusively binary, meaning people may choose to alter their behaviour in more nuanced ways than simply withdrawing from their engagement in a certain activity.

This can include the privacy-preserving practices such as the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) or encrypted communication channels, adopting “softer” approaches to communication, or generally operating in less visible ways.

The study also highlighted the “wide-ranging and indiscriminate psychological effects” that some advanced surveillance tactics can have.

The use of unmanned drones by authorities in Chile and Brazil, for example, has prompted a documented uptick in cases of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress among members of targeted communities, with many seeking refuge indoors upon hearing drones circling.

An ecosystem lens

However, the study was also clear that, rather than focusing on specific tools or practices, it is more accurate to view surveillance as an interconnected ecosystem comprised of various digital infrastructures operated by both state and non-state actors.  

For example, from the perspectives of those subject to surveillance, the use of facial recognition at a protest, the use of spyware to target a journalist or the infiltration of digital communication channels are not seen as discrete occurrences, but instead as constituent parts of an overall surveillance ecosystem that can be leveraged against them.

“The consequence is that ostensibly discrete surveillance activities in fact exist across a surveillance continuum and persist over time, leaving deep, long-term, society-wide impacts. These impacts are enhanced with respect to marginalised and vulnerable groups, and those engaged in socio-political activities clashing with the status quo,” it said.

“It is this ecosystem-related impact that plays a decisive role with respect to the degree to which chilling effects are experienced by different individuals and groups. This poses a challenge to traditional human rights law analysis as ecosystem-related chilling effects are not typical ‘cause-and-effect’ harms, whereby a specific incident gives rise to a defined harm.”

It added that such chilling effects are further amplified by the increasingly remote and asymmetrical nature of contemporary surveillance, which disproportionately harms marginalised and racialised communities, as well as those engaged in seeking accountability for human rights violations or challenging corruption.

One of the major problems with the remoteness and asymmetry of modern surveillance is that those subject to it are unable to gain certainty regarding the level of scrutiny they may be placed under, in turn leaving them uncertain if they will be subject to legal action by the state.  

These issues are compounded by the pervasiveness of digital environments in the 21st century, which can be characterised by their “latent” surveillance capabilities and interoperability.

For example, while everyday digital devices such as phones, wearables, network access points and smart devices can be co-opted into surveillance tools on their own, combining them with monitoring infrastructure that is now incorporated into most urban locations (such as schools and workplaces), massively amplifies the opportunities for surveillance.

“The ability to combine and analyse diverse sources of digital surveillance multiplies the degree of intrusion,” it said. “Significantly, it facilitates the inference of information including, but not limited to, individuals’ political views, affiliations to associations or participation in their activities, gender identity and sexual orientation, health or relationship network. It also enables the identification, location and targeting of individuals.”

All of this, the study added, are amplified by the ability of authorities to conduct algorithmic or AI-powered analysis, which enables them to sift through huge of data collected from disparate sources in ways that massively multiply the degree of intrusion: “Indeed, it is this analysis that unlocks the true power of digital surveillance.”

‘Essential’ rights undermined

The study said that, because of the “essential role” freedom of assembly and association play in both the development of individual identity and democratic functioning in society, protecting against the chilling effects of surveillance is key.

“Any modification to an individuals’ otherwise normal behaviour will impact on the broader socio-political ecosystem, affecting opportunities for social or political interaction, for that individual and for others they may have come into contact with,” it said.

“The centrality of freedom of assembly and of association to the vibrancy and evolution of democratic life cannot be overstated. Any interference with the rights to freedom of assembly and of association will exert clear knock-on effects with respect to the right to participate in public affairs.”

It added that, given the enabling and interconnected nature of these rights, undue interference with them by state authorities diminishes the ability to advocate for all human rights: “This undermines human dignity, stifles democratic agency and restricts the pursuit of just and peaceful societies.”

Read more about digital surveillance practices

 

Read more on IT governance