Surveillance in the Name of Safety

Surveillance in the Name of Safety: Are Women Ever Truly Free?

Introduction#

In the Year 2015, Pinjra tod movement ("break the cage" ) originated in Delhi and soon expanded nationwide to confront biased rules enforced on women in the name of "safety". We have all noticed that the girl's hostels often have early curfews, visitor limitations, and strict attendance monitoring. But these rules are generally not applicable in the boys' hostels. Institutions usually justify these actions as essentials for the safety of female students. But this brings up an important question : If safety is the objective, then why must only women give up their freedom.

This question raises wider issues. Why are women often subjected to surveillance, which is often justified by saying "It's for your own safety." Parents demand live location and Residences raise questions about our whereabouts.

While these actions have pure and sincere intentions behind them. It also makes surveillance over women look like an essential for their safety.

Surveillance has also become very easy in today's time. The advancement in technology has opened doors for various forms of surveillance. Live location sharing makes it possible to track someone in real time. Today, it is easily possible to collect extensive information about an individual. While for some these tools bring a sense of security, at the same time they compromise privacy and freedom. This brings up yet another important question : Can we say that women are truly safe and free if their safety is dependent on continuous surveillance?

This essay will discuss the many modern surveillance methods that exist to protect women while acting as tools of control. Using a feminist lens, this essay will show that society cannot solve these issues by constantly monitoring women. It only created a systematic barrier that takes away women's rights. The goal must be to protect women while maintaining their autonomy, dignity and independence.

The feminist view on safeguard

Feminist legal theories have historically challenged the belief restricting women can be of any advantage. For years, women have been denied opportunities and freedom. Not because they are incompetent in any manner, but because they were seen as fragile. This being the reason behind restrictions on education, working opportunities, and even political involvement in many families.

The backbone of this approach is Paternalism.

Paternalism is explained as "the practice of limiting an individual's or group's liberty or autonomy for their own good. It happens when those in power make decisions for other people, believing they know what's best for them.

Paternalism often portrays women as passive beneficiaries of safeguarding instead of independent, self-sufficient citizens.

These actions may seem kind and pure but they frequently support the unequal power dynamic between men and women.

While women do come across dangers, in both public and private environments, the mere presence of risk does not justify taking away someone's basic liberty. In a situation where women have to change their behaviour, restrict their mobility or be subjected to constant monitoring, the duty to tackle those risks falls on the women instead of the system or the offender.

Such a situation is very concerning because it suggests that violence is unavoidable and so women's liberty must be compromised. Surveillance focuses on controlling women's action while the right thing would be to question why our society is still unsafe. As a result the term "protection" normalises surveillance and justifies control while inequality persists.

Hostel Curfews and Women's Freedom and ability to travel.

Educational institutes more often than not indulge in monitoring under the name of "security". Throughout India, women live in hostels or pg's and sometimes even apartments. Encounter strict rules such as earlier curfews, visitor limitations, compulsory attendance and travel restrictions that are not applicable to men. These rules are often explained as "safety precautions".

These rules might be implemented with pure intentions of protection but they raise serious issues of inequality and freedom. Male students generally enjoy more freedom even though they also encounter similar safety risks. The partial treatment implies that women's freedom and liberty is seen as a fundamental problem and needs to be restricted.

These limitations and rules don't just affect women's freedom and ability to travel. They have an impact on their access to education, internships, networking opportunities, important academic events and cultural and social involvement. Not getting such exposure during university life may have ever lasting drawbacks in their educational advancement.

More importantly, hostel rules do not tackle the root problems behind these regulations. Instead of improving safety in public areas, they act by excluding women from those environments. The responsibility for preventing violence falls on the possible victim. Shouldn't the precautions be towards tackling the problem of harassment and discrimination by targeting the perpetrators instead of the victims?

A feminist legal perspective shows that these policies support the belief that associates women's safety with their actions. Rather than giving women the opportunity to move freely in public, institutions react to threats by restricting women's freedoms.

Digital monitoring and modern forms of control

With the advancement in technology the surveillance shifted from a tangible activity to an ongoing and very often unnoticed procedure. Phones, social media sites and location sharing apps have made it easier for individuals to be tracked effortlessly.

technology has made it easier than ever to keep track of people. Location-sharing apps, social media, and smartphones allow someone to know where a person is at almost any moment. While these tools are often promoted as safety measures, they can also become tools of control.

Many women are expected to share their live location with parents, family members, or partners. In many households, this is seen as normal and even necessary. A daughter who refuses to share her location may be considered careless, while a partner who asks for passwords is often seen as caring or protective. Over time, constant monitoring becomes a part of everyday life.

The issue is that there is a thin line between care and manipulation. It is reasonable for a parent to be concerned about whether their daughter got home safely. But, when each action is documented and every place must be disclosed, security gradually becomes monitoring. Women might start to sense that they are being observed instead of being trusted.

This issue becomes even more serious in relationships. Some partners demand access to phones, social media accounts, or location services. Such behaviour is often justified as love, concern, or protection. In reality, it can reduce a woman's freedom to make her own choices and maintain her privacy.

Technology has made this kind of monitoring much easier. Unlike earlier forms of supervision, a person no longer needs to be physically present to keep track of someone. A woman can be monitored wherever she goes, making it difficult to enjoy true privacy. This raises an important question: should women have to give up their privacy in order to feel safe? While surveillance may sometimes provide a sense of security, it can also take away the freedom that safety is supposed to protect.

Constitutional Dimensions of Surveillance#

The issue of surveillance is not only a social concern but also a legal one. The Indian Constitution guarantees certain basic rights that belong to every individual, regardless of gender. These rights include equality, freedom, dignity, and privacy.

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law. If women are subjected to restrictions and monitoring that men are not expected to face, it raises questions about whether they are truly being treated equally.

Article 19 protects important freedoms such as movement and expression. When women are constantly monitored, they may feel less comfortable exercising these freedoms. Knowing that someone is always watching can influence where a person goes, who they meet, and how they behave.

Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty. Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted this right to include privacy and dignity. Privacy is not simply about hiding information. It is about having the freedom to make personal choices without unnecessary interference from others.

When women are expected to sacrifice privacy in exchange for safety, these constitutional values come into conflict. Safety is important, but it should not come at the cost of basic freedoms. A legal system that values equality and liberty must find ways to protect women without constantly monitoring them.

The Feminist Dilemma: Safety Versus Freedom#

One of the biggest challenges in discussing women's safety is that the dangers women face are real. Harassment, stalking, assault, and violence continue to affect women across the country. Because of these realities, safety measures cannot simply be dismissed.

However, an important question remains: why is the responsibility for safety so often placed on women themselves? Instead of making public spaces safer, society frequently asks women to change their behaviour. Women are told not to go out late, not to travel alone, not to wear certain clothes, and increasingly, to keep their location visible at all times.

This creates a situation where women are expected to choose between freedom and safety. Men are rarely asked to make the same choice. They are generally allowed to move freely without constantly updating others about their whereabouts. Women, on the other hand, are often expected to prove that they are being careful and responsible.

A feminist approach challenges this way of thinking. The solution to violence against women cannot be to limit women's freedom. Instead, efforts should focus on making society safer for everyone. Better public transport, improved street lighting, stronger law enforcement, and greater awareness about gender equality can do far more to improve women's safety than constant surveillance.

Real empowerment comes from giving women the freedom to make their own choices while ensuring that society is safe enough for them to do so.

Conclusion#

Safety is one of the most common reasons given for monitoring and restricting women. Whether it is hostel curfews, location-sharing apps, or family rules, these measures are usually presented as acts of care and protection. However, they often have the effect of limiting women's privacy and independence.

A feminist analysis shows that many of these practices are based on the idea that women need constant supervision in order to stay safe. Instead of addressing the causes of violence, society often responds by placing more restrictions on women. As a result, women are expected to give up certain freedoms in exchange for protection.

Can it be called true freedom if an individual is constantly monitored? Safety is surely important, but it should not require women to sacrifice their privacy, dignity, or independence. The goal should not be to watch women more closely but to create a society where they can live freely and safely at the same time. Only then can the promise of equality become meaningful in everyday life.