Under Watch: Democracy in the Age of Surveillance

As surveillance technologies become increasingly sophisticated, where do we draw the line between public safety and personal privacy? For Amy Freedman, PhD, professor and chair of Political Science, that question is a key aspect of her research on democracy and individual freedoms in Southeast Asia. In this Q+A, Freedman explores the intersection of technology, political power, and civil liberties, and shares how her research informs her teaching and inspires student collaboration.

Your research interests relate to trends toward and away from democracy, and particularly in Southeast Asia. How did you become interested in this topic?

In countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, individual rights and freedoms are not a given, and there is a lot of variation within Southeast Asia and over time in rights protections and individual liberties and freedoms. I became interested in these questions in graduate school and in my dissertation research on ethnic Chinese communities, who are an ethnic minority in Indonesia and Malaysia and have often suffered persecution. I was interested in how they were able to organize and assert their interests, and this led to other related questions about democracy, rights, and freedoms.

How do surveillance and freedom in particular intersect with your research on Southeast Asia?

Autocratic countries, like many in Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia, for example), and semi-democratic countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, use surveillance as a way of perpetuating state control. While not as rigidly controlled or censored as China, almost all countries in Southeast Asia have limitations on things like a free press, free assembly, and what you can say or post on the internet. Laws purporting to address misinformation or ‘fake news’ often are used against critics of leaders and opposition forces; and, these laws often go hand in hand with state surveillance of all citizens’ online and in-real-life activities.

While surveillance varies around Southeast Asia; several Southeast Asian countries have heavily invested in AI-driven public tracking, frequently importing low-cost facial recognition and smart-city software from Chinese tech giants, as well as developing fairly extensive surveillance technologies themselves.

Were any of your research findings surprising or challenged assumptions?

Surveillance isn’t that surprising in autocratic states, but what has been interesting is how countries which used to be very suspicious of China (in terms of their foreign policy), have shifted their position and become much closer to China, welcoming investment and deals for infrastructure and technology. This includes countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore.

It’s both an election year in the U.S. and a time with much debate surrounding Flock cameras and data centers. As a political scientist, what are your thoughts on the intersection of these?

I think the focus of this election cycle on Flock cameras and data centers is really useful as a way for people to become better informed about how technology and surveillance are already present in our lives. But I am frankly not hopeful that either political party is going to do much to change the status quo. Democrats, if and when they regain control in Washington, might put some safeguards in place to better protect rights of privacy and curtail some of the worst abuses of state power, but it is really local governments and police forces who are buying and using facial recognition equipment and allowing construction of data centers.

How has your research informed your work with students and teaching?

As part of the Provost Office’s Summer 2026 Dyson College Student-Faculty Undergraduate Research Initiative, I collaborated with Idris Johnson ’27, a Political Science major, on the topic of surveillance and individual freedom, and he is much more knowledgeable than I am on the implications for democracy here in the US.

The courses I teach that relate to this topic are Modern Chinese Politics, Politics of Southeast Asia, and Freedom in the World. Certainly, in the classroom, we discuss individual rights and freedoms, both at a theoretical level and in application to the real world. Philosopher and social theorist Jürgen Habermas’s work is interesting in how he thinks about the importance of community and technology, and I often assign journalist and historian Anne Applebaum’s work on growing authoritarianism around the world. In addition, my students examine Freedom House reports on levels of freedom globally. (for many years, I wrote the Freedom in the World reports for Malaysia and Singapore).

Curious about the forces shaping freedom and democracy around the world? Explore how a degree in Political Science from Pace University’s Dyson College of Arts and Sciences can help you understand global challenges, question the status quo, and turn your curiosity into meaningful research and real-world impact.