Skip to comments.We’re all under surveillance. So what?
Posted on 06/22/2013 5:11:34 PM PDT by rickmichaels
Ive been covering privacy issues for the past six years, roughly the same time period that saw the largest erosion of personal privacy in human history. Yet of the handful of technology topics I write about, privacy is consistently the least popular with readers. Unless some federal minister is equating privacy fears with support for child molesters, people just dont click. But two weeks ago, everyone decided to finally give a damn about privacy. Then, just as suddenly, everyone was over it.
The inciting incident was the news of PRISM, a massive National Security Agency surveillance effort, which was leaked to the press by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Snowden revealed that the U.S. federal government has been bulk-spying in realtime on our e-mail, web searches and other Internet traffic. Subsequent revelations exposed other efforts, such as: MARINA, which collects Internet metadata, NUCLEON, with records phone calls en masse, and MAINWAY, which spies on phone metadata.
There is much debate and murkiness about who the NSA is spying on, to what degree Canadas CSEC is doing the same, and which Internet and phone companies are complicit. The confusion is intentional and transparency is unlikely. These are spy agencies, after all, and they dont care what you think of them. More concerned about public outrage is Barack Obama, whose reassurance to Americans that the NSA is not listening to their phone calls without warrants has been exposed in detail as a patent falsehoodthe NSA is most certainly doing so to many Americans, and theyre not saying who these targets are. Of course, in the case of non-U.S. citizens like us, all bets are off, and nobody is even bothering to offer us bullshit denials. The only reasonable assumption we can make from all this is that until we learn otherwise, everything from everyone is being spied on, all the time.
Why collect information in such an indiscriminate manner? The answer, it seems, is why not? No legal barriers prevent the NSA from doing so, following post 9/11 amendments to the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. Technological barriers to bulk surveillance have also been removed our data is almost exclusively digital now, and the cost of storing unfathomable troves of it drops each day. We know a little about the scale of this. (Via Wired,) the Washington Post reported that in 2010 the NSA intercepted and stored 1.7 billion emails, phone calls and other communications. This figure is already wildly out of datelast weeks coverage in the Guardian had it that in March of this year alone, the NSA collected three billion pieces of intelligence, just counting U.S. communications.
This all leads us to another question: How could they possibly make sense of so much information?
Because of Big Data. Drastic increases in processing power and the development of sophisticated data mining/data crunching techniques magically allow authorities to sift through our stuff with algorithms that can locate that needle in the haystacka terrorist plot in the making. It all sounds neat in a Bourne Identity kind of way, but Ive often wondered just how effective Big Data is, especially in these cases, where the cost of a false positive (erroneously identifying an innocent person as a terrorist) is high, but not nearly as high as the cost of a false negative (erroneously identifying a true terrorist as an innocent).
My curiosity was disturbingly satisfied by this shocking interview with William Binney, a retired NSA analyst who says Big Data is no great shakes. It seems the NSA was in fact recording Tamerlan Tsarnevs phone calls, but the Boston Marathon bomber fell through the cracksnobody got around to transcribing or analyzing the tape. According to Binney, Big Data is worse than ineffective it actually renders the NSA dysfunctional, as real leads get lost in oceans of irrelevant snoopage. This helps the NSA perpetually demand (and receive) ever-increased funding to buy more and more transcribers and analysts, but it does little to keep America safe.
The final question to emerge while I was changing diapers, and the most saddening, is why should I care? Having just learned that their own government has secretly and perhaps totally disregarded their right to privacy, many have shrugged, claiming they have nothing to hide. Some have even suggested were all getting our just desserts for participating in social media, as if signing up for a GMail account is somehow a tacit invitation for government spooks to read your letters. Meanwhile, a Pew Center poll revealed that 56 per cent of Americans are okay with the NSA listening to their phone calls in the name of security, and 45 per cent dont mind if their emails are being read.
Explaining why we all should care and will care feels very Grade 8 civics, like explaining why freedom is important or why voting is a good idea. Its hard to not sound pedantic and self-righteous when doing so. Let me stick to practicalities: you should care because the government is always losing data, and eventually they will lose yours. Cory Doctorow provides another good reason to care by illustrating the difference between privacy and secrecy. I know what you do in the toilet, he writes, but that doesnt mean you dont want to close the door when you go to the stall. Heres another one: You might be the next false positive, your life ruined in an instant because some algorithm flagged you as a terrorist based on a data glitch.
Above all, I care because a perfect record of my whereabouts, Internet searches, emails, and phone calls that I dont know about and cant access is of high value to lots of people, but is nothing but a liability to me. Your government, your boss and your would-be identity thief all might desire access to such a database. Its hard to think of any application that would be anything but harmful to you. Its similar to how lawyers advise clients to never say anything to police until they show up, whether or not the client has done anything wrong. What you say might be used against you, but its sure as hell not going to be used to help you. If you have nothing to hide, you also have nothing gain by being spied on. Theyre not looking for people to send money to.
I can go on, but Im afraid I missed my moment. The public outrage seems to have passed. If the NSA or CSEC have learned anything from this, it might be that they can probably get away with much more than theyre already doing. The only saving grace here is the Internet itself, the same network that makes such sci-fi level surveillance possible. Its also the technology that makes conspiracies untenable. A program like PRISM requires dozens, if not hundreds, of complicit agents. Among this crowd, there will, we hope, always be an Edward Snowden or a Bradley Manning, a free-thinking individual whose ethics simply do not allow them to stay silent and complicit, no matter the personal cost. These souls will always be one click away from telling us the truth.
Whatever comes next, we can never say they didnt warn us.
“Everybody knew everybody elses business.”
Nothing beats village gossip for truth and accuracy.
so THAT is the meaning of It Takes a Village”
It's that simple. Privacy is demanded by human dignity.
Sadly, people of that caliper are few and far between. The vast majority have decided it's better to accept the blackmail or the bribe and go along with The Chicago Way...
...still others just enjoy the gravy train...
Except back then you knew who knew you. Now that link's severed. The contractor reviewing your data has never met you. Like the relationship between the concentration camp guards and the Jews, you've been de-humanized, and have become a thing to be controlled.
NOW there’s a gallery of loosers...
Any geeks out there know how much input it would take to crash the super-mega-gagillionquadrillion computers? Maybe the chinese will join in?
Just a question, I have more important things to do, like work on overturning Roe V Wade.
Anonymous is a bunch of losers. Their skills over way over rated.
Remember when they were going to release all those encrypted files on the SC Justices?? It was all B.S. They had nothing.
Their politics are far, far, far left.
The only people Anonymous hates are Conservatives and others who believe in limited government.
A clear violation of our rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
If this nimrod likes surveillance so much why doesn’t he move to England where they have so many cameras he could save a trip to the Proctologist.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
If I kept the author under surveillance, it would be called “stalking” and she would probably call the police to protect her. But when government does it, somehow it is just fine? Maybe for the author, but not for me.
You can bet some enterprising anti establishment types with the right skills are planning just that. Actually, I guess you could say they already are when they break into government computers.
Question for everyone, how much has the government been monitoring what we all post here?
"Here is how Foucault described the Panopticon: "
Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers.
To achieve this, it is at once too much and too little that the prisoner should be constantly observed by an inspector: too little, for what matters is that he knows himself to be observed; too much, because he has no need in fact of being so.
In view of this, Bentham laid down the principle that power should be visible and unverifiable. Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied upon. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so. In order to make the presence or absence of the inspector unverifiable, so that the prisoners, in their cells, cannot even see a shadow, Bentham envisaged not only venetian blinds on the windows of the central observation hall, but, on the inside, partitions that intersected the hall at right angles and, in order to pass from one quarter to the other, not doors but zig-zag openings; for the slightest noise, a gleam of light, a brightness in a half-opened door would betray the presence of the guardian.
The Panopticon is a machine for dissociating the see/being seen dyad: in the peripheric ring, one is totally seen, without ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without ever being seen.
Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage Books, 1995, pp. 195-228, translated from the French by Alan Sheridan (translation 1977)
The biggest problem is that, when it finally gets so big as to be totally irrelevant, the People will have been irrelevant for some time prior...
Cameras,cameras everywhere, supplemented with gov’t rats and mountains of “metadata.” A prison without walls.
If I recall my Orwell properly, they don’t care about the “proles”. In fact, the more they were mired in their self-destructive pursuits the easier they were to keep penned in.
It was the intellectuals, etc. Big Brother was after.
Not just Orwell, but Hitler (with his decimation of the Polish intelligentsia) and Stalin (with his show trials).
It’s really not hard for anyone to see, even though they try to infect us with the cataracts of false accusations (racist, etc.)
Your last post was NSA Ref. No. 734282139872390423329, just so you know.
Just watch how magically it will matter if a Republican administration ever gets back into office.
There will soon after be screaming, howling and gnashing of teeth.
Along with “George Bush’s fault”