Bulk Surveillance – An Unnecessary Evil

           Bulk surveillance programs do not provide the benefits to national security commensurate with their harms to privacy. Throughout the duration of this course, class debates around bulk surveillance seemed to revolve around the trade-offs Americans should be willing to make in order to afford a greater degree of national security – are we willing to give up privacy in order to make ourselves safer? After reading authors like Greenwald, Harris, and Newmann, I think most of us have a good idea about what kind of data both governments and private corporations are able to find out about us, whether that information is illegally obtained or whether we give it away freely.  While even proponents of NSA surveillance acknowledged the programs’ harms to privacy, they said that they would be willing to accept that harm in order to make the United States safer. But after reading Bergen’s analysis of the NSA’s bulk surveillance program, I hope that these students would reconsider their views. Bergen finds scant evidence that these surveillance programs contribute to the security of our nation, and given this analysis, it seems like the NSA harms our civil liberties without providing benefits which justify the programs themselves. I hope to offer a brief framing of my views on the bulk surveillance debate, and in the process try to offer a convincing case as to why we should be seriously concerned about the continuation of these programs in their current forms.

First, bulk surveillance undermines our Fourth Amendment rights. The text of the Fourth Amendment is as follows: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Bulk surveillance constitutes an unreasonable search. Many people who fall under the NSA’s spying programs are everyday citizens who are not guilty of anything. They did not consent to these searches, nor were they even aware that these searches were happening.

Bulk surveillance also undermines our ability to control our own information, which has been commodified ever since advertising became the primary means of business on the internet (see Zuckerman’s article about “The Internet’s Original Sin”). Insofar as this is the case, we should be able to have control over our own information, which is treated like a good. Every piece of data that exists about you exists because of you, almost as product of your labor, if you will. Individuals exchange their information for free services on the internet, but this exchange is voluntary and consensual. Despite this, 91% of adults “’agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ that consumers have lost control over how personal information is collected and used by companies” (1). This statistic should be unsurprising, as the US government places a large burden on corporations themselves to collect much of the data collected under its surveillance programs.

         The NSA’s programs have undermined trust in government, which is hovering around historic lows – only 24% of Americans indicate that they trust the government (2). While a cursory internet search didn’t reveal from a statistical perspective the impact of Snowden’s shocking revelations, it seems clear that the NSA’s bulk surveillance programs undermined citizen’s capacity to trust the United States government. A Reuters article from the beginning of 2014 indicates the NSA revelations as one of the key contributors to the public’s declining trust in government (3).

            I haven’t gotten the sense that the above points were terribly controversial, at least within the context of this class. People might have disagreed in terms of the degree of privacy harm caused by NSA surveillance, but even defenders of the NSA mostly tried to explain why these harms were mitigated by security benefits, rather than show that privacy concerns were altogether misplaced.

            However, these mitigating arguments seem lacking after reading the Bergen article. NSA surveillance only played a role in 1.3% of anti-terrorism cases the researchers examined, and these cases were either insignificant, or ones where NSA surveillance played a marginal role at best. For example, Basalay Maolin was discovered through unwarranted interception of telephone data to have donated $8,500 to al-Shabaab. Of course, it’s a good thing that we caught Maolin, but arresting him hardly prevented “the next 9/11.” David Headley was found plotting an attack against a Danish newspaper, but the information relevant to his arrest came from British intelligence, not the NSA. The government cannot give us any concrete evidence that their overreaching data-gathering programs are, in fact, effective. How then, can the government make the case that bulk surveillance is critical to the national security apparatus? How can it make the case that such a small impact on terrorist activity is worth the massive abrogation of our liberties?

            I know that it might be a bit unfair for me to take such an adversarial stance on the last blog post, when no one will comment on the statements that I’ve made (probably). But I feel like Bergen’s paper should be the deciding factor for anyone who’s still on the fence regarding the bulk surveillance debate. At the beginning of class, we talked about how we have to make trade-offs in order to get more security; how policymakers need to evaluate how much they’re willing to sacrifice in order to achieve that security. If the benefits to security are marginal, then what we sacrifice should be marginal as well. The NSA’s bulk surveillance programs, however, have a frightening impact upon our privacy.

         

(1) http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/11/12/public-privacy-perceptions/   

(2) http://www.people-press.org/2014/11/13/public-trust-in-government/

(3) http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/20/us-davos-trust-idUSBREA0J09020140120 

The Impurities of Targeted Killing

 The Impurities of Targeted Killing       

       The issue of drone strikes certainly has much dichotomy.  But overall, it seems the the United States use of drones has created a very high number of civilian casualties, leading me to believe they should not be used at all.  For those who have read my previous blogs, I should not need to reiterate that I typically am relentlessly supportive of our government.  I do, however, realize that we perfect, nor do I expect us to be.  When it comes to war, I think minimizing civilian causalities should always be a number one concern.  As barbaric as the enemies we fight against can be, I believe the US government should always hold itself to a high standard.  It is evident that this is typically the case when you evaluate our countries meticulous rules of engagement.  But the use of drone strikes seem to undermine these rules.  More innocent lives seem to be lost as a result.  

         The International Security article "Drone War Pakistan: Analysis" provides enough evidence for me to conclude that drone strikes are not effective enough to be used as commonly as they are.  Since Obama has come into office, there have been 346 drone strikes on Pakistan.  Of those 346 strikes, an estimated 143-166 innocent lives have been claimed.  So in approximately half of all the targeted killings the government has issued, there have been civilian casualties.  In Yemen, a total of 117 strikes have been issued that resulted in 81-87 civilian casualties.  That means that between Pakistan and Yemen alone, close to 300 civilians have lost there lives as a result of the United States' use of targeted killings.  These numbers are  simply too high to support the use of drones.  

        I do feel there are other ways that are effective.  While targeted killings might be the "convenient" option for the United States, statistics show they have been the cause of many civilian deaths.  When the CIA believed they had discovered the compound which Osama Bin Ladin was hiding, president Obama considered using a drone strike to wipe out the entire compound.  He ruled against this option only because he wanted confirmation of Bin Ladin's death.  Not because he lacked the knowledge of whether innocent people could be living within the compound.  So when SEAL team 6 launched their night operation which ultimately killed Bin Ladin, they were able to effectively get to Osama without harming the many non-combatants within the houses (women, children etc.)  Special Forces are highly trained, and high effective and because of that, they prevented the deaths of all of the innocent people living in Bin Ladin's compound.  My point, here, is that there are other solutions to capturing and/or killing high value targets without the use of drones.  Methods that save the lives of civilians.  That is something we cannot overlook.

The Effectiveness of Security

            Drone strikes have been increasingly controversial over the past few years. This is not surprising as the number of strikes used by the Obama administration had skyrocketed in 2010 and they are still prevalent today. The government having the ability to neutralize people on the other side of the world with flying robotic killers is an Orwellian threat to many people. Being able to check humans off of a list while drones kill them appears callous, cruel and terrifying. The fact is, drones are simply another tool the military is able to use to fight war, and in a global war on hidden insurgents, flying drones are important, and effective. There have been mishaps over the years, civilians have been accidentally killed, but that is no different from having soldiers on the ground. The statistics provided by newamerica.net on the drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen prove that the drones are very effective at eliminating hostiles with no risk to American soldiers and airmen, and thus should continue to be allowed.

            The year 2010 had the largest number of drone strikes in Pakistan with 122 sorties flown resulting in the elimination of over 788 hostile militants and only 16 civilian deaths. Of the total of 849 killed by drones in 2010, that result is a 92% success rate for accurately killing targets. On the high end of all strikes in Pakistan, the drones have an 82% accuracy rating for killing militants. For many, that number is still too low and every mistake ends in the death of innocent people. The cold truth is that is the reality of war, innocent people will be caught in the middle and killed. This is true whether drones are used or soldiers, and with drones there are no Americans put in harm’s way. The argument can be made that 82% accuracy is too low, and too many innocents are killed. But the benefit of keeping Americans safe can be said to make up the difference. The military is concerned with keeping its own people alive, not those living in a hostile country.

            As part of the targeted killing program, mass data collection is necessary to find those with hostile intent against the people of the United States. The NSA, FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies do spy on everyone on earth who is connected to the internet, and many more who are not. As stated in previous blogs, privacy is nonexistent for most Americans, and it is popular to willingly disregard it. Critics of intelligence gathering can equate the effort to finding a needle in a haystack, and they would not be wrong. But over the years the government has prevented numerous attempted terror plots, such as the metro and shoe bombers. The government may be searching in a 7billion straw haystack searching for a few hundred needles, but it can be comforting to know that they are looking. Until a more cost effective and less invasive method is proposed by those who value their “privacy,” then preventing even one terror attack on the scale of or smaller than that of the September 11^th attacks is worth it.

The Dangers of Corporate Espionage

            The prospect of internet privacy is impossible in this day and age. The government of the United States uses data assemblies to spy on persons of interest in the name of national security. The government receives this data from various sources, many of them from companies who take personal information from individuals for their own profit. While the idea of being spied on by corporations and agencies may be disconcerting, the fact is that it is popular in modern culture to share one’s life and movements with the world via Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other websites. Not only are one’s actions secretly tracked, but it is considered fun to do so oneself. The issue is that while the government is held accountable for their actions by the people, corporations are gathering this information purely for profit, which can be detrimental to the individual.

            Google is known for being one of the more nefarious gatherers of information their clients. Nathan Newman on the Huffington Post explains how Google sells gathered data illegally and sold the information to other companies. The information was used by advertisers to target their products directly as specific consumers, while this may not appear harmful, Newman explains that these advertisements can target those in lower economic classes and help impoverish them with scaled prices. Google also played a role in the housing crisis of 2008 by allowing advertisements of deceptively low mortgages that, while not the primary cause of the housing boom, was only exacerbating the problem for profit. When left to their own devices, companies will exploit the consumer to obtain more money. Labor unions at the turn of the century helped to create legislation to curb the exploitation of the worker, while banks in 1929 and almost in 2008 caused the crash of the free market in the name of profit. Corporations are more dangerous to the general population than the government.

            As Newman states, the NSA uses the data to track down threats to national security and while this does involve the invasion of the privacy of innocent people, they are not harmed in any way. Companies targeting advertising can influence one to make poor financial choices. This is of course, a choice and it is one’s own responsibility to make proper use of one’s assets. Thus, not all blame can be placed upon Google, companies or the government. While most do not go to the extreme that Hasan Elahi goes, the vast majority of individuals while internet access willingly share their lives with strangers. This is not a bad thing; it is merely a change in how society views privacy. Elahi shares his life to make an artistic statement; everyone else does it for fun and to fulfill their sociological need for interaction with other people. Companies must be held accountable in some way for their use of the data they have. But the act of gathering this information should not be held too critically, the populous cares little for their own privacy.

           

Reconsidering National Security

Reconsidering National Security

First, let me say that I wrote this after reading many other blog posts.  Without trying to be completely antagonistic, I will start by saying that not everything that the government does when it comes to surveillance in within the realms of the law, but when it comes to media, people are ignorant for thinking their information is “private”.  Too many times, I’ve heard things like “my Facebook profile is supposed to be on private, how could they see my pictures” or something along those lines.  Using the internet requires people to have a reasonable amount common knowledge that can be read on websites terms and conditions...that annoying page that requires you to hit accept before you sign up for pretty much anything.  But I’d guess that 75% of people don’t read these terms.    Instead of blaming the government for invading your “privacy”, people should take the time to understand that Facebook is as public as posting a sign on your front lawn.  Thus, if it can help the government in any way to prevent future attacks on America, why would you blame them for doing so? 

            In Glenn Greenwald’s “No Place to Hide” , he quotes CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, when he says “ people have really gotten comfortable sharing more information and different kinds…privacy in the digital age is no longer a social norm,” (170).   Considering he is the creator of Facebook, it seems reasonable to take his word when he says that nothing you post on Facebook is private.  I am using Facebook as an example here but this goes for many other Internet resources.  As Mark Zuckerberg says, “privacy in the digital world is not and should not be regarded as normal,” (171).  Despite what should be common knowledge to the millions of internet users, people still accuse the government of doing things they should not be doing. 

            Hassan Elahi provides an extreme example of his response to the FBI after being put on a terrorist watch list.  He chose to give them all the information about himself he possibly could.  Even providing hourly photos, receipts etc. of his whereabouts.  Clearly, this intended exaggeration is a hostile response to the government simply doing their job. Here is my problem with this.  I can remember reciting the pledge of allegiance in my 3^rd grade classroom moments before finding out that two planes had crashed into the world trade center.   I cannot say that I was fully aware of the implications of what had happened, but I knew my dad worked in the city.  I wondered if he would come home that night.  I cried and begged to be taken out of the classroom.  I got angry and yelled at my teacher for insisting that I "calm down".  Even  my young 8 year old brain could comprehend that whatever happened was bad. After the attacks, our country rallied.  Many people made slogans like “never again” and “never forget”.  So why is it that now, people response to the government doing there job to protect you is treated with such hostility?  I can assure you that simply being on an FBI watch list does not, in any way, mean that you are being arrested.  And what bothers me more is that people accuse the government of always doing something wrong when they are the ones putting information on Facebook, which the CEO has explicitly stated is completely public.  If you're so intent on protecting you rights, you should probably take the time to understand them first.  As I said, I am not trying to be completely antagonistic.  I understand that my views are a bit extreme.  Perhaps being a New Yorker and really living through 9/11 invoked a larger sense of passion in making sure our country stays protected; and even a willingness to make personal sacrifices.  Yes, I said it, personal sacrifices. I would be ignorant for expecting all Americans to think in that same way. But all I am asking is for the public to be a little less hostile and understand that if you get put on a watch list, assuming you have nothing to hide, maybe you should actually be glad to know that our government is working to protect us.  Because if they are watching thousands of people and only one of those people turns out to be a legitimate security threat, then that is a successful statistic in my mind.  And furthermore, when you use public internet sites, remember they are public sites. I fully understand and respect the constitutional amendments and privacy rights.  But in a country where thousands of soldiers are sacrificing their lives to protect the people who live in it, I personally am okay with making small sacrifices as well.  I am okay with the government looking at my Facebook and even my emails. And if the government sees something that they deem suspicious, I am okay with them contacting me.  Why?  Because the last thing I would ever want is to turn my news on and relive the horror of 9/11.   I think it’s time people understand the reality that national security is a relentless task.  It requires our country to be obsessive and intrusive.  So people need to consider whether their privacy is more important that the safety of their country.  I urge people to be a bit less selfish when making their choice.   

The Individual as Data Curator

            Hassan Elahi, Associate Professor at the University of Maryland, has a fascinating approach to privacy in the digital age: by flooding the internet with details of his personal life, Elahi “devalues the currency” of information which is so precious to government agencies such as the CIA and FBI. If 300 million Americans decided to share with the world every insignificant detail about their existence, the argument goes, then they would all gain a sort of anonymity because the government wouldn’t know how to process the torrent of data. However, while something like Tracking Transience might make information less valuable for entities who wish to engage in domestic spying, it also makes the same information less valuable for the end user – the people who decide to share their lives on the internet in the first place.

***

            Facebook is one of the largest aggregators of our personal information. Our friend networks, personal photos, birth dates, and intimate thoughts are all more or less on display for everyone to see (and even if we designate our personal records as “private” on the website, it’s hardly a stretch to imagine the government getting ahold of everything, if it wanted to). Given the perceived state of internet privacy in the United States, we recoil when we imagine that all of this information might be out there for anyone with a computer and an internet connection to see.

But this information sharing and lack of privacy is what makes Facebook useful to its users. We want to keep up with our Facebook “friends,” and to the extent that we are their “friends,” we feel entitled to have a look into their lives. Imagine an acquaintance that runs into you on campus, excited to let you know that she’s gotten into her top choice grad school. “I already know that,” you think to yourself. “I checked Facebook ten minutes ago.” You, the savvy Facebook-user, are a true master of social interaction, armed with the foreknowledge of what your friends are going to talk about. Anytime and anyplace, you have a window into their lives, and they never know when you’re peering in.

Most college students have experienced the voyeuristic glee that comes from “Facebook stalking,” sifting through photos and news feeds of the quirky kid who sits next to you in class or the romantic interest you were introduced to at last Friday’s party. It’s the freely shared information that allows us to chart a clearer course throughout the dangerous waters of social interaction. Maybe the quirky kid shares some of your interests in music and literature, which can make for nice conversation fodder the next time you see him. Perhaps that romantic interest is already taken, which you find out after looking at her “Relationship Status” – good thing you didn’t embarrass yourself and ask her out.

The point is, part of the reason we value Facebook is because it’s easy to get a very personal look into someone else’s life, and then leverage relevant social information by using it to make informed decisions about our interpersonal interactions. But take a look at some of Elahi’s artistic work. The different frames in Security & Comfort v3 are absolutely banal, displaying all of the urinals and toilets where Elahi has been “doing [his] business, because they want to know about [his] business.” In Tracking Transience,  Elahi makes it clear that his purpose is to make his information user unfriendly to access, giving an ironic middle-finger to government snoops who waste his time with racial profiling, interrogations, and polygraph tests.  All of the data – and there’s a lot of data – is unnervingly specific, even to the point of offering the exact GPS coordinates of Elahi’s location. But at the same time, it is impossible to form any sort of coherent picture of Elahi as a person. He remains, in essence, anonymous(1).

Now imagine opening up Facebook and encountering the equivalent of Security & Comfort v3 or TrackingTransience for your 1,000 closest companions. This new Facebook with obscene amounts of personal information will have become, more or less, useless to you. One would hope that which urinal you chose to visit last night at coordinates 38.98 and -76.94 has no bearing on how I interact with you as a person – or any bearing on anything at all, for that matter. Furthermore, the anonymous feeling of Tracking Transience would defeat the purpose of a social network altogether. Networks are supposed to bring people closer together, not alienate them.

As we now know it, Facebook allows us to curate our lives in order to create an “online presence.” This presence is a portrait of who we are, or at least who would like to see ourselves as. And we interact with our friend’s portraits when we go online. Aside from the practical aspects of communication, this is why we like to use Facebook. But by rejecting his role as a curator, Elahi is refusing to contribute value to the users of social network platforms. He is refusing to paint a coherent self-portrait with which others can interact.

Far from being a negative judgment of Elahi’s piece, this conclusion raises a few interesting questions for the future of the internet (Unfortunately these questions are outside the scope of this blogpost. Perhaps they can be further discussed in the comments). People might have the same goals as Elahi, for example, but different means of achieving them. Instead of revealing all of their personal information, might individuals try to conceal as much information as possible when on the internet? What does it mean for the internet’s business model, which is based largely on advertising, when individuals make their data as hard to personalize as possible? Many more questions remain, and the future of data collection, both corporate and governmental, might depend on their answers.   

(1) Notice how there are no pictures of Elahi’s face in Tracking Transience. To me, this seems to be a greater contributor to anonymity than the huge volume of information.