Blog Post 5: Data Collection

John Borg

            Last semester, I took a seminar on social media and its effects on journalism and, during one session about targeted advertisements, my professor told the class a rather disconcerting story that particularly stood out. A few years ago, a branch of the department store, Target, started to mail a teenage girl in Minneapolis coupons for diapers, formula and other essentials for raising a baby. Her father, obviously very agitated, went to the Target and demanded that it would stop sending the unnecessary mail, claiming the store was “trying to encourage her to get pregnant.” The manager apologized but, a few days later, the father called the store with a different message: his daughter was, in fact, pregnant. It turns out that Target was able to predict the girl’s situation because of the information her social media accounts and other companies sold to the department store; based on information such as her Internet searches, Target was able to run the data through an algorithm that predicts whether or not a woman is pregnant.

This is the reality that we live in; because of the Internet age, anything we do electronically, from the websites we visit to the photos we share, is processed and turned into a sellable, lucrative good. This can be used for a variety of motives, such as the economic intentions in the Target example above or, more disturbingly, for the secretive purposes of our government that we have grown familiar with in this class. Julian Sanchez’s article for Slate highlights the method with which the government works with various companies in order to obtain the information they have gathered about their customers. These actions, which are just some of the many ways our government keeps track of those it represents, have even stood up to legal questioning, as seen with the Supreme Court’s controversial Smith ruling.

We learned last week that the government has no problems going to extreme lengths in order to obtain as much information as possible. Thus, this week’s readings about agencies such as the NSA working in tandem with various companies to get this crucial data did not really shock me. What resonated with me the most was what Ethan Zuckerman claimed in his piece for The Atlantic about how the American public, every individual in this country, is now becoming a product. We are no longer valued as humans, but as information. I am not saying that we should be terrified to log into Facebook or make a phone call, but its important to realize our information is being used in a very specific and demeaning manner without our consent. Objectification in this manner leads to objectifications in other situations. If the government can see privacy rights as a minimal obstacle that can be glossed over in order to use our information for their benefit, it could, potentially, construe some of our other hard-fought and inalienable rights, such as freedom of speech and assembly, in order to better fit into its goals. According to Zuckerman, we have come to expect omnipresent surveillance to the point that even the Snowden files failed to ignite “organized, public demand for reform and change.” Without offering any opposition, we only reinforce on our government that it is acceptable to compromise our liberties and treat us, in a sense, as less than human.

We need to accept the situation for what it is. Our most basic is not being used for just predicting pregnancies or personalizing ads; the government manipulates it for suspect and controversial purposes. If our personalized information, the things that make us who we are, is really so important in today’s society, then it should be worth monitoring and protecting, even more so because we know no entity out there will do it for us.

Turning Internet and Communications Companies into Government Spies

Julian Sanchez details what he calls the governments “Fourth Amendment Shell Game” where the government orders internet and communications companies to collect large amounts of data on customers (data that some of these companies have no interest in or need for) and then the government seizes this data from the companies.  This allows the government to side step the 4^th amendment protections for spying on individuals.  The fourth amendment would require the government to obtain a warrant and obtaining that warrant would be based upon showing “probable cause”.  But by ordering companies to collect this data and then seizing it from them, it is not the government who is spying on citizens but the internet and communications companies. 

            This should be cause for concern because it appears that the government is willfully manipulating and violating American’s Fourth Amendment protections.   By forcing companies to collect this data and then seizing it from them, the government is using private enterprises to do what it legally would not be able to do or would have a more difficult time doing.    Sanchez also states that this “unwisely skews corporate incentives toward broader data retention”.  While many Americans accept that they lose a certain level of privacy by using the services provided by internet and communications companies, there is a growing level of anger over these companies collection and exploitation of this data.  These NSA policies create the need for companies to collect this data and in addition to handing it over to the government; they could also make use of it themselves or sell it. 

            Even if the government could not force the companies to do this and instead asked them to do it, it crosses a dangerous line in terms of governmental interference in the private sector.  Many of these companies may be cooperating with the government out of fear of the consequences if they do not.  The government could pursue expensive and damaging investigations against these companies, hurt them with burdensome regulations, or threaten antitrust litigation if they do not cooperate.  Companies that do cooperate and help the government pursue its agenda of domestic surveillance could be given favored status over those that do not cooperate. 

            This “Fourth Amendment Shell Game” that the government is pursuing is essentially the forcing private companies to act as unpaid subcontractors of the governmental program of surveillance and data collection.  Companies are likely afraid to speak out about being forced to do this out of fear that they will lose customers and therefore suffer a revenue loss or fear government repercussions.  This also undermines transparency and oversight.  If the government was to pursue this program of data collection and surveillance through the traditional means, the courts could provide some kind of check on it by denying certain requests.  Americans should be angry and concerned when the government is forcing private companies to take actions that allow the government to subvert the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens.  The U.S. Constitution limits the powers of government and protects Americans from the abuses power by government.  If the government is subverting the document that is the basis for American democracy, is it not one more step on the slippery slope to tyranny?

Blog Post 4: The NSA Controversy

John Borg

Glenn Greenwald’s book, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State, examines the NSA controversy of 2013. The National Security Agency is a public government agency that is charged with collecting and analyzing information from foreign governments for counterintelligence purposes. While under the oversight of four-star general, Keith Alexander, the NSA experienced a period of broad and extreme power expansion; with a motto of “collect it all,” Alexander quickly became “the most powerful intelligence chief in the nation’s history,” pushing the agency to collect and process over 20 billion communication events from around the world each day. However, it did not take long before the NSA strayed away from foreign governments and began collecting information from average citizens throughout the globe; by 2012, the NSA had amassed roughly 20 trillion samples of electronic interactions between United States citizens alone. In response, Eric Snowden, a Booz Allen Hamilton employee contracted with the NSA, released thousands of classified documents that revealed the true extent of the agency’s actions. According to Greenwald, the Snowden files highlight the American government’s ultimate goal of removing electronic privacy of any form.

In the year and a half since the controversy caused an international firestorm, the most significant debate has, of course, focused on the government’s blatant disregard for civil liberties. Obviously, as citizens of the United States, we expect the government to adhere to the certain inalienable rights that we are legally given, which includes privacy. No one is truly exempt from these desires; in an effort to avoid an Orwellian society, we tend to emphasize personal freedoms over political manipulation. I will admit, as a student majoring in journalism, I have separate, and relatively off-topic, issues with Eric Snowden and the whistleblower debate in general. Yet his actions have undeniably sparked a productive and necessary discussion in this country about the extent to which a government can go in order to “protect” the citizens it represents.

My take on the situation is rather two-sided. It’s clear that the American government greatly exceeded its legal rights in order to obtain much of the information it did, something most individuals, myself included, find rather distressing. However, many of these measures were the result of the post-9/11 consolidation of power within the government. During this time, the American people gave, and allowed, much authority to the federal government; its no secret that the country experienced a striking “rally around the flag” phenomenon following the tragedy, which would have allowed the government to take very broad measures and still receive widespread public support. Furthermore, our country’s decision makers were facing a threat that had yet to be encountered by any other society throughout history. With little precedent to go on, the government resorted to the extreme, yet controversial, tactics we’ve become familiar with, from this controversy to the recent CIA torture strategy highlighted in the Senate report.

While I am very disturbed by the actions of the government, I cannot say I am all that surprised by it. We all knew after that, after the events of 9/11, the country would enter a period of intense government oversight. Let’s face it: we all knew it was happening; the extent of which our freedoms were being violated were not fully clear, but with laws such as the PATRIOT Act, the American population knew our rights were being compromised in some capacity. I guess I find the outrage over the NSA controversy not entirely convincing because we basically asked for it to happen. Americans offered broad support to government initiatives in the wake of the attack and did not provide enough opposition to ignite change as rumors of governmental travesties began to circulate. In some capacity, citizens were aware of the government’s actions and, until someone did something about, it was relatively a non-issue. The NSA’s actions are shameful, but the fact that it takes an international controversy, over something that should have never gone to the extent that it did, to bring about an intense fervor in the American population is, perhaps, even more so.

Trading False Privacy for Theoretical Security

            One of the most striking reactions one could observe after the Snowden data analysis leaks was not that people were upset that the government was spying on citizens both domestic and abroad, but that they were caught doing so. The National Security Agency uses data assemblies to gather an unprecedented amount of information on nearly everyone who is logged into the internet, has a credit card or mobile phone. Privacy in the modern era is something one has with their neighbors, their friends and acquaintances, but it is by self-delusion that one can believe they have any sense of privacy over the internet. Every free service one receives online comes at the price of privacy; the NSA and other intelligence agencies use this information to attempt to identify threats. For most Americans, there is no harm. No one has true privacy anyway, the vast majorities of people are not harmed in any way because of these actions and so at the current level of data mining the NSA does, Americans should not be alarmed nor should they care.

            The Constitution of the United States is designed to protect its people against a corrupt and oppressive government. This document, however strong and well intentioned it is, is not sacrosanct. It was thought up by men who were brilliant, though fallible as we all are. It has been amended 27 times over its history and will continue to be amended for as long as the State exists in its current form. One of the major services the government provides is security against foreign threats. To achieve that security, citizens willingly sacrifice liberty and privacy. In the time before the internet, this could be done with passports and armies. The threats, unfortunately, have changed with the times. The United States is no longer threatened by other States with armies, but by radical civilians who are attacking an ideology, not a military or a government. The methods that must be used to provide security require a change in what is acceptable privacy. In order to provide a sense of security in the Information Age, the government must collect data on threats using the internet and other networked devices. The argument here is not over the effectiveness of their efforts or the value of the data in preemptively dealing with threats to national security, but that some data collection is necessary to protect the nation.

            Anyone with a credit card, Facebook, a bank, email, cell phone or Youtube account has willingly given away their privacy for a service. Google provides each of its various services free of charge in exchange for its client’s personal information. This allows for targeted ads to popup on gmails, Youtube videos and other websites. Facebook operates in largely the same manner. Nothing is private anymore, it is easier to think that one has a private life, and that is a delusion that almost everyone is guilty of without fault or blame. But if it is socially acceptable to give away one’s privacy for free videos and emails, is it that taboo to exchange it for even a sense of security?

           

A Greater Threat to Democracy

While several of the readings on the drone and targeted killing programs discussed their damaging effects on democracy in the U.S., the bigger threat to democracy in the U.S. comes from the surveillance programs conducted by the NSA.   Greenwald describes the mammoth size and scope of these programs and their collection of massive amounts of data on both foreigners and U.S. citizens.  One of the most disturbing aspects of the programs is how they seem to mutate and expand in size and scope as time goes on.  In fact these are the objectives of the programs as Greenwald points out, the administrators set goals to keep on increasing the amount of data, phone calls, or messages that they intercept.  What little oversight of the programs exists is ineffectual and the congressional representatives that are supposed to be a second tier of oversight are supportive of the programs and have little will or desire to perform the oversight or ask the questions that they are tasked with.   

Four Americans have been killed by U.S. drones strikes and all have taken place overseas in areas with significant terrorist activity.  Tens of millions of Americans privacy rights in the U.S. have been trampled by the NSA, billions of phones call intercepted, and terabytes of data have been collected and stored.  While the loss of life and loss of privacy can hardly be equated, the difference lies in that the NSA surveillance took place within the U.S. (in addition to all of the rest of the world) and on American citizens who had given no indication or probable cause that they were terrorists or supporters of threats to U.S. national security.   

The surveillance programs also present a less detectable option for a government intent on subvert democracy or controlling power.  It is highly unlikely that a drone would ever occur in the U.S. and if one did it would be difficult to hide.  The result would riots and serious backlash against those in power or potentially a revolution.  Conversely, the surveillance programs go unseen, people to not the surveillance and intrusion of the government into their lives.  The information gleamed from this surveillance can be used to pressure political opponents into changing course, leaking damaging information about rivals, or preempting any challenge to state power.  With the physical evidence of the drone program there can at least be some limited form of accountability.  Videos can be taken of the attack and aftermath and witnesses of the attack may survive.  This can generate pressure on the government from the media or opposition parties if the government starts going too far.  The only reason that the public is aware of the wide range of NSA surveillance programs is because Edward Snowden leaked most of the information and promptly had to go on the run.  If the NSA programs continue in their current form and continue to expand, we may not get another person like Snowden who is willing to risk everything to expose it.  If that’s the case then it is unknown how far the government will go with the programs and what level of rights and privacy that they decide the people should sacrifice. 

Fear of another deadly attack has been the primary motivator for this dramatic expansion of the surveillance state.  I think that the Patriot Act was widely supported after the 9/11 attacks and Greenwald cites the governments interpretation of the Patriot Act as the primary legal basis for these surveillance programs.  To a large extent the public and the public’s representatives in government have been complicit in this expansion because their fears of an attack and in turn their willingness to allow the state to rapidly expand its intrusion into private lives.  What amount of liberty and privacy rights are worth sacrificing to be marginally more secure from terror attacks?  There have continued to be terror attacks both in the U.S. and around the world even with the massive scope of the NSA programs, so even with all their powers they cannot make the nation completely secure from terror attacks.  Finally if we lose the system of liberty and democracy that the U.S. was founded and built upon in the name of stopping terror, have we not let the forces of terrorism win? 

The Changing Dynamic of War: Protecting Our Soldiers

The Changing Dynamic of War: Protecting Our Soldiers

Technology continues to change the dynamic of warfare.  One daunting task our government faces is trying to protect our freedom as well as the soldiers who fight for it. With this in mind, drones are an effective way to improve the overall welfare of American soldiers. 

         First, we must consider that war is not black and white.  Neither is drone use.  Drone pilots will still face some hardship. Since drone operators’ work from computers, the people responsible for locating, tracking and killing enemy combatants are on now American soil.  According to an NPR article, returning home to their families after a days work isn’t easy.  “The Air Force says switching back and forth between such different realities presents unique psychological challenges.” While this is certainly something to consider, it is important weigh these ideas comparatively.  Although the NPR article can mislead one into thinking that drones are simply a bad option because of the psychological effects they put of pilots, consider this. According to our lecture, only about 4% of drone pilots experienced PTSD- like symptoms (PTSD, Shirk).  But an article posted on a military website titled “Veterans Statistics: PTSD, Depression, TBI, and Suicide” illustrates a study conducted by the Congressional Research service that shows that at least 20% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans return home with some form of PTSD.  In other words, for every four soldiers who experience PTSD from war, only one drone pilot does. This also means that transitioning our conventional warfare towards targeted killings could reduce the effects of PTSD significantly.    An even more profound statistics released by the VA shows an estimated 22 veterans commit suicide each day (Veterans and PTSD).  In my research, I could not find a single instance of a drone pilot committing suicide as a result of PTSD. 

Aside from reducing the effects of PTSD, drones save lives in other ways.  Being able to eliminate an enemy combatant from a computer controlled airplane prevents ground troops from carrying out dangerous “capture and kill” missions.  A Foreign Affairs article written by Daniel Byman estimates that 3,300 Al Queda, Jhadist and Taliban operatives have been killed by the use of drones in the past decade or so.  Think about how many missions it would take to eliminate this many enemies’ using ground soldiers.  Then consider the risks involved in each mission. It would be astronomical.  And the US would almost inevitably suffer casualties.  

         The United States government spends millions of dollars helping soldiers recover. Rightfully so, helping soldiers recuperate from war has become one of the larger expenses of war. The use of drones can improve the psychological health of soldiers, prevent the death of American soldiers  and save the American government money.  Drones are an essential part of warfare and must continue to be used effectively to ensure the safety of our country as well as our soldiers.   

         

The Drones and Democracy Debate: Commentary

            Peter Singer argues that drone technology serves to undermine democracy. “New technology is short-circuiting the decision-making process for what used to be the most important choice a democracy could make,” he writes in a New York Times piece, “blurring the civilian and military roles in war and circumventing the Constitution’s mandate for authorizing it.” Charli Carpenter responds by to Singer by raising questions about some of the assumptions which underlie his arguments. In particular, Carpenter wants to see concrete evidence that “stand-off weapons make armed conflict easier and therefore likelier,” and furthermore evidence that the increased amount conflict does in fact undermine democracy. I hope to respond to this concern (one among many) which Carpenter brings forward. The numbers show that drone attacks have in fact been increasing in frequency, and it seems clear that their use can be called into question from a legal standpoint. At least qualitatively, this seems to indicate a negative impact on democracy.  

            The frequency of drone attacks has been increasing ever since the new technology first came onto the scene. Blanchard reports that 219 drone attacks took place in Afghanistan in 2009, compared with only 74 in 2007. Furthermore, Becker and Shane describe President Obama’s seeming lack of hesitation when ordering drone strikes against foreign targets. We have quantitative and qualitative evidence that drone strikes are on the rise. Although we might question the number of casualties resultant from these attacks, it is clear the use of drones for targeted killings abroad has increased.

However, Carpenter is not convinced that, on balance, drones increase the total amount of armed conflict once everything is said and done. For example, while it might be true that the number of drone strikes is going up, other armed engagements may concurrently be decreasing in frequency as a result, perhaps due to increased combat efficiency. If this is the case, drones would actually decrease the net amount of armed conflict between states as well as any corresponding harms to democracy. This stance is a perfectly reasonable one to take, and one that certainly requires more research to come to a satisfactory conclusion on. But I don’t think this concern gets at the heart of Singer’s argument, which relates the use of drones in particular to democratic outcomes. If we only used ground troops in Afghanistan and never drones, it is plausible that the democratic undermining Singer talks about would never have changed from the status quo.

If indeed there is something unique about drone usage that leads to less democracy, however, then it follows that Singer is correct in his hypothesis. The anecdotal evidence from Singer seems compelling because the president simply does not face the kind of political backlash for using drones when compared to more conventional forces. If a drone gets shot down, no one cares – as was the case in June of 2011 when an unmanned helicopter was grounded by pro-Qaddafi forces. However, Congress made a big deal when the President notified them about a non-combat operation involving a small unit in Uganda. Even if a small risk to US lives is present, Congress wants to know. If we were using live human beings to carry out targeted killings abroad, the chances of severe political backlash are therefore much higher. Because drones eliminate this chance, the President can essentially bypass Congress with no repercussions.

But what if drones simply make “an old trend especially obvious,” as Carpenter says? Might the “war on terror” in general undermine democracy? This is certainly a plausible argument. But drones reduce the political costs that would typically be associated with the President’s use of force outside the explicit consent of congress. At the very least, this should make us concerned and lead us to another tricky question regarding the nature of social and technological change. Are drones just another tool that allows politicians to undermine democracy? Or has the development of drones itself led to the undermining of democracy? Even when framed in this way, however, it seems like drones either enable the undermining of democracy or actively facilitate it. In either case, Singer has his point.