So what happens once networks reach a level of omnipresence where they become the sole platform whereon humans demonstrate their self-worth? Kate Crawford describes how the prevalent use of surveillance technology possess the paradoxical power of uniting the "surveillers" and "surveilled":
If we take [the] twinned anxieties—those of the surveillers and the surveilled—and push them to their natural extension, we reach an epistemological end point: on one hand, the fear that there can never be enough data, and on the other, the fear that one is standing out in the data. These fears reinforce each other in a feedback loop, becoming stronger with each turn of the ratchet. As people seek more ways to blend in—be it through normcore [i.e., consciously ordinary] dressing or hardcore encryption—more intrusive data collection techniques are developed. [1]
This observation if accurate implies that everyone will focus excessively on promoting themselves rather than opting out of a network that collects data for the surveillance state. Technology appears to be the ultimate application of soft power. No gulags needed because the modern digital grid is omnipresent and features standards of usage that foster conformity among the masses.
Libertarians obsess over anything connected to the government. They oppose formal machinations of government. In their view its who that determines what is evil not the underlying act itself. So if the government violates the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, then Rand Paul will express indignation.
Technological advances sometimes render moot existing laws. Many Americans will argue that the Founding Fathers when conceiving of the 2nd Amendment didn't anticipate automatic assault weapons. Also the Founders when conceiving of the 4th Amendment didn't anticipate technological advances enabling creation of vast electronic surveillance. Thus, Senator Rand Paul's acceptance of technological inputs that do not explicitly violate the 4th Amendment ignores how the current surveillance complex empowers its overseers to obtain the kind of information that adherence of said Amendment was supposed to protect. For example:
As complaints, investigations, and leaks give us occasional peeks into the black boxes of reputation analysis, a picture of decontextualized, out-of-control data mining emerges. Data brokers can use private and public records-of marriage, divorce, home purchases, voting, or thousands of others-to draw inferences about any of us. Laws prevent government itself from collecting certain types of information, but data brokers are not so constrained. And little shops the government from buying that information once it's collected. Thus commercial and government 'dataveillance' results in synergistic swapping of intimate details about individual lives. [2]A substantive respect for civil liberties requires our creating public policy that takes into account the implications of robust technology that forges a nexus enabling the state and corporations to operate seamlessly on electronic surveillance platforms.
Advances in surveillance technology enable it becoming lucrative enough for non-state entities to use it. Non state entities using technology that enables mass surveillance is then seen under the cleansed rubric of "capitalism" or the "free market." Concerns about privacy are often a canard to libertarians because they believe that if the non-state actors use surveillance technology as opposed to a government bureaucrat, the masses can opt out. This technology though further blurs explicit boundaries between the state and the market.
Our elected legislators cite mostly the prevalence of "terrorists" as the predictable rationale for supporting mass surveillance. This mentality includes citing vague equivocal platitudes that more or less state "we need to strike a balance between respect for civil liberties with giving law enforcement, intelligence agencies etc the tools necessary to track bad guys or something." In addition to politicians repeating platitudes when discussing mass surveillance impact on civil liberties, they also demonstrate utter ignorance about the relevant issues impacting civil liberties.
In the eyes of many in the U.S. Congress encryption has emerged as a sinister practice enabling terrorists plot in the "dark." Their framing of the danger of encryption amounts to little more than apriori claims and strawmen fallacies. For example, Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), current Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, stated in an editorial published in the Wall Street Journal:
While the terrorist attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Calif., and Garland, Texas, have brought discussions about encryption to the front pages, criminals in the U.S. have been using this technology for years to cover their tracks. The time has come for Congress and technology companies to discuss how encryption—encoding messages to protect their content—is enabling murderers, pedophiles, drug dealers and, increasingly, terrorists. [3]Senator Burr uses a familiar tactic of assuming that empowering the state with increased surveillance capabilities will curb the advantages currently exploited by pedophiles and terrorists when carrying out their misdeeds. He and the anti-encryption crusaders devote most of their energy on making impassioned yet apriori claims; meanwhile, the straw men (such as the terrorist plotting smugly in an encrypted network) dangles and twists in front of a public conditioned to hysteria:
Right, except so far officials haven't been able to show evidence of any of those cases actually using encryption. Similarly, law enforcement has failed to show that criminals using encryption have really been that much of a problem either. And that's because it's not a problem. Even in the (still mostly rare) cases where encryption is being used, criminals still reveal plenty of information that would allow law enforcement to track them down. It's called doing basic detective work. [4]Without significant evidence demonstrating that encryption makes us more vulnerable to criminals and terrorists, we will see whether lawmakers resorting to hysteria will generate sufficient support to increase the size and scale of the surveillance state.
Privatized (non-government) tyranny is tyranny nonetheless. What should concern us is concentrations of power regardless whether it is accumulated in private entities instead of state bureaucracies.
Rand Paul show little interest in stopping the power of the surveillance state. Sure he interjects a few libertarian cliches especially when he publicly shames the collection of bile on the stage during GOP Presidential candidates. But, his libertarian theatrics aside, the surveillance state's power continues with impunity.
One cautionary example of little restraint imposed on the Executive branch's requests to conduct warrantless surveillance is demonstrated pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act enacted in 1979, which entails a three judge panel reviewing such requests. The three judge panels rejected only 12 of 35,530 surveillance requests reviewed from 1979-2013. [5]. Regardless whether supporters believe such a Bill is necessary, its language if acted on means that in order for the state to protect us, they must resort to ubiquitous spying on us. A benevolent police state is a police state, nonetheless.
Algorithms offer no reliable method to identify "terrorists." That is because states invoke the term "terrorists" selectively. The state's decision who they will subject to mass surveillance is a political decision rather than the operating logic of algorithms. Yes the surveillance state is ubiquitous, equipped with wide electronic nets capturing all of our electronic communications in order to fight terrorism. Yet the U.S. makes no effort to stop either Turkey from waging war against Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, and Syria, or Saudi Arabia from bombing Yemen. Both nations claim they are simply fighting terrorists. The conflicting narratives show that the act of defining terrorists is inherently political. How then does subjecting all of us to the surveillance state protect us?
Libertarians focus their concerns on state enacted and operated surveillance. Meanwhile others claim the recent history of repeated terror attacks suggests the state lacks sufficient surveillance power to protect us. These two general views when acted upon result in both the private sector and the state gaining more surveillance power. Equally important, the public empowers this increased surveillance by their constant use of and social dependence on social media. The much hyped empowering rhetoric of the information age has created communication technologies that forge a two-sided coin. This two-sided coin consists of one side being enhanced communication and the other enhanced surveillance. We live in a world that empowers more expressions of dissent on social media while its being instantly shadowed by a surveillance Stasi.
[1]. Pasquale, Frank. "The Algorithmic Self." The Hedgehog Review: Vol 17 No.1 (Spring 2015). http://www.iasc-culture.org/THR/THR_article_2015_Spring_Pasquale.php
[2]. Pasquale, Frank. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. President and Fellows of Harvard College. 2015. Cambridge, Mass. Kindle version page 21 of 311.
[3]. Masnick, Mike. "Senator Richard Burr: Confused and Wrong On Encryption." tech dirt. Dec 28, 2015. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151224/22431133172/senator-richard-burr-confused-wrong-encryption.shtml
[4]. Ibid.
[5]. Electronic Privacy Information Center. epic.org. "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court Orders 1979-2014." https://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html
No comments:
Post a Comment