Let's get digital, digital. I wanna get digital, digital.

[hermionetargaryen]

Red, White, and Blonde

http://digitalamericasp16.wikispaces.com/California+Online+Privacy+Protection+Act

[hermionetargaryen]

Privacy

Lawrence Lessig’s Chapter 11:  Privacy in Code supplements our discussions of mass surveillance and privacy practices within companies.  His proposed solutions are also important to our understanding in that they still allow for some surveillance, as it is somewhat inevitable, but they imply that one’s privacy is a one’s property and should be protected as such.

With the arrival of the internal and its “perpetual and cheap monitoring of behavior,” privacy is less easily controlled.  There are three aspects of privacy that have each been altered by cyberspace.  

The privacy that was have in private is part of the traditional notion of privacy.  In 1890, privacy was defined as the “right to be left alone.”  The four modalities of control (law, market, norms, code/architecture) have been able to uphold this right.  Although digital technology has changed the modalities’ techniques, there is still a generally unopposed expectation of privacy in private spaces. 

The second phase of privacy relates to privacy in public places.  Before cyberspace, mass surveillance was expensive to carry out.  Information was collected through either monitoring or searching.  Being monitored is part of one’s daily activity.  One’s actions can be remembered or forgotten.  Being searched requires a record, like a bank statement or a diary.  With digital technologies, monitoring and searching are not mutually exclusive actions.  Monitoring creates searchable data and an entire picture of one’s life without any hint to the individual in question.  Internet searches, for example, are kept and linked to IP addresses and user accounts.  The government has already asked search engines, like Google, for search records.  Lessig believes that is it “obvious, inevitable, and irresistible” for the government to eventually ask for search records as a way to enforce the law.  

To answer if public, digital spaces should be surveilled, one must determine their interpretation of the 4th Amendment.  To some, it prevents burdensome intrusions.  To others, it protects one’s dignity.  To be searched and suspected guilty is detrimental to one’s dignity.  One could also think that privacy ensures that the government does not hold too much regulatory power.  Privacy limits what the government can do.  

The third aspect of privacy concerns public data.  Users of digital technology should ask themselves:  How much information am I willing to reveal to others, and how much control do I have over what information I reveal?  The entities of commerce, mainly, want public data.  

It can be argued that by completing certain actions, such as dialing a phone number, a person willingly gives up information (to the phone company in this case).  The receiver of the information then owns it and can do with it what it wishes.  Proponents of the use of public data argue that it is not burdensome, and it leads to catered choices.  Lessig argues, however, that information can be taken out of context, and before long, every action demands a justification.  Furthermore, the use of public data enables discrimination.  

Lastly, Lessig proposes solutions to prevent uncalled-for invasions of privacy.  He believes that certain conditions should apply to digital surveillance.  Digital surveillance could occur only if the purpose was described, for example.  No actions could be made without judicial review.  Privacy Enhancing Technologies should be made more publicly available.  A site’s privacy practices should be made more understandable.  Legal regulation should limit individual actions that weaken the greater public’s privacy.  A Code of Fair Information Practices and property laws should be used to enhance power over private, individual information.  Through collective action, enable by politics, humans and machines can attain a greater control over privacy.

[hermionetargaryen]

HIPAA is hip.

http://digitalamericasp16.wikispaces.com/HIPAA

[hermionetargaryen]

Encryption conniption

John Miller of the NYPD believes that no entity should be barred from the government’s penetration.  However, should some entities be safe from government intrusion if there is even a risk of violating privacy, safety, and/or freedom?

Could the fact that Apple is so prevalent in the technology industry have led them to oppose the FBI’s wishes?  If they had fewer customers and recognition, would their actions be less scrutinized?  

In a world dominated by technology, will we always have to chose between privacy and safety?  Is private safety a paradox?

[hermionetargaryen]

Big Brother is not looking out

1:30-1:35 We discuss potential tangible harms of master surveillance.  

Within my group, we discuss the potential for political dissenters to be targeted and arbitrarily labeled as treasonous or dangerous to democracy.  The government could also block certain sites or actions.  

In the class discussion, it was said that the fact that petty crimes, like pirating, could be targeted would be an issue because it could waste time and energy to stop crimes that aren’t really that destructive and take away interest from “real” crimes.  The way we work could also be altered, especially for journalists who have breaking, time-sensitive information that the government could easily censor or stall in the name of national security.  Censorship, in general, was discussed as a potential con of mass surveillance, especially self-censorship.  Finally, the surveillance power itself could be hacked or fall into corrupt hands. 

1:35-1:38 Several concrete potential harms are listed and explained in further detail:

1:38-1:42 Disruption:

In the past, a general warrant allowed for a great amount of intrusion, which fueled the American Revolution, according to Thomas Jefferson.  The search itself is disruptive.  Mass surveillance, however, presents a unique challenge in that it is nearly undetectable.  

1:42-1:50 Competitive Enterprise:

According to Sean, this reason is tragically a main reason why the NSA has received so much criticism.  Companies are worried that surveillance will cut into their bottom lines by redirecting their employees, time, and resources.  It may also hurt their sales, especially to international markets.  

1:50-1:54 Cost and Efficacy:

Of course, the NSA budget is classified, but we can estimate that $5-7 billion goes into surveillance methods.  The question is:  Is it worth it?  My question to answer that question is:  If we cut back surveillance, and a terrorist attack occurs, will we be haunted with “what ifs?”

1:54-2:01 Individual Abuse

AKA dick pics...no, not exclusively, but this kind of individual corruption does occur, especially with sensitive materials like “nudes.”

2:01-2:05 State Abuse

To me, this is a very obvious harm because of my exposure to science fiction novels like 1984 and Brave New World.  While there is no present evidence of it, the possibility looms, and certainly, there is historical evidence of this type of abuse.  The key idea here is that state abuse could happen and nobody would know about it.

2:05-2:10 Chilling Effects

There has been evidence that people alter their behavior when they know that they are being watched.  They not only cease illegal doings, but their natural doings as well.  Conformity.  

This conformity has been seen as positive, apparently, by a philosopher named Jeremy Bentham, who thought up a building called a panopticon, which would have a central observatory.  The surrounding people would never know when they were being watched, but they would be aware of the possibility.

2:10-2:15 Stifled Dissent

This harm is perhaps the least popular to discuss, but, arguably, the most important.  In a democratic society, it is healthy to allow some criminal behavior.  What is right and wrong is socially constructed, so this allows society time to determine and change certain labels.  It allows for revolutions and change.  History has given us some examples:  labor unions, Prohibition, abolitionism, sodomy laws.  While these technically threaten a harmonious society, they allow for change to occur, according to the people’s wishes.  Ah, democracy.

2:15 Class dismissed early 

[hermionetargaryen]

We scare because we care...and we can.

“The agency regards itself as needing no specific justification to collect any particular electronic communication, nor any grounds for regarding its targets with suspicion.  What the NSA calls “SIGINT”--all signals intelligence--is its target.  And the mere fact that it has the capability to collect those communications has become one rationale for doing so.”

The National Security Agency (NSA) does not require a specific reason to acquire information about a certain person or piece of data.  Its goal is to be able to collect all forms of communication and data.  They do this, partly, just because they know that they can.  

The quote mentions that the capability to collect massive amounts of data is ONE rationale for doing so.  Other reasons could be very justifiable, like preserving the peace.  Do intentions distort the action?

[hermionetargaryen]

Chapter 3:

Presidents, regardless of their party, support enhanced surveillance tactics.  Why are their ideas contrast to citizens’?  What about the presidency, in particular, makes expansive surveillance appealing? 

America hypocritically labelled China as a dangerous threat to their cyber security.  While I am not condoning the blame game, certainly other countries, both allies and adversaries, conduct surveillance on the U.S.  How else is the U.S. supposed to compete economically, politically, etc. with other countries if it does not conduct surveillance as well?

Greenwald explained the kind of information that can be rendered from metadata.  It can create “a comprehensive picture of your network of contacts.”  From an average American, this information could be attained quite easily through social media investigations and physical observing (yes, stalking..).  Does the ease at which the NSA collects data present more of a threat than the actual data being obtained?  If the NSA had to conduct a long, arduous process in order to gain information, would the outrage be lessened?

[hermionetargaryen]

I always feel like somebody’s watching meee

Greenwald cited a federal prosecution of New York mobsters that deemed cell phone activation for covert listening purposes legal.  If this case was not criminal or did not involve typical “bad guys,” like mobsters, would the ruling have remained?  Should the effectiveness or specific use of a surveillance tactic carry weight in the case of its legality?

People alter their behavior when they are acutely aware of being watched.  They stiffen and are cautious.  Would it be better for our well-being, or the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy, if we were unaware of surveillance measures?  Would paranoia destroy that comfort, health, and happiness?

Snowden said that global privacy was being eviscerated.  Electronic communications could not be sent without NSA intrusion.  However, most Americans (I think) do not use encryption technologies, so most of America’s internet is pretty free for viewing.  What does he want people to hide from viewing?

[hermionetargaryen]

#activism

Last Monday, we discussed social media activism.  One article, “Is Twitter the Underground Railroad of Activism?” by Feminista Jones, was particularly optimistic and assured about #activism’s effects.  She says that by working together, sociopolitical changes can be made.  It doesn’t even take much effort.  She ends by saying, “...140 characters can be all it takes to spark a movement.”  While I think that online activism has value in calling attention to certain issues, certainly, it is not effective at creating lasting, meaningful movements.  

The medium itself is not ideal for significant conversations.  Twitter only allows 140 characters.  With that allowance, statements can easily be taken out of context, and misinformation can rapidly spread.  The @ColbertReport tweeted “I am willing to show #Asian community I care by introducing the ‘Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.’” as a satirical response to the Washington Redskins owner starting the Original Americans Foundation in order to “provide meaningful and measurable resources” for Native Americans.  Twitter activist, Suey Park, was offended by the tweet and initiated #CancelColbert.  Twitter’s users would not likely want to read up on this issue because Twitter gives them short, quick bits of information about it.  This, while more convenient, is a problem for discussing complex issues, like race relations.  Facebook is also not ideally suited for #activism because it does not provide long-term, easily accessible forums for discussion.  Also, most people can only communicate with their friends.  Echo chambers could easily be formed through Facebook pages.  With this ill-suited medium for activism, the focus can drift.  In the #CancelColbert incident, although the issue was race relations, the largely negative focus was on Colbert’s program.  

Online, there is only so much one can do.  It is naive “to build a campaign using the viral tendencies of sharing and retweeting to spread an idea to thousands of misinformed “activists,” who then believe that a simple shared post on their preferred social media website means they are a part of a cause.”  #BringOurGirlsBack, for example, was a widely popular tag in response to the kidnapping of hundreds of Nigerian girls by a terrorist group.  Even the First Lady, Michelle Obama, shared a post.  However, the terrorist group, Boko Haram, has mocked this social media campaign and continues its actions.  Today, you will likely not see the hashtag on any social media.  People have moved on to a new “cause.”  This shows that the activism is often misguided and lazy, as I said before.  Another online campaign, The Ice Bucket Challenge, wasted a lot of water, and most people did the challenge rather than donate money to ALS.  

Online activism has its place in real activism, but it cannot replace it.  Raising awareness, gathering support, and organizing events are all very positive things that online activism can do.  The key step, then, is to leave the computer, and be active.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/17/how_twitter_fuels_black_activism/

http://www.cityonahillpress.com/2014/04/24/the-problem-with-twitter-activism/

http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/11/political-hashtagging-is-online-activism-effective/

[hermionetargaryen]

Voter Selfishness

“...the role of citizen is very different from the role of consumer.  Citizens do not think and act as consumers,” said Sunstein.  This section, “Democratic Institutions and Consumer Sovereignty,” is not strictly about the idea that citizens do not act as consumers, but he spends a significant portion of the section defending that argument.  He holds that citizens are altruistic and considerate of others when making decisions about the country.  However, he says, “Of course it is true that selfish behavior is common in politics...it cannot be denied that government officials have their own interests and biases, and that participants in politics might invoke public goals in order to serve their own private agendas.”  He urges that protection is needed against these self-serving pressures.  While I will grant that some citizen actions are “for the good of the colony,” I argue that citizens mostly do think like consumers.

According to Dr. Perner, of the University of Southern California, the factors that influence consumer’s choices are branding, advertisements, sales/coupons, display, and income/family size (purchasing power).  These factors are also among those that influence citizens.  

A citizen may align his views with another’s due to his party affiliation, a political branding, if you will.  Although I am certainly not proud of this, in the first election I voted in, I chose all of the candidates that had the same party as me, although I was uninformed about their views.  (TO BE FAIR: they were county representatives, so I could not have done that much damage...)  Party loyalty, like brand loyalty, is a major characteristic in politics.

Advertisements are also influential to citizens.  Ted Cruz’s campaign ~accidentally~ cast a softcore porn actress in an attack ad on Marco Rubio.  The ad was swiftly pulled after the realization, but Cruz’s more conservative supporters might have thought twice about their hopeful nominee.  In any case, it gave people reason to make fun of Cruz, decreasing his credibility as a future president.  

A product’s visual appeal, or display, influences citizens as well. Results from a 2005 Princeton psychology study showed that voters preferred faces that “suggested competence.”  Reportedly, a competent face is “masculine but approachable, with a square jaw, high cheekbones, and large eyes.”  

Income influences citizens, like it does consumers.  According to the Quarter Journal of Political Science (2007), Democratic presidential candidates have been, recently, more successful in rich Northeastern and coastal states.  Republican candidates have been more popular in poorer states in the Midwest and South.  In poor states, rich people were more likely to vote Republican.  In rich states, however, there was a low correlation between income and voting preferences.  Overall, it appears that a citizen’s economic status will influence her voting.  Personal economic interests cannot be pushed aside.

Lastly, although Sunstein says that citizens want to satisfy their altruistic desires that differ from their self-interested preferences, true altruism does not exist.  True altruism would define actions that were purely the means to an external end, like ending poverty.  To do a truly altruistic act, benefitting someone else, one must feel pity for that person.  According to Friedrich Nietzsche in The Dawn, however, pity is self-interested.  In Rhetoric, Aristotle defines pity “as a feeling of pain caused by a painful or destructive evil that befalls one who does not deserve it, and that might well befall us or one of our friends, and, moreover to befall us soon.”  This selfish idea of pity causes “altruistic” acts to actually bring about rewards, such as anxiety relief, pleasant feelings, or avoidance of guilt.  Therefore, any seemingly altruistic voter decision is self-motivated.  Citizens do not put their selfish desires aside when they make decisions about their country.  Yes, perhaps, a rich person voting for an increase in taxes to establish socialized healthcare is illogical in an economic sense (monetary losses outweigh the gains), but this rich voter foresees some benefit in his future from his decision.  Perhaps, the amount we spend on healthcare will decrease through time through better preventative practices.  Perhaps, he fears someday he, or someone like him, may actually need governmental assistance to pay for healthcare services.  Maybe, he would feel ashamed of withholding money that he doesn’t truly need from those who would need it.  Either way, selfish interests underlie most voters’ behaviors in this way.  

http://www.consumerpsychologist.com/

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/01/mitt_romney_vs_newt_gingrich_how_much_do_looks_matter_in_presidential_politics_.html

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/redblue11.pdf

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201203/does-true-altruism-exist

[hermionetargaryen]

Regulation & Free Speech

Sunstein briefly explains a website called “The Nuremberg Files” that was basically a hit-list of doctors that perform abortions.  He goes on to question what the reader would consider protected as free speech.  His examples include online bomb-making instructions, terrorist tips, and the pirating.  Considering these examples, does absolute freedom of speech inherently lend itself to danger?

Sunstein calls certain invocations of the Constitution “implausible.”  While we can surely disagree with certain interpretations of the Constitution, can we ever really call an interpretation of the Constitution better or worse than another?  It is not subjective?

The debate itself over the First Amendment is a democratic deliberation.  In a world with rapidly changing technologies and communication mediums, can we ever concretely resolve this issue?  If so, will the ongoing debate actually drive free speech to uphold democratic deliberation?

[hermionetargaryen]

Social Media...not that social

Boyd describes how the users of Facebook and Myspace became divided based on race, education, and socioeconomic status.  People tend to associate with people who are similar to them.  What would a social media site have to do in order to appeal to all races, education levels, and socioeconomic statuses?

Feminista Jones gives many examples of activism cultivated through “Black Twitter.”  Obviously, “Black Twitter” consists mostly of black activists tackling issues that are important to the black community.  The tone, from what I can tell, is mostly positive about this activism.  However, Feminista Jones is also black.  Could this be an example of a group hearing its own voices amplified and repeated (describing Sunstein’s idea)?  Is this activism empowering and important, or is it dangerous and one-sided?

In The Truth About Black Twitter, Meredith Clark acknowledges that you have to have a degree of cultural competency in order to understand the tweets and conversations.  Does this place outsiders, such as members of a different race or cultural group, at an unfair disadvantage in contributing to the conversation?  If the first question is answered with a “yes,” does this place “Black Twitter” itself at a disadvantage in that it would be unable to express its ideas to the larger community?  

[experiencelifemore79-deactivate]

Chapter 5: Citizens

Quote:

“Similar points hold for the world of communication. If people are deprived of access to competing views on public issues, and if as a result they lack a taste for those views, they lack freedom, whatever the nature of their preferences and choices. If people are exposed mostly to sensationalistic coverage of movie stars, or only to sports, or only to left-of-center views, and never to international issues, their preferences will develop accordingly.” 

(Sunstein, Cass. “Republic.com 2.0″. Chapter 5 Citizens, pg. 122)

Paraphrase: 

If people are only getting one side of a public issue and by that they end up despising or not even wanting to listen to those who have an opposing opinion, then they do not truly have freedom. It does not matter what exactly they prefer. The individuals preferences will depend mainly on what they are exposed to whether it be sports, celebrities, or a specific political view. 

Question:

Given this conclusion I wonder, how exactly are individuals lacking freedom if they are the ones who are choosing to do this to themselves? They are the ones who are not giving the other view points a chance, when initially they have the freedom to choose which viewpoint that they want to have, and they could actively go out and search for opinions that differ from their own, therefore, who is at fault for this? The individual? Or the people who allow all of these different preferences to be a possibility in the first place? 

[hermionetargaryen]

I like your argument that since people are free to choose what they want to be exposed to, they are catering to their own preferences.  I also do not think that people are so one-dimensional.  Sunstein seems to paint a picture of a consumer that only watches sports, reads sports news, and listens to sports radio.  Undoubtedly, there is a human on earth like this.  Most likely, however, a sports lover knows the main happenings internationally or in other news areas.  I cannot really find a fault in anybody for this situation.  I would be pretty disgruntled to have to read 10 news articles about business, but I would really love reading 10 or more science-related articles.  I appreciate that my news source gives the option make that decision.  

[curiouslytraveling-deactivated2]

Citizens

Quote:

“The first is that people’s preferences do not come from nature or from the sky. They are a product, at least in part of social circumstances, including existing institutions, available options, social influences, and past choices.”

(Sunstein, Cass. “Republic.com 2.0″. Chapter 5 Citizens, Pg. 120)

Paraphrase:

A common theme throughout this chapter is how we as citizens are influenced. We don’t just have preferences, they are developed over time through experiences. When you are exposed to certain things, for extended periods of time, your interest in that topic or product is likely to increase. These products are what develop our preferences.

Question:

Who creates these products and are we really free? If the government or any business agency are the one that provide us with choices (products) and we choose from THEIR options, is that really freedom? And in that case, what are preferences, if they are so heavily influenced and created?

[hermionetargaryen]

This idea is kind of unsettling to me.  It makes us seem like sheep, following the crowd and being subconsciously manipulated.  Despite my unrest, I think I believe in Sunstein’s argument.  Maybe the reason I do not like video games is because I have never really been exposed to them, or if I have, it has been in a negative context (like watching boys play while I sit on the couch extremely bored...).  As to the question of “are we really free,” I think that we can maintain a smidge of autonomy in our eventual choices, but ultimately, our choices are limited by what we are exposed to in the first place.  

[hermionetargaryen]

Citizens and Dissension

If that idea that preferences stemming from social experiences deprive us of opportunities and, thus, our freedom, is true, then where should our preferences stem from?  Surely, our innate, human desires are simply basic (food, shelter, water, etc.).  What other sources should we look to in order to form preferences?

Sunstein says that the problem with the consumption treadmill is that it does not result in greater happiness.  Why aren’t goods that improve people’s lives subject to the treadmill effect? 

Madison acknowledges the inevitability of political division, but he argues that a representative government of a large group of people would help control the effects of those divisions.  If Madison were alive today, then, how would he feel about the amount of disharmony among political parties?  Would he still have faith in the system to render it “unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States” or would he be worried that his baby (America) was going down the wrong road?

[hermionetargaryen]

Polarization and Cybercascades

At a certain point in a democracy, an extreme view will confront its opposition.  Mixed-view discussions are regarded as mostly positive and successful in Replubic.com 2.0.  Additionally, government’s checks and balances and independent representatives act as filters to public’s fleeting passions. Why then (besides the obvious violent and harmful actions), are extreme views harmful to democracy? 

As an isolated group becomes more and more isolated, they become ignorant of their opposition.  Ignorance builds them up.  However, ignorance of the opposing views would weaken their arguments.  Could ignorance be their downfall as well?

A reputational cascade exists when people go along with a crowd’s thought in order to stay in the public’s positive opinion.  On the Internet, however, it is very easy to maintain anonymity.  Can the Internet actually decrease reputational cascades?

[hermionetargaryen]