#lis9134

[andrew9134]

I'll be honest: when I first enrolled in this course, I expected to hear a lot more about Snowden, the NSA and government surveillance – and at first I was disappointed. To be fair, we did discuss government surveillance: Zimerman, for example, talks about the impact that the Patriot Act had on libraries. I think that Snowden's disclosures are incredibly important, that the actions taken by the complicit US government agencies are alarming, and that these actions deserve to be the subject of public scrutiny, debate and criticism. Again, honesty - fear of government surveillance doesn't carry any kind of weird nostalgia for me: I am worried about it, right now, and I think that it the impacts on personal privacy could have serious consequences for everything from civic engagement to fair process.

BUT. I'm not at all unhappy that we didn't talk about it in specifics all that much. The coverage of the NSA wiretapping scandal is everywhere. Like, here’s some, and here and here and here and some over here and also here and here’s one about Edward Snowden. What’s being done, what’s not, who’s winning what prizes for the coverage, what do we know about Edward Snowden. I don’t mean to trivialize the effort and the courage that it must have taken to cover this story. As I said, I think it’s important. But at the same time, this is a story that is constantly in the press, and not always in a way that it is informative, or takes a broad view of the issue of privacy in networks or privacy online. Some of it is well written and thoughtful, and a fair amount of it isn’t.

I’m glad instead that we got a chance to focus on surveillance in ways I had never thought of surveillance. Coming from an economics background, I’d never heard of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon – only that he was a fan of usury. Likewise, I’d never thought of really thought about the work that databases do as constitutive: they don’t just store cryptic little bits of information, but that they actually create us as they store disparate pieces of information about our personhood (Poster). Likewise, I’d never really thought about how technology and biology can fuse to both feed those panoptic databases and (RFIDs, Taylorism/efficiency).

As we worked through these issues and others, and I continued to read through media articles related to privacy, I began to feel more and more that coverage was slanted in just one direction. Like there was a flood of articles about the NSA and government surveillance, and much, much less about privacy as it exists for people interacting with and through private sector entities. Sure, there’s been a lot of interesting stuff about Google, such as Vaidhyanathan’s book and a number fun and clever things like this meme and this movie. But I feel that a critical look at what the industry is doing generally, and accurate and thoughtful reporting on some of this stuff is lacking. After this course, I have to ask myself why, given the mountain of personal information that allow these entities to collect.

There’s one more reading I’d suggest, if anyone has the time or willpower to read anything else over the break, it’s Helen Nissenbaum’s “Privacy as Contextual Integrity”. If anyone’s been asking themselves “but what is this privacy thing anyway?”, fear not! Helen Nissenbaum has an answer for you. Plus, I think it’s well written and a pretty quick read.

Well, if I’m going to be really honest, I took this course because two friends were taking this course and it sounded kind of cool and I realized our schedules wouldn’t have anything in common if I didn’t take it. No regrets.

[andrew9134]

Cloud computing as a digital enclosure

In “Surveillance in the Digital Enclosure”, Mark Andrejevic explores the implications of mass participation in interactive spaces and ubiquitous computing for surveillance. Andrejevic questions the popular perception that people are free in the way and type of information they submit, and the intersection of control/ownership and privacy/surveillance. This is the backdrop for a disagreement with those who say that the technological developments and the move to user generated content has been inherently empowering and beneficial to the individual user. Sarah Roberts, in a blog post summarizing this article, points out that Andrejevic’s rejection of the use of the term “cloud” in favour of “digital enclosure” directly counters the utopian view of a boundless, unlimited landscape of opportunity.

Andrejevic begins his essay by pointing out that the cloud remains a fuzzy and sometimes contradictory concept. Devices will shrink while information expands and moves through the physical world; he quotes an MIT project that suggested in 2004 (and still suggests) that “computation...will be freely available everywhere, like batteries and power sockets, or oxygen in the air we breathe”. Certainly, calling batteries free is a pretty fair stretch, and it seems fair that computing power won’t be free in the future, either.

This reminded me of a point that was brought up in class: that cloud computing applications can be both massively decentralized, as is the case with applications such as Bitcoin or torrents, or massively centralizing, as in personal computing storage applications like DropBox or other programs that “call home”, such as the new editions of Word and Photoshop. The first type focusses on user anonymity, whereas the second focusses on user services. In Andrejevic's article, he often talks about devices nested throughout our lives that speak to one another and to a centralized database. These devices pick up small, discrete pieces of information, such as geographic location, or spending, or temperature that can be gathered, linked, organized, labelled, tested, compared and summarized to make economic decisions.

Andrejevic is basing his argument around the type of cloud computing in which our “networked, interactive environments” (297) are mined for information by private entities for economic gain. Andrejevic suggests that the developments in private surveillance directly contradict the promise of a “digital sublime” (297) promised by technology popularizers and futurists. The information gathered about us by a dozen sources (or even just one) and relayed back to a central database can potentially prevent us from playing a DVD in a different geographic zone, entering a building, or accessing a bank loan. It can also build a filter bubble enclosure: GPS data can determine what ads we see and what results appear in our searches. And data sets can overlap. When individuals in one data set can be mapped to individuals in another, the enclosure capability of each can overlap.

In class, we’ve talked at length about the different ways that private entities are scooping up information, and the ways in which it affects users: filter bubbles, control, the loss of privacy. Cloud computing seems like a way to turbocharge data collection, and the rhetoric a way to normalize it and perhaps also to hide it: Jeremy Bentham knows that people’s behaviour changes when they know they’re being watched. Andrejevic puts this space of collection in a box and slaps on a big red warning sign on the side.

Andrejevic, M. (2007). Surveillance in the digital enclosure. The Communication Review, 10(4), 295-317.

[bibliophile24-7]

Internet Censorship

A survey conducted in 2012 by the Internet Society reported that 71% of respondents felt: "censorship should exist in some form on the Internet." But in the same survey 83% agreed that "access to the Internet should be considered a basic human right" and 86% felt that "freedom of expression should be guaranteed on the Internet" (Internet Society, 2012). In other words, people don’t know what they want. Either that or they don’t understand what ‘freedom of expression’ means.

Government attempt to censor access are difficult, expensive, and largely ineffective, simply due to the way that the Internet functions: it was never designed for censorship. Many censorship efforts have simply been thwarted by changes in technology: “peer-to-peer (P2P) systems such as BitTorrent and eDonkey are now estimated to carry up to 60% of data on large Internet networks” (CacheLogic cited in Brown, 2008) and “these systems avoid reliance on single machines that can be shut down or blocked” (Brown, 2008). 

While the truth is that Internet censorship doesn’t work, I can’t say I completely understand why it exists at all. Are citizens children? Do they need the government regulating what may or may not upset them? Or does ‘freedom of expression’ only apply to the contexts that you (or your government) agrees with?

Even countries with what Brown terms “stronger constitutional commitments to freedom of expression” have embraced Internet filtering.  In other countries, state censorship tends to target “pornography […] news, human rights, dissident websites” (Brown, 2008). But if these activities are against the law, shouldn’t the enforcers of those laws be focusing their efforts on ending the activities, rather than making sure that no one else knows what’s going on? The idea is keep other citizens in the dark, to keep them protected. So that they can’t be disturbed? So they can’t be inspired? But since the technology isn’t working anyway, wouldn’t it make more sense to channel government resources and efforts into finding the original publishers and/or authors of the material you wanted to censor in the first place?

And how are the limits of what is censored and what is allowed defined? Who makes these decisions? The power of social media is a frequent topic of discussion, and one that (as far as I know) is less connected the censorship than the idea of mainstream media. Will social media be censored if (or when) people start disagreeing with the government?

In theory, censorship is dangerous and damaging. In practice, as Brown’s article shows, it’s rather impotent. This post is full of questions rather than facts, but I feel genuinely bewildered by so many aspects of this conversation.  What I do know for certain is that all the while we are uncensored, we must take advantage of our ability to question, to probe, and to speak and write freely.

References

"Global Internet User Survey 2012", Internet Society, 20 November 2012

Brown, Ian. “Internet Censorship: Be Careful What You Ask for.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Communication, Mass Media and Culture Istanbul, October 2006.

[bibliophile24-7]

The RFID Underground

The RFID Hacking Underground

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/rfid.html

The article above, by Annalee Newitz, analyses the increased use by corporations, and potentially public offices, to use RFID sensor chips for everyday exchanges of currency and information. Westhues argues that that the RFID (Radio Frequency Identification)—first used to track merchandise and government resources—is vulnerable to hacking by anyone; from a well-meaning computer science graduate students to malevolent underground criminal organizations, our information is increasingly at the mercy of computer code.

Newitz does concede, when after she raises the issue of the use of RCIF in passports, “the chips that will go into US passports, for example, will likely be coded to make it difficult for unauthorized readers to retrieve their onboard information” (3). She also cites a research manager at a high-tech security firm who says “the world of RFID is like the Internet in its early stages” (3) and relates another anecdote of a case where three graduate students ripped off a gas station: “using a laptop and a simple RFID broadcasting device, they tricked the system into letting them fill up for free” (4).

She concludes by refuting a director of communications at VeriChip, another security firm. While the director says that the risk of implementing RFIDs can be leveled if companies make sure to check “paper IDs” as well, Newitz questions the effectiveness of such a strategy: “isn’t the point of an implantable chip that authentication is automatic?” (6).   

While Newitz’s arguments are valid—there seems to be a clear need for action in regards to privacy issues and who owns our personal information—her article can also be read as perhaps unduly pessimistic. Thieves have been around since biblical times; for every theft, there will someone who creates anti-theft software to combat hacking. There certainly seems to be a need for privacy protection, but increases in technology and greater user accessibility are hardly causes for major concern. For every time something (or someone) is hacked, someone else is going to be helped.

But it’s equally true that use of RFID technology has terrifying implications. Westhues uses his simple, homemade USB device to ‘break in’ to Van Bokkelen’s office as a harmless prank. But how long until this someone with malicious intent is able to open office doors? How long till all of our information is contained on a tiny chip in our hand? And, as we touched on in class, how long until some desperate person with a machete comes along and takes that chip out of hand, effectively gaining control over your office, your bank account, and your identity? You can sneer all she likes at the inefficacy of checking paper identification; I’m siding with the paranoid undertones on this one.

[cutterandmutter]

"How to Become Virtually Immortal" by Laura Parker for The New Yorker (Illustration by Dadu Shin.)

"[Eterni.me] plans to store data from Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, photos, video, location information, and even Google Glass and Fitbit devices. While you are living, you can curate and add to this material; you can also choose privacy settings and determine what information you want stored and made public. Eterni.me then allows you to create a list of people who will be contacted and given access to your account in the case of death, giving your descendants quick and easy access to that Instagram pic of your latte or a detailed history of your Facebook pokes.

The service’s defining feature is a 3-D digital avatar, designed to look and sound like you, whose job will be to emulate your personality and dish out bits of information to friends and family taken from a database of stored information. A user will be encouraged to 'train' its avatar, through daily interactions, in order to improve its vocabulary and conversational skills. Eterni.me’s co-founder, Marius Ursache, thinks of it as a more advanced version of Siri, who, ten or fifteen years from now, will be able to 'respond to questions more naturally, and learn from every conversation you have with her.'"

[cutterandmutter]

Heartbleed: Why the Internet's Gaping Security Hole Is So Scary

In the past 15 or so years, we've all learned to feel pretty safe on the internet. BigSite.com is surely handling your credit card information safely, at least as safely as any brick and mortar store. Maybe don't be so sure; there's been a bug lurking in one of the internet's most important security measures for years, and it's given attackers the keys to the kingdom. Enter Heartbleed.

[cutterandmutter]

Who does Google think you are? Check your ad preferences page to see what profile they've built to personalize their advertising.

[bibliophile24-7]

Google and Privacy

In The Googlization of Everything, Siva Vaidhyanathan urges us to educate ourselves. He notes that “there is simply no consistency, reciprocity, or accountability in the system. We must monitor fast-changing ‘privacy-policies’” (Vaidhyanathan 84). When’s the last time your read a privacy policy? Never? Google’s aware. They have a series of videos to help compensate for consumer’s lack of own concern. After Google’s recent acquisitions of Youtube, the company released this oh-so-helpful video to talk about the affect on their privacy policy, or, rather, what Siva Vaidhyanathan calls a “lack-of-privacy policy” (Vaidhyanathan 84). 

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGghlPmebCY

  This video, meant to educate consumers, refers to the company keeping my “private stuff” private, without ever providing a definition for “private stuff.”  This video terrifies me.  I don’t even know where to start – maybe with the girl’s chipper, robotic voice? And no matter how hard they are trying to be quirky and cute, even the drawings are scary. Is this how Google see its consumers? As big lumps with tiny heads – and matching tiny brains? This video – their entire series of videos, in fact, leaves me feeling incredibly patronized. Maybe it’s the subtitles on the bottom on the screen. Maybe it’s the fact that they refer to the laws that protect our interests as ‘legal gloop.’

In the above video, the lady assures us that this new policy will lead to “better search results and ads.”  Making this connection simply drive home the fact that Google is using this new privacy policy to better monitor our interests and information. What if I don’t want Google to know my location, my schedule, and my local traffic conditions? There doesn’t seem to be any way to opt out. When it comes to our information and our information privacy, Siva Vaidhyanathan notes that “Google retains the right to make significant decisions about our data without significant regard for our interest” (85). Regardless of how many cutesy videos they company releases, I still don’t believe that my information is safe or private.

The recent merger of Google and Youtube was only a few months ago. For a long time, I did my best to keep my Youtube identity private: I didn’t create an account, and once I finally did, I kept myself signed out unless I absolutely needed to. After the merge with Google, every time I used Youtube I was harassed to use my real name, or my e-mail, or, if not, to provide the company with an explanation as to why I didn’t want to. Eventually, they stopped asking. Now, whenever I use the site, I am signed in with my full name, my primary e-mail address displayed.  

Siva Vaidhyanathan urges us to stay strong, noting “We must be willing to walk away from a valuable service if its practices cause us concern” (Vaidhyanathan 84). But what service replaces Youtube? I’ve been using Gmail for so long, the idea of transferring to another e-mail provider seems exhausting and useless. Even after educating myself, the inconvenience of giving up my favourite (free) services seems far more daunting than any invisible threat to my privacy.  Articulating this laziness makes me worry that maybe Google’s depiction of clumsy, tiny headed consumers isn’t so far off after all.

  References

Vaidhyanathan, S. (2011). The Googlization of everything: (and why we should worry). Berkeley: University of California Press.