![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahwyguy
Americans do not understand risk (actually, most humans don’t understand risk).
Want a good example of this? Look at the recent NSA data collection scandal. People are in an uproar about it. Investigations have started. Lawmakers are claiming they had no idea this is what they approved. Google is saying “don’t worry” and wanting to disclose what they really shared. Polls are, well, polling in various ways. People are pushing 1984 up the best seller lists. Everyone is debating whether the discloser is a traitor or a hero. In short, the Internet has its panties in a wad about this.
Now, I’m not trying to say this data collection — especially in secret — is a good thing. It isn’t. It is likely either unconstitutional or borderline, and should be investigated fully (although we can’t really blame only on the current administration, as the collection started in the previous administration… and as such, both are to blame). But is it risky? Are government agents going to come to your house and bang down your door as a result of this? Very unlikely. The amount of data collected — and the type of data collected — makes the possibility that government will be proactively searching and targeting you extremely remote. Just given the amount of data and its unstructured nature, Occam’s Razor says it will more likely be used for additional investigation after some other intelligence source uncovers a target of interest. In other words: this data will (most likely) only be used after you are already on the radar for some other reason. For 99.9% of the people in America, that means the personal worry is hypothetical. [Again: this doesn't make the program right; it only means you don't need to be as paranoid. That is, of course, unless they really are after you.]
However, there is a data collection program that is a worry — but people don’t think about it. This opinion piece highlights it. We are giving giant corporations loads of personal data every day. Facebook scans and records your every like, status update, and picture… and sells that data to advertisers. Google scans your email, your Google documents, your searches, and sells that data to advertisers and uses it to market to you. Amazon knows your books, your wants, your desires (and soon, what you eat). Credit card companies know your purchasing patterns and use it to market you. Supermarkets know your purchases, tied to you every time you save a penny using an affinity card. What’s worse is that we willingly give our data to these corporations. We ignore the privacy policies they send. We send unencrypted email. We send unencrypted texts and tweets. We post indiscriminately. We give our information away to save 5c.
Yet when do we get outraged? When the “government” gets only part of that data. When the government that gets the data hasn’t even demonstrated that it has the capability to use the data. Why is the implicit assumption that government is bad, and that corporations are good? Why do we ignore all the corporate data mining that goes on? We’re sheep, people, sheep, for the corporations that are the real puppetmasters of the world. You doubt me? Who makes major donations to politicians to get them to do what is in the corporation’s interests?
As you get your dander up about the government data collection, put it in perspective. The real risk isn’t the government collecting the data. The real risk is that these corporations are collecting the data in the first place. While the government has laws — and the constitution — that will eventually limit its reach… corporations have no such restrictions. Yes, Big Brothers are watching you… but is the brother we must really worry about the Government… or that brother from another mother?
This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently 
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-12 06:53 pm (UTC)I can't, in fact, think of a downside to better targeting of ads. The worst-case scenario is that I get ads displayed which accurately match my needs. Which, well, sounds pretty good to me.
Whereas the government frequently oversteps its boundaries and carries out appalling acts. I'd like them firmly contained.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-12 07:10 pm (UTC)I'm not it is as frequent as you think, although how we define the metric can be difficult. Still, when this happens, the government is usually called to task, laws are changed, and behavior reformed, at least for a large number of years. Things do keep swinging back and forth. There is, of course, your implicit assumption that the government is bad -- whatever that government is. There is always a mistrust about any authority collecting information.
My point was not to say what the government is doing is good. My point was to ask why do we think is it acceptable for corporations to do it. The corporations are authorities in our life -- they make our food, they hold our money, they provide us with communications. They are not working in our interests, but in theirs. Why do we implicit assume they are a force for good (especially as they use the money they collect from the marketing to influence and direct the behavior of the entity you distrust -- the government).
Call the government to task for overstepping its bounds. But then don't turn a blind eye to other entities collecting information.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-12 07:18 pm (UTC)But I do believe that there's a big difference between people choosing to share information, and having people take it secretly, and not be kept in check.
Also, I'm a firm believer in government (I live in Scotland - we like government over here). But I also believe it needs to be a lot more transparent than the US government ever is.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-12 07:38 pm (UTC)But as for people choosing to share information -- I believe that most people don't bother to read privacy statements or truly understand what information is being shared. Further, even if they understand what is being shared, they don't understand how it might be used and combined.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-12 07:54 pm (UTC)This story (amongst various others) makes me feel otherwise:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5864427
And I'm still not entirely sure what the downside is of sharing my information on Facebook.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-12 08:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-12 08:10 pm (UTC)After all, as a non-US citizen, limiting their activities to US citizens only doesn't do me any good!
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-12 08:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-19 03:59 am (UTC)However, I don't recall being given any disclosure documents by NSA. And please do not forget that several administrations of the United States of America have willingly - and appallingly - embraced extraordinary rendition in part to try to be able to tell the American people that our government does not torture suspected terrorists. I suspect Maher Arar might have quite a bit to say about the terror he experienced at the hands of our government.
So, innocent Canadians were fair game.
What's that old saying about ..."then they came for me?"
(I found your journal by looking for my interests in gardening and genealogy. I see you have a wide variety of interests.)
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-19 04:47 am (UTC)Please don't think I was saying that I approve of the NSA's behavior (although I know many folks that work there, and they are good people -- but then again, they are on the visible side of things). I think that many things the government does in the name of "security" are questionable... but I also understand that 100% disclosure can often provide more information to those working against the country. Finding the right balance is hard, and I don't believe we're at the right point.
However, I also don't believe that the information collected is a primary source. In other words, they are not going through the phone metadata and those records they've requested from ISP to find new targets; rather, they are using it to corraborate information obtained from other sources (e.g., find a target, and then follow the threads). The sheer volume of data and the time and algorithms it takes to sift, combined with the large number of false positives, makes it useless as a primary source. Thus, although I believe the collection is wrong (or at least not transparent enough), I'm also not paranoid they are coming after me because of it.
I'm glad that you are concerned about privacy. Far too many people are not -- and far too many of the people who are not are precisely the same ones complaining about the metadata. Not all, mind you. But a large number of people only see the surface and don't critically think about an issue (I had a post a few days ago about how most people forward articles without reading them).
I work professionally in the computer security arena, so I'm aware of a lot of risks out there that most people do not see. I'm also aware that a lot of the risks people do see really aren't risks. The trick is knowing and understanding the differences.
Hopefully, my response hasn't turned you off. Please feel free to read my writing (you can read them at the source at www.cahighways.org/wordpress ; that's echoed to DW and thence to LJ, my original home). I do tend to write about most of my interests.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-19 10:55 am (UTC)I just don't think we've heard all of the story here. And we wouldn't have heard any of it if the government had its way.
The 50+ incidents of potential terrorism that the NSA claims were thwarted through the snooping (that's the kindest word I can think of to post in a blog that doesn't belong to me) may have started with finding a target and following the threads, but how do we know how many other "targets" were found, threads followed and then they concluded, "Oh nah, not this one?" At some point, they did listen to calls and read emails to come to any conclusions at all.
Call me a skeptic. I have worked as a civil investigator for many years, and this one just sets off my radar.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-19 12:03 pm (UTC)"read emails" -- most people forget that email is not an inherently secure or reliable mechanism. It is "postcards written in pencil", and I'm not sure all the laws have caught up to protect emails the same as paper mail. More significantly, I remember from my CISSP studies that VoIP (phone over internet) does not have the same wiretap rules. As more and more people move to VoIP because it is cheaper, they often forget that. Again, our laws have not caught up with our technology; the protections are not the same when people use the internet (no matter what they feel it should be).
[Edited to add: Thinking about this comment on the ride into work: There is a distinction between "right" and "legal", for what is legal to do is not always "right". Government operates in the realm of what is "legal" for many reasons, but most likely because government rarely has a moral center (and if it does, usually it is a theocracy, and those outside the selected moral center are in trouble). So the rights the government extends are for citizens, which is why it is legal for NSA to intercept communications crossing the borders, on the presumption that one side is not a citizen and thus not subject to the 4th amendment. As I noted before, laws haven't caught up with technology, which is why electronic communication is often treated differently (least of which is the fact you can not prove the source of a communication as emails can be easily forged).
One last thought before I dive into work: I'm not saying I necessarily agree with all of this. Rather, I believe it is important to fully understand an issue. There are loads of positions that I understand (such as those of my conservative and libertarian friends) that I do not agree with.