- by Jonathan Berry-Smith
Are we making surveillance a much bigger deal than it needs to be? To answer this question, I pulled from the LA Times article by Christi Parsons titled “Obama Plans Intelligence Surveillance Reforms, Aids Say,” in order to gain a better perspective on the President’s plan to reduce governmental control over telephone data. This intelligence data reform has recently become a buzzing topic, and the NSA has been criticized for its eavesdropping policies ever since the Snowden revelation became public. However, I plan to argue that this huge debate on surveillance and privacy is not all it is hyped up to be.
In the LA Times article, possible alternatives to the current NSA system of holding telephone metadata are discussed, ranging from having a secret court approve any and all governmental seizures of data to entrusting the existing data to a third, outside party to control. These reforms are intended to prevent the government from spying on innocent people. District Court Judge Richard Leon ruled that the NSA collection of metadata is probably “unconstitutional and almost Orwellian”, but I would have to disagree with him.
Nothing that the NSA has done goes against the Constitution. If they are truly just monitoring telephone transactional data, such as what numbers are called and how long each conversation lasts, then they are just participating in the same method of surveillance that any telephone company does, and which people openly allow them to do. This information has no real expectation of privacy, and therefore should not bother people to such an extent. If the public is angry that someone might figure out their deep, personal information based on their telephone data, then they may as well get angry whenever the mail man drops off a package at their door since he or she may have seen what store the item was purchased from on the boxes’ labels.
Next I wonder if this question of privacy matters at all since we live in a world where we are always watched and surveillance is as ubiquitous as technological advancements are rapid and pervasive. As we discussed in lecture, policing does not occur until surveillance is coupled with a form of social control. In today’s society we are constantly under observation, whether it is by our friends on social media, the old lady next door, or the NSA. Whoever the ‘culprit’, we are constantly being monitored, but until social control is thrown into the equation, is surveillance on its own anything to be worried about?
In the end, the potential reforms discussed for preventing further government access to metadata are all being done in order to strike the right balance between the rights of citizens and their safety. This brings forth the debate of efficacy; whether or not this extra intrusion into our lives is worth the added protection from possible terrorist or criminal attacks. I believe that it is, and therefore what the NSA has done with our telephone data should not bring about such outrage, nor be much of a surprise.
I like the comment you bring up about the government collecting our telephone data as a trade off between privacy and security. The notion that we need to find the perfect balance is an interesting one though. Most parties in the situation, the government, the phone companies, individuals, third party companies looking to be a mediator in the situation, all have different interests to protect. Whose interest serves the correct balance? Who knows best? In such a complex society, power is given to the highest bidder. Government policy is created by politicians that are funded by companies who can pay to get them into power. Getting around this intensely ingrained social bias would be an extremely difficult feat.
ReplyDeleteColleen Johnson, Discussion 102.
To support your argument, one might say: Ignorance is a good thing. Many people aren't aware of how much personal data they are leaving behind by using a cell phone, making calls, using the Internet, and because these technologies are so useful and practical for us, it might be even better to not even be aware that the NSA or private companies are taking information to 'shape our behaviors.' Furthermore, because technology is so embedded in our lives, surveillance and the issue of privacy may be inevitable. And if corporations and NSA are taking information to just 'watch' our behaviors or 'shape' our behaviors, I agree with you that surveillance isn't a big issue as long as they don't bring harm to us. But one comment is that with today's use of social media, it may bring harm. For example, thieves may stalk one's social media to rob a house when they see that the owner checked in to a location far away. And it is terrifying to know that 'the lady next door' is observing you. As a whole, these technologies brings us many benefits, but there are always those who will utilize these in an mischievous way (hacking, robbing, etc).
ReplyDelete-Brenda Lee
Because we live in a country that highly values people’s civil liberties, the government is expected to provide security without infringing (too much) upon our democratic principles – for example, First amendment protection of freedom of speech in cases where no harm is caused and Fourteenth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. This may be the reason why we tend to place greater scrutiny on government surveillance practices compared to corporate surveillance practices.
ReplyDeleteYet, an important point brought up in this blog post is that in today’s surveillance society the hype about undue intrusion from the public to the private sphere may be a bit outdated. Both the government and large corporations are engage in this constant practice of monitoring and collecting information on individuals. As Gilliom and Monahan points out, there is now a fusion of private and public surveillance that blurs the traditional idea of the government as the main threat to civil liberties and freedom.
- Jessica N. Siah
I respectfully disagree with your stance that surveillance is not that big of a deal.
ReplyDeleteYou claimed that the government is justified in only collecting transactional data because we allow phone companies to as well. First off, the problem with surveillance stems from the fact it occurs from a position of power above those being watched. This allows the watchers to keep those being watched ignorant from truly knowing what they are actually collecting. For the sake of argument though, supposing the government only collects transactional data there is still something fundamentally wrong about our government having that information. Even if we as consumers okay phone companies to store our data that consent does not automatically transfer over to our government. Furthermore, once the government begins to collect this information they begin to build a virtual profile of every phone using citizen. This is a legitimate concern for several reasons including an unnecessary use of government resources and an erosion of our private sphere.
I do agree with your point that it is extremely important to find out if building these profiles are actually effective, but at what cost is safety if we keep sacrificing our right to privacy?
-Alex Rose
I wholeheartedly agree that some people make a much bigger deal about surveillance than necessary. At least to some extent. When the government has our information, they seldom use it maliciously. It serves a purpose to track information ensuring public safety. Because we are ALL vulnerable to this kind of policing, it evens out the playing field a bit and keeps us all a little more on our toes. It allows for people to be careful about what they are up to. Think about it...if you have nothing to hide, then why worry about what the government knows about you? The only people who really should have privacy concerns are those who are keeping something from the government. In hindsight, the information withheld is not as much of a danger as we might think--at least on the governmental side. However, there are certain companies and individuals that can track down information and use it for harm. Instead, it is THIS kind of surveillance we should be worried about, not that of our own government.
ReplyDelete-Kim Newton