If what we believe to be true is in-fact true regarding data collection - isn't every future President compromised? Somewhere, in the massive archive of phone calls and emails and financial transactions that make-up the digital profile of their path from birth to the door of the White House is a lie, or a half-truth, or something that doesn't quite mesh with the public persona they represented in order to attain elected office. Somewhere in that archive is something in their past that could be used against them in a way that would render their Presidency impotent at the very least. Wouldn't those with access to this information use that for their own gain? To show the newly elected President what they know, and leverage him or her to make things happen in a manner that benefits their objectives.
Now step down the ladder of power and authority. Couldn't the same methods be used against Senators? Congressmen and women? Or maybe judges, mayors, police chiefs? Stock Markets? Banks? CEOs? College admissions boards? The potential targets are endless and infinite.
A brilliant quote from Sneakers:
"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information!"
The world where these things are possible scares the hell out of me - because I fear that the amassing of this information will inevitably lead to its abuse.
1) Connections with security services pay off. For a modest fee you'll be provided with a dossier on your competitor's embarassing past. For a larger fee this dossier can be passed to local prosecutor's office.
2) Almost all of opposition goes way, mired on one scandal or another, sometimes way back from Soviet past, when facts mysteriously "turn up" just at the highlight of someone's political career.
I don't see this as a world war because at the end countries are sharing a lot of intelligence between allies. I see this as a war against people, as a new way of developing absolutist states where they don't need to use violence domestically with so much information available.
All this happen while people are happy with the latest mobile devices and 4g connections.
Its recursive. What applies to everyone, applies to everyone within the NSA/intelligence community too...as long as they stay staffed with people atleast.
Don't think it's that recursive. If you run for office, and an embarassing photo or phone call from the past is "leaked" anonymously to ruin your chances, you cannot turn around and leak something on intelligence community.
If such a system can control a future president, it can also control a future head of the NSA, or whoever else works within the system going down the foodchain, to the point where it becomes too much of a risk to its own existence.
Basically, they are not immune from control, if they build a system that knows everything about everything.
EDIT: And as for "you cannot turn around and leak something on theintelligence community" you dont have too...future Snowdens and Mannings (who are growing up, fed on all sorts of conspiracies on reddit and other fora) will.
> future Snowdens and Mannings (who are growing up, fed on all sorts of conspiracies on reddit and other fora) will.
The future equivalents of Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning could very well be detected and put under control before they have a chance to blow the whistle. It seems in the wake of the Snowden revelations that the NSA is already considering making conformism to authority a more important criterion to be hired, and if they were to use their collected information to profile new hires they should have a really good idea about interests and inclinations.
With all the stories that have come out post-Snowden, I'll admit that many of the details or revelations have kind of become noise to me (it doesn't help that the subject matter is prone to technical interpretation). But James Bamford's take on it is one of the clearest, contextualized explanations of the situation...I personally think that Bamford should be thought of in the same pantheon of great government reporters as Bob Woodward and Seymour Hersh...he researched and wrote the very first book on the NSA, starting out by reading through the NSA staff newsletters that he stumbled upon and working his way methodically through the organization. A real inspiration for how accountability journalism can be done even when the subject is the NSA and you don't have a Snowden.
"The value we are trading away, under the surveillance
programs as presently constituted, are quality of
governance. This is not a debate about privacy. It is a
debate about corruption."
Perhaps it is coincidence, but a lot of recent policy changes seem to have the effect of moving us towards authoritarianism.
It is worth bearing in mind that everything that us humans do, ultimately, is driven by our biology: our natural instincts and our natural drives.
We are pack animals. The pack has alpha males and beta males. The alpha males are driven to show their dominance of the beta males by reminding them of their subservient status as frequently, as forcefully and as intrusively as possible.
Authoritarianism is nothing more than the societal manifestation of that natural drive. Us beta males (the general population) are having our noses rubbed in the dirt by the alpha males (the authorities) so that they can feel good about their own superiority.
We are just reverting to type - stupid, prideful apes that we are.
Alpha humans I'm not so concerned about - every group has a few larger-than-life personalities who will show off a little more, lead the pack, etc - I'm not sure it's strictly fair to say that these individuals are always driven to rub people's noses in things and trying to take authority. Some people make good leaders and have empathy.
What I am worried about, and the criteria that fits your description more neatly (in my opinion -- I'm not a psychologist) is sociopathic behaviour - manipulative, deceptive, sans empathy, and in pursuit of power/dominance, but often outwardly charming.
These people can do very well and reach very powerful positions - there are statistics showing that density of sociopaths is higher amongst the population of CEOs than amongst the general population for example. There's probably fair reason to assume that many would love to have access to the kind of information and power that spy agencies now possess.
Interestingly and controversially there has also been research into using 'big data' to identify sociopathic tendencies. Would spy agencies use this, and would they ever turn the glass on their own employees/leaders? I think the answer is that they would, but they would easily be convinced that they need powerful leaders to ensure the ongoing dominance of their countries on a global scale.
PS: I felt compelled to reply because I think it's a little dangerous to suggest that this is a purely natural result of human pack behaviour - it is possible to spot and call out sociopathic behaviour if it can be identified, and so I don't personally think this trend towards authoritarianism is natural or unstoppable.
"Natural" neither implies good nor inevitable -- but it is a behavioural attractor that we gravitate towards unless we take particular care. Perhaps the term "Alpha male" was inappropriate - maybe "sociopath" might have been better - either way, despite the smoke-screen of rationality, I suspect that many of the laws and regulations in our society today exist in the form that they do primarily to make us subjects aware of our subjugation, and to "keep us in our place".
Voting isn't the be-all and end-all of the political process.
If you think that you will effect substantial change by showing up every 4 years and ticking a box, then of course you'll be disappointed.
If you care about fixing this issue, then organize. Yes, it's more work than the bare minimum effort of ticking a box. Surprise -- real change takes a ton of hard work.
The comment was a snarky dismissal of the political process and Obama as well. There are some truths to it but doesn't add to the conversation.
I don't think the answer is necessarily technical, e.g., more encryption, because having an encrypted channel is meaningless if the data is going to sit on some server unencrypted.
It has to be a "hearts and minds" issue of having everybody care that this is happening. When I talk to people about this the common response is "I have nothing to hide" and they therefore don't seem to be all that bothered.
Edit: replying to fotbr below
Voting for Obama did matter because the other option was McCain/Palin. That would be different. Just like if Al Gore had been elected we would have had a different experience than we did with Bush. Not saying utopia, but if you don't think there's a difference then you are blinded by your cynicism.
It was a snarky dismissal, yes, but I think it points out something quite valuable that a lot of people overlook -- Obama's election message was that voting matters, that it effects change, and that he was different, etc. He has utterly and completely failed to live up to that message. Which is fine, he was a politician trying to get elected and that's the way the system works -- anyone who honestly believes ANYTHING a politician says during a campaign (or any other time, for that matter) needs their head examined.
Technical means can be a solution, but it falls back to the way encrypted communications have traditionally been done: I encrypt it locally, send only the encrypted copy (ideally destroying the "plain-text" copy), and use a key (or set of keys, depending on the encryption scheme chosen) that only the recipient has possession of. This involves work; exchanging keys, etc. Any steps or solutions to make things easier necessarily involve trusting third parties, which increases the possibility of that trust, and therefore your message security, being betrayed.
As for the hearts and minds issue - I don't believe the trite saying: "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". I am, however, extremely cynical and pessimistic. So while I don't think the current trend towards a surveillance state is good at all, I do think the system is too far gone to successfully change it. The saying "power corrupts" has more truth to it than anyone really wants to admit. Bureaucracies do not like to reduce their size, or their power. Making that happen is, sadly, more likely than not going to require force and bloodshed - a path I'd rather not have this country go down.
I realize this type of thinking doesn't really help, as it offers no solutions for actual change, but that's the reason why I'm not "all that bothered" by any of the recent revelations - it's less a matter of being "bothered" and more a matter of being resigned to the reality that the average person; or even a majority of them, cannot make real change happen in a peaceful way anymore - the best we can hope for is to put a new coat of paint on while the structure keeps rotting.
I completely agree with you on not accepting the violent way of changing things and on the fact the system has gone too far to be changed through instituted processes.
One non-violent way of changing things I see is to use Bitcoin for saving and transactions as much as possible, because I don't feed the system with my tax money and confiscation through inflation. It's not perfect, but to me it's far superior to anything we have so far.
Look at it this way. If a thief on the street approaches you and tries to rob you, you have three ways: 1) beg him to not rob you (wouldn't work) 2) fight (would work, but you can get hurt) and 3) pretend you don't have any money (in which case he might as well decide to not bother with you if you can convince him you really don't have it).
Different, perhaps, but not necessarily better, or necessarily worse. What I'm saying is that the differences are so minor as to not matter in the long run. The figurehead at the top matters, yes, but not nearly as much as people think - the bulk of the power resides in congress, which is one of the reasons that nothing really changes when the presidency changes clothes and puts on the (R) robes or the (D) robes.
I'll freely admit that my cynicism and pessimism get in the way at times. On the other hand, I'm right about the actions of the government far more than I'm wrong.
I've been around long enough to see multiple administrations from both parties. I get the impression that you were not politically active prior to gwb, or if you were, it was not long beforehand -- if that is incorrect, I apologize. If I'm correct, then feel free to write me off as a lost-cause, a bitter old man, etc. because to you, that's what I am. Either way, cherish that idealism, for when it's gone, you can't get it back.
Would marching in peace marches in the 60s count as being politically active? I consider myself to be politically engaged, thank you very much.
I'm well aware of the limitations and powers of government and recognize that in many ways it doesn't matter who is in office, but in many ways it does. As much as Mr. Obama has been a disappointment (and that's without buying into the "hope" b.s.), I know that President Palin's administration would be significantly worse.
By the way, GWB does deserve special attention due to the fact that he was one of the worst presidents the U.S. has ever had.
A move in the right direction would be to make and sell easy, strong, encrypted communication apps and services for those who may have something to hide: eg, journalists.
Journalists have a clear need for freedom from government scrutiny in their communications. They know this and (I think) are already embracing encryption solutions. As technologists, we can build and sell great ones. Government efforts to outlaw or compromise those will be like kicking the media's beehive, and will only highlight the need for their existence in the minds of the public.
Voting is the end all be all of the political process. Also it happens yearly, and in most places multiple times per year. Go collect signatures and put yourself on the ballot, Yes it takes hard work, but that hard work is to get people to check a box and vote.
As a example of this please pay attention to the turnout percentage in the upcoming election in New Jersey for senator. Everyone agrees that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will most likely sit in that seat for decades, but I image we will see less then 25% turnout.
Also the likelihood of a future president using this information to further their political connections is pretty high. If you can destroy members of the other party using all this information you will have to or they will. This will lead to much more inter-party fighting to become the holder of the data first.
Now step down the ladder of power and authority. Couldn't the same methods be used against Senators? Congressmen and women? Or maybe judges, mayors, police chiefs? Stock Markets? Banks? CEOs? College admissions boards? The potential targets are endless and infinite.
A brilliant quote from Sneakers:
"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information!"
The world where these things are possible scares the hell out of me - because I fear that the amassing of this information will inevitably lead to its abuse.