Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

meegbear

(25,438 posts)
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 04:14 PM Jun 2014

The Rude Pundit - Grappling with Edward Snowden, Part 2: We Are Not What We Once Were

"The potential for abuse is horrifying," the commission member told reporters. "With records compiled on all people almost from the day they're born, it could be like Big Brother."

He was worried, damn worried, about what corporations and the federal government might do with all this information. "Anybody," he said of what can be done with the data out there, "can find out where a person travels, his medical history, what books he reads, who he associates with, what courses he takes in school, his sexual preferences." Ominously, he added, "And with enough of that data, you can pretty much determine the very nature and substance of a person." He meant this as a bad thing, as something, indeed, "horrifying."

Those quotes are from David Linowes, an economist and professor who had a long involvement in issues of privacy and the government. Linowes was talking back in 1977 about what the Privacy Protection Study Committee he chaired had come to understand: the more Americans had their data computerized, the more the risk to their privacy. The committee had been set up by the Privacy Act of 1974, passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal and, well, Nixon in general, and they had been working on a report and recommendations for two years.

What struck the Rude Pundit when he stumbled across this article was, first, the alarmist headline:



Reading the story, though, he was taken back to those pre-Facebook/MySpace/whatever days, when one actually, honestly gave a shit about one's privacy, back when you didn't want everyone you ever met and their friends and their friends' friends' to know every detail about your life. He thought about how, yes, this was real, how the very notion that the government and megacorporations would own your data was some kind of deeply offensive insult to what made us Americans. But maybe you needed a Soviet Union to understand what that actually means.

On this week's one-year anniversary of Edward Snowden's revelation of the extent of the information gathering (and let's stop calling it "intelligence" - it's information, it's data) by the NSA, perhaps it would be good to remember that we got here because of the concerted effort of the government, the culture, and corporate America, where Google can tailor your online experience to only show you what its algorithms think you want to see, where you freely reveal intimate details about your whereabouts and habits, where a spy agency can collect information on every phone call and email you make.

We've gotten to the point where perfectly liberal people can say they have no problem with the gathering of metadata. Back in 1977, Linowes' committee made recommendations, like requiring companies to destroy data after a certain period of time so that it could not be combed through. The suggestions weren't as sweeping as some wanted and virtually none were enacted. They targeted mostly the banking and insurance industries, which, if you think about it, was pretty prescient.

It's fascinating to think now that there was a time, not very long ago, when we thought our lives should be our own. It's sadly unironic that we didn't do anything to protect ourselves.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/grappling-with-edward-snowden-part-2-we.html

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Rude Pundit - Grappling with Edward Snowden, Part 2: We Are Not What We Once Were (Original Post) meegbear Jun 2014 OP
What's more ironic is ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #1
I agree with this entirely. The whole "expectation of privacy" goalposts have been moved mightily MADem Jun 2014 #2
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
1. What's more ironic is ...
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 04:32 PM
Jun 2014

that those yelling loudest have been complicit and facilitated what they now rage about.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
2. I agree with this entirely. The whole "expectation of privacy" goalposts have been moved mightily
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 07:11 PM
Jun 2014

down the years. People not only share, they OVER share. I can't believe the BS that some people put up on social media--it's like they have no damned personal governor. I can rail about that all I'd like, but that's the standard today. Millions of "selfies" and pictures of people posing in phony, put-on ways like ersatz fashion models, and the most intimate details broadcast on facebook and twitter like it ain't nothing but a thing. People PLEAD for the "data" to be collected, the way they hang it out there, and they exchange it for cheap stuff, like discounted crap at the drugstore or special deals at the grocer. All they need is your name/address/phone/date of birth and we'll pester you/sell your info to the highest bidder.

I have lived in countries where you could hear the a-hole listening in on you BREATHING down the phone, where surveillance was often clumsy and obvious, and if you wanted privacy you had to take active measures to procure it. Draw the curtains, sweep for bugs, turn up the music, stay off the phone. Back then, who knew that SAFEWAY or CVS could procure data on people easier than the idiot tapping the phone line?

I do not think the genie can be put back in the bottle, no matter how much people complain. If the USA isn't listening, China or Russia is. Give it up when you talk on the phone--you may well "have a friend" on the extension. Cameras are everywhere--private ones, public ones. Try going out in a urban or even suburban area and not having your picture taken somewhere. Everything has RFID in it. Your car can be tracked, your phone can be tracked, anywhere you go and swipe a credit card, you're playing connect the dots. I think that we're in the midst of a major, massive paradigm shift that says, yeah, you have a "right" to privacy but you have to take active measures to procure it if it is that important to you--and don't think, since you only told Stop and Shop that stuff, that others might not get hold of it as well--don't tell anyone if you want to keep your information a secret.

Since people are not willing to "consciously uncouple" (take that, Paltrow) from their beloved "devices," they'll have to install encryption or come up with clever code words (Pssst---the corn bread is in the sink...I say again, the CORN BREAD is in the SINK!!!) to get their messages across in the clear. And encryption, and codes, can always be cracked by those who are motivated. Big glasses that are large and clunky can make it tough for a face scanner to figure you out. Crazy makeup might do the same, along with hats and odd hairstyles.

Let the games begin.

Hell, I'm still appalled that Money Equals Speech--that one blows me away way more than realizing that something I send over the ether might well be intercepted by someone along the path the message takes. The latter seems, well, plausible. The former, to me, is an outrage, like Pay to Play--but it doesn't get the drama or the foot-stomping that the international metadata gathering business does. Not sure why...?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Rude Pundit - Grappli...