A/N: This is adapted from my final submission from one of my classes at Drexel University. INFO 215 – Social Aspects of Information Systems, taught by Prof. Denise Agosto. Shoutout to her for inspiring me to write on this topic.
There has been a constant trend in the news, social media, and memes regarding the government surveilling citizens and collecting our data without our knowledge. Governments are allegedly bending ethical boundaries to a limit to facilitate their mysterious motives. It seems that the premise of this elaborate data collection operation is ‘If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.’ But what is it about this entire situation that seems to make every young adult and aware individual cover their laptop camera with a post-it and share ‘big-brother is watching’ and ‘illuminati’ memes and conspiracies on social media? Having enough information at this stage, it is safe to draw logical analyses backed by evidence without making wild assumptions or conspiracy theories. Through the course of the next few paragraphs let us consider the facts at hand, analyze our research, and try and come to a conclusion of the issue of mass surveillance by governments.
Background Information
Business impacts the trend of the tech industry which affects consumer demand and consumer demand circles back and impacts business models. The modern information age is characterized by the intangibility of our business models. More than selling tangible products, companies are moving toward a service centric business model where buying groceries is an online service, restaurant deliveries are being outsourced to companies like Uber Eats and DoorDash, and keeping tabs on the most reliable news becomes a battle of which news app is the best. This service-centric economic model functions on consumer data. Our data is channeled through an array of various filters and algorithms designed to customize the websites we visit, the applications we frequent, and the TV shows we watch to give each and every user a more tailored experience.
The cost of seemingly ultimate user experience and customizability comes at the cost of user data. Companies must siphon our data to produce the necessary analytics for a great user experience. Everything ranging from metadata such as our location history, Google searches, and online check-ins to more concrete data such as the number of friends on Facebook and the pages we follow on Instagram must be used to condition our next virtual experience. (Making it easy to understand what data we collect and why) However, there exists another use for such widely used metadata: mass surveillance. If governments and authorities could use our data to estimate the busiest parts of a city that require an added level of security or analyze the messages of suspects to predict where the next terrorist attack may take place, couldn’t we secure the lives of the masses and make the world a better place? Allegedly this is what authorities thought when they started siphoning and surveilling user data as early as the months following the 9/11 attacks. (Kurzgesagt)
How do we know that data is being collected?
Most of our information pertaining to government led surveillance programs is based on the leaked information given by Edward Snowden. Edward Snowden is a renowned whistleblower and ex-CIA employee who leaked classified information about global surveillance programs. His leaks triggered global initiatives for user awareness as well as numerous debates on privacy and tech ethics. Alleged practices outlined by him included how governments can surveil and monitor both public and personal data, as it flows through various networks. In June 2013, The Guardian published Snowden’s first leak, providing evidence that the National Security Agency was getting telecommunication metadata (data such as phone numbers called and the mobile tower that was used) from telecom provider Verizon. Further leaks and reports by Guardian and Washington Post mentioned the disguise of data encryption to grant governments of America, Britain and Canada access to consumer data from tech giants like Google and Apple. Upon close examination, it appears that user data is extracted without their knowledge. (Lyon)
Further insight is obtained through news sources that talk about the massive data collection center in Utah that allegedly logs and records every byte transmitted through the United States internet.
However, the United States government has denied every claim that tries to predict the nature of operations inside this complex. The last shred of legitimate evidence we may have to support this claim of mass surveillance is the creation of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which was originally created to monitor and intercept communications of Al-Qaeda. Authorities began to operate on a preemptive striking analogy where they would intercept terrorist activity and crime at the planning stage itself. However, this ‘power’ was soon used to predict which travellers would be subject to random checks and who would be proved ‘guilty by association.’ (Kurzgesagt)
How does this impact the common masses?
A degree of even partial mass surveillance may risk the very essence of our fundamental right to privacy. What would be the point of running ‘Private Browsing’ if we all knew that every single keystroke, mouse click, or information displayed on our screens could be logged and analyzed? There are two fundamental reasons why the use of such technology may affect consumers. (1) Mass surveillance crosses the line of personal privacy. Out of our own need for secrecy we cannot operate under the premise that we have nothing to hide, and therefore, we have nothing to fear. In a study done in the US, Canada, UK, and India, participants expressed concerns about mass surveillance. It seems that the general assertion was that even if we have nothing to hide, the government and authorities should not be allowed to collect our personal data. The results of the same are shown herewith:
(2) There exists a lack of awareness amongst most users about how their data is being collected, why is it being collected, and what specific data is being collected? This ambiguity is the root cause for most of the panic and wild claims regarding mass surveillance and apparently the existence of a body of individuals who govern everything in the world called ‘illuminati.’ Another study showed that 6 in 10 Americans think that their data is being collected on a daily basis and they could have their existing lifestyle without such data collection. (Auxier) This current status quo urges the need for greater awareness amongst citizens and residents of a country. While some regions have passed a law that demands big tech companies to be transparent about their data collection methods and activities, there is no such framework set that demands transparency from governments and security agencies.
In a recent conversation with one of my classmates Tony Wu at Drexel University’s College of Computing and Informatics we discussed Operation Skynet, China’s mass surveillance program that utilizes facial recognition technology to surveill and monitor people for security purposes. Within this operation, the Chinese government is operating 600 million cameras that are strategically positioned at every public hotspot in the country. Tony mentioned how even common bicycle theft became a rare occurrence since thieves would simply be caught using facial recognition. Moreover, the Chinese government has implemented a ‘social score’ which is like an upscaled version of a person’s credit score. A person’s social score can be reduced for petty offenses like jaywalking or posting radical political content on the country’s social media – WeChat. A low social score may result in the inability to take a loan, or purchase high speed internet, or even travelling. Allegedly, it is possible for your friend’s political post to lower not only his social score but also yours.(Wu) This may create a huge impact on social relations by isolating select individuals from the entire society. It seems as if we are set to choose between privacy and security.
Denise Agosto, Professor of Information Science at Drexel University fears how increased data collection may impact the status quo of democracy. A more targeted campaign model based on individual user preferences may lead to political parties appealing to individual users based on their demands.(Agosto) Similar to how Amazon shows us products based on our browsing habits, political leaders could show us what we want most from a leader and promise to be as such. Therefore, data collection has the power to impact the idea of democracy and make a candidate win, not based on their political strategy, rather based on their marketing fluency.
The Necessity of Data Collection
It is relatively easy to create a virtual identity on any social media or internet forum without having that persona linked to your physical and true personality. This allows malicious actors to create fake profiles, possibly numerous of them, in order to communicate about crime and terrorist related activity. In order to regulate the chaos in cyberspace, governments and authorities could understandably wish to keep tabs on all forms of communication that may pose a threat to national security or public safety. But if the government is finding a needle in a haystack, i.e. trying to find a single malicious actor out of exabytes of data, adding more data simply doesn’t make sense. There must be a better way to fulfill the needs of the government while allowing users to express their freedom and enjoy content and discussions on virtual forums.
Resolution
Any proposed resolution must cater to both the needs of the authorities and also the needs of the consumers. The first step in solving such an issue should therefore be adequate transparency granted to the consumers about what data is being collected and how the process is carried out. The California Consumer Privacy Act represents a positive step in the direction of making consumers aware of what data is being collected by tech companies and service providers. However, there must exist a mandate that gives consumers the same level of assurance with the data collection methods of the governments. Secondly, authorities must not stress on collecting more data, rather they must find a way to better analyze the large volume of data that they already have. One of the Boston bombers was actually on the FBI watchlist, however the attack still wasn’t averted. (Kurzgesagt) Any resolution must involve the government working in tandem with consumers to ward off any security threats. With systems becoming more secure, malicious actors can turn to people and ‘hack them’ through means of social engineering. However, if consumers are aware and knowledgeable about the threats and risks in cyberspace, we definitely have a fighting chance against any terror attack or crime.
In this digital age we tend to be sharing multiple forms of our data without even realizing the implications or the magnitude of information we are giving away. We must collectively work to raise awareness of our digital footprints and resolve this issue.
References:
Agosto, Denise. Professor at College of Computing and Informatics, Drexel University. In-person interview conducted on 18 February 2020.
Auxier, B., Rainie, L., Anderson, M., Perrin, A., Kumar, M., & Turner, E. (2019, December 31). Americans and Privacy: Concerned, Confused and Feeling Lack of Control Over Their Personal Information. Retrieved from
http://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-an d-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/
Cooper, Rebecca, et al. (2017) “Cross-National Privacy Concerns on Data Collection by Government Agencies (Short Paper).” Retrieved 20 Feb 2020 from 15th Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST), 2017, doi:10.1109/pst.2017.00030.
Esa, A. S., & Simao, P. (2013, April 16). U.S. agency denies data center to monitor citizens’ emails. Retrieved March 17, 2020, from
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa/u-s-agency-denies-data-center-to-monitor-cit izens-emails-idUSBRE93E11O20130416
Kurzgesagt. (2016, April 14). Safe and Sorry – Terrorism & Mass Surveillance. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/V9_PjdU3Mpo
Making it easy to understand what data we collect and why. (n.d.). Retrieved March 17, 2020, from https://safety.google/privacy/data/
Wu, Tony. Student at the College of Computing and Informatics, Drexel University. In person interview conducted on 25 February, 2020.
The Meta Thesis 