Big Brother is Watching You - Security without Freedom?
Freedom and security, two values that should be balanced. Freedom and civil rights were defended, and sometimes sacrificed, for the sake of more security. Society’s wish for more security has been paid for with that freedom.
There are more and sharper laws, and more privileges granted to security and surveillance industries.
Security or Privacy? This is a controversial topic at the moment. Is it that government surveillance protects our rights or does it represent restrictions to our daily lives? Most will agree freedom needs securing, but security is needed to protect freedom, not change or abolish liberty. it is the substratum of freedom. Both are the inseparable sides of the same coin. In light of recent developments, however, it seems this coin is being ripped apart.
It is not long ago that countries saw airspace, space, oceans and land as their area of influence. And as times are changing, the cyberspace is now another theater of activity. Granted, it is not only the law abiding citizen that uses the internet for communication but terrorists as well, in order to prepare and execute their attacks. To avoid such attacks, governments widely monitor all communications, putting every single internet user under general suspicion. Organizations like the NSA are gathering intelligence in order to detect unusual patterns of behavior and protect us, what a great deal! But what do we pay for it?
While the terrorists have little respect for laws and might use new methods of communications to avoid surveillance, the citizen is perpetually tracked, 24/7. Everyone is suspicious. This leads to people being afraid to speak their minds, known as self-censorship. The debate is no longer about security versus privacy, but liberty versus control.
Benjamin Franklin says: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Those who give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither.
With today’s technology we tend to make public some sensitive data, sharing our lives on Facebook and Co., and making ourselves vulnerable to hackers, corporations and a host of other bad actors. Whether it’s selling custom-made advertisements and profiting from your attention, stealing your credit card information for a variety of uses. This publicly held data is not necessarily well secured, either.
While surveillance might be a way to protect its citizen and potentially prevent terrorist attacks, it is also a way to chill the exercise of free speech and expression. It is a sad reality that, in many parts of the world, a twitter post can lead to prosecution and prison. Fortunately there is shift in the direction of securing our privacy online. The blockchain technology, with its decentralization, is one way to fight censorship and giving control back to the users. Not only does it give advantage in speaking out ones mind, it offers new ways of payments. And it will only continue to add apps and potential to what we can do.
If the government does not not trust you, why would you trust the government?
Having a look at the history, we see that the generations before us gave their blood for their rights. But nowadays, we accept every new law without much comment.
Pros and Cons against surveillance. Your opinion matters. Leave a comment and let me know if you think we need more or less surveillance
I think there are two sides to the story. We expect and demand that our government protect us. After 9-11 the nation asked why didn't we catch this beforehand? We wanted justice, we wanted our government to stop the next-attack, we wanted to feel safe. Everyone wanted it. I know people in three-letter agencies who were severely distraught and feeling guilty like they let down the American people. They felt they could and must do better. I like that.
On the other hand, privacy is hugely important and seems like we are losing it (or giving it away) a little bit every day. This can have catastrophic effects. There are brutal examples scattered throughout history. This is why the EU is so proactive and sensitive on preserving privacy. They remember the atrocities of WWII and the subjugation of people.
Both privacy and security are needed. The important part is to not think it is a binary decision, one or the other. The options are not absolute. We want both privacy and security in reasonable amounts to coexist. Ultimately we can have both, the key is to find the right balance.
I think the reason for the lack of balance is the media and general public lacks risk literacy. I noticed during the encryption debate around Apple this year that they avoided talking about how the risk of dying in a terrorist attack is lower than dying in a car crash, it's so exceptionally low in fact that more people get struck by lightening. And the scenarios where terrorists use unbreakable encryption is even lower probability, yet the government and politicians tried to make it seem like ISIS and all sorts of terrorists are using encryption which can't be broken by the FBI.
And the same irrational fear of digital currencies is being spread. The idea that terrorists are attracted to Bitcoin, and that idea that everyone involved in digital currencies or using it must be monitored, it's again a level of paranoia not based on any statistics released to the public. Public statistics released indicated that digital currencies aren't much of a risk and aren't associated with terrorism, but the media and propaganda seem to direct lawmakers more than statistics.
In my opinion, if America makes it's security policies based on statistics, on the data, and not on emotions, then we can have a better balance. Yes in some cases it might be necessary to have measures in place just in case terrorists switch tactics, but it doesn't mean ordinary citizens have to be given stigmas just because they use Bitcoin, or encrypt their phone.
Unfortunately, Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) still rule most discussions around risk. Realistic conversations are a rarity, but many of us in the industry are continuing to educate and strive to facilitate rational discussions. It is an uphill battle, but a worthy one.
That possibly willful lack of understanding was the main topic of John Oliver's interview (in Russia!) with Edward Snowden, linked here. Oliver proposes using dick-pics as the way to cut through the jargon to the real point of the argument.
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@plotbot2015/oc-book-review-the-snowden-files
hey @timsaid nice post. good to read !! Yes we are in a surveillance state since 911 ! its wrong and must stop, as 911 was the false flag event which served to start illegal and endless wars in the middle east ! theft of oil, massive negative effects now demographically with millions of Muslims into Christian lands with all the problems that brings. Chaos and control is the weapon which is quiet and works on stealth, citezen acceptance as it creeps and becomes just the norm, people forget the past and accept the police state of everything at every level, right to your bedroom. Did you see this internet 2 treaty that Obama just signed giving ( ICAAN ) to UN control for oct 1st ?? check it out, this right here is bad ! Steem up the Truth !!
https://steemit.com/steemit/@gomeravibz/will-the-united-nations-of-global-elites-allow-free-speech-on-the-blockchain
@timsaid
Let me tell you a secret. In regular social media your personal info might get deleted.
The Blockain, though
Whatever you write.
IS
FOREVER
now let that sink for a while and imagine a future where there are no goverments but only companies running the world on the blockchain. not much a difference from today right?
good. moving on.
Nice sharing @timsaid
Interesting!
Big brother, can you hear me?
WE WANT...
Historically, how secure is a slave?
That's a good question. Is depends on how we define "secure" here. I am sure there were slaves that had work, a roof over their head and at least food. Considering this they were secure, but in regards to freedom? Basically not allowed to have a free will. Having a look at today's society most people need to work all their life's to secure their needs but pay it with their freedom. Sorry if I missed they point here, to come back to the topic: there is no question that we need our government, but with not against us
Prisoners have work, a roof over their head, food, and are monitored around the clock. The issue is when you lose all privacy, but the "guards" are free to abuse you, then you don't have security or privacy. I put guards in quotes for a reason.
The point is, having less privacy doesn't make people more safe. If less privacy means your neighbor has more information to use against you then you're not safer. It ultimately boils down to how the collected information is used, not whether or not it gets collected. It's not possible to predict how it will be used without knowing who will have access to it and what the laws are and will be, and even then there is the possibility of leaks.
It's all about access control. Privacy is about access control. Information collected for national security should only be accessed by the minimum amount of human beings possible and the information should only be used in a narrow way. But this isn't what tends to happen, as mission creep and politics can over time turn a legit national security fear into a political persecution, or fear of terrorism one year could be fear of criminals the next year, constantly redefining the reasons to exploit the information collected.
You say today's society is one where most people work all their life to secure their needs and pay for it with their freedom? Do you not see something wrong with that picture? If we are working so hard, so that we can be a little less free each year, yet our security at best remains the same, what are we working for?
In terms of the actual threat of dying in a terrorist attack, it's extremely low. Violent crime is also in sharp decline. Yet every year we still are asked to give up more freedom out of fear of some less than single digit probability or risk or accident. At what point do we reach a conclusion that the situation is pathological, and not even based on reason anymore?
For example, during the debate around encryption there were politicians talking about how we need to backdoor everything, people saying law enforcement should have access to all information in pursuit of crimes, and so on. They say because they couldn't unlock a smart phone which terrorists used, that the laws should be changed or that Apple should be forced to unlock the phone. But where was the discussion on risk statistics, where is the risk literacy in the general public to know there is a greater chance of dying in a car accident than a terrorist attack? And that most of the sorts of crimes, including cyber crimes, are extremely rare events, and encryption is even more rare.
Yet this will not stop politicians from trying to demonize encryption, digital currencies, and digital currency users. It might be true that some criminal activity is going on but my point is that it matters whether or not people are being harmed, whether violence is involved, the numbers and risks statistics, the probabilities, so that we know whether all of this monitoring and surveillance is protecting us from a legitimate danger or whether we are being spooked into accepting a level of surveillance we don't actually need.
Stephen Brill runs those risk numbers in a TWENTY-FIVE PAGE article in this month's Atlantic magazine. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/are-we-any-safer/492761/
Google is big brother, that's why I don't like it.
Glad you finnaly figured it out.