Privacy is a funny thing; articles that purport to have something to do with privacy are often just the mostly-uninteresting ramblings of a deeply paranoid person. With that in mind, the New York Times Magazine, which until this week may have passed for a news source, published an article this week making an excellent argument for its emergence as the pseudointellectual answer to People.
Oh, oh, why?
In this article, this 10-page article, this 10-page article in the New York Times Magazine, the following is the totality of issues discussed:
* Online journals (a.k.a. "Blogging")
* The cult of quasi-celebrities (The "Blogosphere")
* Endless, endless whining
* Constant pleading for attention
And, finally, and most relevantly,
* Narcissism masquerading as a deep philosophical statement about privacy.
This is essentially an article about modern celebrity gossip, cloaked in fundamentally misleading language. The most profound thing this article has to say about privacy is "gee whiz, looks like nobody really likes it when other people say bad things about them!"
Here, the New York Times has essentially published a boring page from a 14-year-old girl's diary. This is published in place of an article about an issue that has any bearing whatsoever on the real world. The fabrication of importance created by e-gossip journalists is not any more frustrating than the slow shift away from the news covering the news to covering glitzy fashion, or to the media's current tendency to treat even candidates for President as the latest top Hollywood star, rather than as a politician. But it is certainly still infuriating.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Speculation.
How has the surveillance importance of citizens capturing video progressed? The footage of the John F. Kennedy assassination captured by Abraham Zapruder seems as good a moment as any to mark as "ground zero" for a citizen capturing politically charged moments by happenstance, a sort of "inverse surveillance" (or "sousveillance," [literally observation from below, rather than "surveillance" being observation from above] as coined by the privacy and cyborg-advocate Steve Mann). Likely a minuscule percentage of Americans exist who have not seen at least segments of this film, let alone heard debate over its contents and the conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination. This led to years of debate, still continuing today, often involving the phrase "back, and to the left," over what the video does or does not prove about the issue. However, this is merely a starting point for amateur video as a whole, not for the specific examination of authoritative abuse "caught on tape." For that, likely the most important example is the videotaped beating of Rodney King.
The footage of the King beating captured by George Holiday was ultimately enough to incite days of riots when the video evidence was seemingly ignored by jurors at the trial of the officers involved in the beating. This one incident ultimately led to a society-wide examination of police brutality, socioeconomic and racial struggles, and certainly contributed to increased transparency in policing.
Perhaps a myriad of examples exist so far in the 21st century, but for this example let us imagine "Bro" tasing him. That a student attempting to ask questions at a John Kerry question-and-answer session was tased after a brief slangy diatribe was a somewhat-comical piece of Internet effluvia, despite the very serious nature of the officers' actions. If this led to any sort of dialogue about excessive police taser usage, it was only tangentially and very briefly. Perhaps the ever-escalating efforts of the news media to turn "the news" into celebrity gossip, sports, and fashion updates is somewhat to blame for the lackadaisical response to this disturbing scenario, particularly as the officers were cleared of charges and yet no riots (or even much annoyance) occurred. But there is more to it than this.
Yes, the severity of these three situations is obviously greatly dissimilar. This does nothing to change the fact that desensitization to concrete video evidence of abuse at the hands of authorities is already in full swing. Expect there to come a time in the next five years where a brutal police beating of a new Rodney King leads to zany YouTube mashup parodies and nationwide catchphrases to shout at keggers, rather than to riots.
The footage of the King beating captured by George Holiday was ultimately enough to incite days of riots when the video evidence was seemingly ignored by jurors at the trial of the officers involved in the beating. This one incident ultimately led to a society-wide examination of police brutality, socioeconomic and racial struggles, and certainly contributed to increased transparency in policing.
Perhaps a myriad of examples exist so far in the 21st century, but for this example let us imagine "Bro" tasing him. That a student attempting to ask questions at a John Kerry question-and-answer session was tased after a brief slangy diatribe was a somewhat-comical piece of Internet effluvia, despite the very serious nature of the officers' actions. If this led to any sort of dialogue about excessive police taser usage, it was only tangentially and very briefly. Perhaps the ever-escalating efforts of the news media to turn "the news" into celebrity gossip, sports, and fashion updates is somewhat to blame for the lackadaisical response to this disturbing scenario, particularly as the officers were cleared of charges and yet no riots (or even much annoyance) occurred. But there is more to it than this.
Yes, the severity of these three situations is obviously greatly dissimilar. This does nothing to change the fact that desensitization to concrete video evidence of abuse at the hands of authorities is already in full swing. Expect there to come a time in the next five years where a brutal police beating of a new Rodney King leads to zany YouTube mashup parodies and nationwide catchphrases to shout at keggers, rather than to riots.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Requirements.
REAL ID* represents a particularly interesting facet of American identification paranoia and obsession. Here is a program created with the stated purpose of centralizing and modernizing driver's licenses, to avoid some of the many pitfalls that can occur in a system with 50 (or more) different standards of issuance and creation, yet that somehow managed to incur such a fierce opposition from the populace and many politicians that it is likely now limping towards obsolescence (or even non-existence) before its implementation.
The most confusing part of all this, ultimately, is that REAL ID is basically no scarier than the current driver's license system already in place ... but neither is it much more useful. The new requirements for obtaining such a new license read very much like the requirements for obtaining one of the old licenses; proof of birth, residence, a photograph, and a person's Social Security number**, etc. In terms of its application, there is already a long-standing federal database linking together aggregate information on driver's licenses from all the states, so REAL ID in that sense is nothing new. What is new is the idea that this information might actually be useful if it can be easily accessed and analyzed.
Unfortunately for the REAL ID Act, it completely fails to accomplish much of the altruistic potential of such data collection, while feeding as always into strong privacy advocates' eloquent and persuasive fears of surveillance. What is this potential? To list merely a few of the dozens discussed in the author's master's thesis: instant access to life-saving medical records, the ability to locate individuals behind on child support payments (an estimated $5 billion is currently outstanding in this avenue alone), further confounding of the ability of any felonious individuals to hide from justice, an accurate and transparently accountable "watch list" system, expedited government services from the airport security screen to the line at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Why does it fail to do these things? All the REAL ID Act does, essentially, is standardize the format of data collection for all licenses, without producing a viable system to work with the data collected therein, or doing anything about the obvious fact that forged identity documents will always exist. The latter could be accomplished relatively "simply," but it would also require fairly extensive centralized records on every American.
In the sense that REAL ID accomplishes comparatively little, it is almost less than useless; it gives credence to privacy advocates' claims of government intrusion without cause. Indeed, there are quite obvious downsides to such a system. No matter where one stands in the continuum of privacy and surveillance, surely it is worth discussing the merit of the points being made by those on both ends. What else might the government do with such a system? Considering that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had precious little difficulty maintaining close surveillance on tens of thousands of peaceful non-criminal Americans in times of peace, it is hard to imagine what the same agency might be doing with today's near-infinitely more advanced technology and "mandate" to safeguard the country in a time of war. Not to mention the fact that technology is a genie that will never go back in its bottle; the technology thus utilized for one purpose will inevitably give rise to more advanced technology for that purpose, which in turn will likely end up with applications heretofore unforeseen (merely imagine the history of [and uses for] a camera for a relevant example).
It seems somewhat likely that this particular abortive attempt at making the driver's license into something continually less relevant to its original purpose*** will serve merely as a trial run for whatever system is put into place seemingly overnight the next time America enters a period of horrific crisis and terror. Ultimately, this is the best evidence for being concerned over REAL ID.
*REAL ID, no matter what you read, is an acronym. It means ... well, something.
**The Social Security number deserves a post or five of its own.
***Driver's licenses were not even required nationwide until the 1950s, and were not created because of concern over driving skills.
The most confusing part of all this, ultimately, is that REAL ID is basically no scarier than the current driver's license system already in place ... but neither is it much more useful. The new requirements for obtaining such a new license read very much like the requirements for obtaining one of the old licenses; proof of birth, residence, a photograph, and a person's Social Security number**, etc. In terms of its application, there is already a long-standing federal database linking together aggregate information on driver's licenses from all the states, so REAL ID in that sense is nothing new. What is new is the idea that this information might actually be useful if it can be easily accessed and analyzed.
Unfortunately for the REAL ID Act, it completely fails to accomplish much of the altruistic potential of such data collection, while feeding as always into strong privacy advocates' eloquent and persuasive fears of surveillance. What is this potential? To list merely a few of the dozens discussed in the author's master's thesis: instant access to life-saving medical records, the ability to locate individuals behind on child support payments (an estimated $5 billion is currently outstanding in this avenue alone), further confounding of the ability of any felonious individuals to hide from justice, an accurate and transparently accountable "watch list" system, expedited government services from the airport security screen to the line at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Why does it fail to do these things? All the REAL ID Act does, essentially, is standardize the format of data collection for all licenses, without producing a viable system to work with the data collected therein, or doing anything about the obvious fact that forged identity documents will always exist. The latter could be accomplished relatively "simply," but it would also require fairly extensive centralized records on every American.
In the sense that REAL ID accomplishes comparatively little, it is almost less than useless; it gives credence to privacy advocates' claims of government intrusion without cause. Indeed, there are quite obvious downsides to such a system. No matter where one stands in the continuum of privacy and surveillance, surely it is worth discussing the merit of the points being made by those on both ends. What else might the government do with such a system? Considering that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had precious little difficulty maintaining close surveillance on tens of thousands of peaceful non-criminal Americans in times of peace, it is hard to imagine what the same agency might be doing with today's near-infinitely more advanced technology and "mandate" to safeguard the country in a time of war. Not to mention the fact that technology is a genie that will never go back in its bottle; the technology thus utilized for one purpose will inevitably give rise to more advanced technology for that purpose, which in turn will likely end up with applications heretofore unforeseen (merely imagine the history of [and uses for] a camera for a relevant example).
It seems somewhat likely that this particular abortive attempt at making the driver's license into something continually less relevant to its original purpose*** will serve merely as a trial run for whatever system is put into place seemingly overnight the next time America enters a period of horrific crisis and terror. Ultimately, this is the best evidence for being concerned over REAL ID.
*REAL ID, no matter what you read, is an acronym. It means ... well, something.
**The Social Security number deserves a post or five of its own.
***Driver's licenses were not even required nationwide until the 1950s, and were not created because of concern over driving skills.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Fundamentals.
As David Brin said in his characteristically prescient late-90s work "The Transparent Society," our world is not facing the choice of "all-invasive surveillance" or "a return to privacy." It is facing the choice of "all-invasive surveillance overseen by the state" or "all-invasive surveillance overseen by the people." This challenge is evident in many places; from the rapid growth of Interstate travel surveillance disguised as payment convenience, to the U.S. Government's new program to expedite airport waits for people willing to submit to greater privacy invasions, to the very tracking cookies and other electronic means of observation that help people and businesses alike with their interests.
What does all this mean for America? What does this mean for the rest of the world? Increasingly, what does this mean for the entirety of humanity, as the continual and often unchecked growth of multinational corporations, combined with their increasing intertwining with governments, steers us ever closer to the idea of a truly global society?
To this end, a discussion of all facets of this enormous problem seems appropriate. What better medium than the online journal, the same format used by 14-year-old girls to talk about shopping, and by 60-year-old men to pretend to be 14-year-old girls!
What does all this mean for America? What does this mean for the rest of the world? Increasingly, what does this mean for the entirety of humanity, as the continual and often unchecked growth of multinational corporations, combined with their increasing intertwining with governments, steers us ever closer to the idea of a truly global society?
To this end, a discussion of all facets of this enormous problem seems appropriate. What better medium than the online journal, the same format used by 14-year-old girls to talk about shopping, and by 60-year-old men to pretend to be 14-year-old girls!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)