The Illusion of Privacy

The Kampala embassy delivered this to my inbox on Friday.

I didn't get nervous until I read this....

Just when I thought it was safe to come out from under the bed I'm reminded to remain vigilant and alert. Apparently getting grabbed on Kampala's streets should be the least of my worries.
 

But never fear...thanks to PRISM (and thanks to Snowden for naming the shadowy rumor previously called the Surveillance Dragnet) the US Government is on the job. The NSA's computers filtered through the haystacks of emails and Facebook posts and spit out the needles. Something's up but they're on it....in the meantime, be aware.

Except that I was already aware. I really did not need to be reminded to be vigilant. What I did need; however, was to feel safe. This communication had the opposite effect.

If this is what I get in exchange for surrendering my right to privacy I'm not impressed.

And neither are an increasing number of Americans, but first a bit of history. Back in 2000 (before social media and 9/11) the Pew Internet Project conducted an on-line privacy survey. The following bullets are lifted directly from the report summary:

• 86% of Internet users are in favor of “opt-in” privacy policies that require Internet companies to ask people for permission to use their personal information
• 54% of Internet users believe that Web sites’ tracking of users is harmful because it invades their privacy. Just 27% say tracking is helpful because it allows the sites to provide information tailored to specific consumers.
• 54% of Internet users have chosen to provide personal information in order to use a Web site and an additional 10% say would be willing to provide it under the right circumstances. 27% are hard-core privacy protectionists and would never provide personal information.

Back then there was an expectation that personal data would be protected. That softened a bit right after September 11th but has since swung back around again. The problem is that while our expectations of privacy protection are similar to what they were thirteen years ago, with the advent of social media our behavior has radically changed. We reveal loads of information about ourselves on social networks, expecting to have some level of control over who can access the information.

The problem of course is that there is no control - it's an illusion. Long before the NSA got outed marketers were mining our social media profiles and following our webtrails like virtual bloodhounds collecting information we thought private...all in the name of targeted marketing.

And it's important to note the difference between data mining for marketers and data mining for surveillance. If you're curious about the specifics of what the US Government has written into law with respect to surveillance, the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act provides the foundation, then the Patriot Act was established after 2001 which introduced the concept of warantless surveillance, and finally the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 prescribed procedures for physical and electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence information. Here is a good and current summary of FISA implications from the Center for Democracy and Technology. It's important to note that FISA was intended to exclude US citizens, but in practice, everyone's data is potentially within scope.

And it's also important to note that the US Government isn't the only one collecting and filtering data. There are many governments with equivalent surveillance programs (Canada and the UK for example). Germany outsources it to the US.  Shortly after the above announcement came out, Interpol was providing similar caution to our European neighbors. It appears, at least this August, that the threat is against the entire global north, not just the US. 

You may be wondering what about Uganda? With less than 10 percent of the population having access to the Internet, the government is selectively implementing digital surveillance programs. They are going to begin monitoring social media, and are considering monitoring emails.  They already conduct phone surveillance.

Increasingly, Americans and Europeans alike  are lobbying for greater privacy protections - the revelation in June about PRISM pushed the issue to the forefront. Mobile phones in particular are a hot button issue lately because of the ability to track physical movement.  It's when the virtual world crosses over to the "real" world that the issue of privacy becomes particularly dicey. 

The US government has stated that surveillance programs like PRISM have thwarted (if I recall the article) up to 20 terrorist attacks. If correct, that would be an impressive track record. But what I wonder is whether or not the trade-off between privacy and security is real. There are a number of experts who say that we could have both privacy protection and protection from terrorist threats. There are others who say the privacy paradigm of the 20th century was an anomaly and we must accept the transparent nature of today's information society.

I suppose from a personal perspective I can empathize with the people who are responsible for surveillance. It must be a difficult job balancing information sharing with the risk of panicking the public. As an individual I don't like being spied on, but as a citizen I do appreciate the early warning.

I just have one favor to ask. As you're reading though my emails and Facebook posts, try not to get too engrossed. I know it will be difficult. The Kampala weather and the puppies my sister's dog just delivered are fascinating reading, but you've got an important job to do. Don't get distracted.