Tech Musing #3: Thoughts on Edward Snowden Article

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/01/edward-snowden-whistleblower-russia-exile

Edward Snowden demonstrated the vicious path that was taken by being a whistleblower. By now, everyone knows the story of him moving from country to country under political asylum. As important as his work has been to exposing the NSA of their extensive knowledge and spying on the US population, does his journey make it worth it to release information like he did? The article speaks on Snowden’s opinion of other people making the same choice as him. He said that he doesn’t view himself has having an unhappy ending. While it is easy to say that if someone had the information he did, that they should post it for the greater good, people still value their lives as individuals. How would you feel about giving up everything you’ve ever known to expose information about the government? Personally I back everything that Snowden did but I would not sacrifice myself and life to make it happen. Edward Snowden was the “lucky” one. Many other government whistleblowers never even made it to public view but rather where jailed immediately.

In the article, Snowden says that he is actually more fulfilled, connected, and effective with his work now. He is encouraging other people to come forth and that he should be the example of how it is possible to escape and live his life. The Obama administration is now suggesting that a plea deal could be possible with Snowden. Obama even said that Snowden’s case needed to be discussed even though he disagreed with his tactics. The government has still held firm with Edward because of the floodgates that would be open if they let him go. This ideology goes far back with governments. Publilu Syrus said in the first century BC, “Pardon one offense, and you encourage the commission of many.” Future leakers must be weary; Edward Snowden might be carving out a new path but is not necessarily setting a precedent. Until there is complete freedom for exposing wrongdoing by the government, there will always be a risk taken by the individual.

Tech musing #3 Thoughts on "Citizen Four" and Aftershock

I chose to watch “CitizenFour”, the HBO documentary about the release of NSA information and how it was kept secret. I went through a range of emotions. When they show snippets of news broadcasts and interviews with analysts, I was surprised how more people were concerned with who was leaking the information and not the information itself. I couldn't understand why they weren't diving into what was being said and the information that was being displayed in front of them but were more concerned with raising their pitch forks and capturing the whistleblower. Then I was in shock of the bravery and courage it took. There was a line in one of the snippets where snowden mentioned to the documentarian that he knows his fate is sealed, that he isn't concerned with his safety at the moment but concerned with releasing the information in a timely fashion to notify the american people and the world. And lastly I was scared, it's amazing to me that the one man being honest and open about rule breaking is the one who has to fear for his life. He has to be the one on the run and not those spying on their citizens and illegally monitoring all their communication channels. That we are in a world where the whistleblower who exposes something with such immense impact, a blatant and intentional violation of the american citizens rights, is the man in the wrong and on the run.

Nowadays it's almost impossible to listen to the news and not hear about the iPhone/FBI incident. NPR’s Alina Selyukh recently wrote an article about the incident stating the FBI had gained access to the shooter’s iphone. If you are unfamiliar with the dispute between Apple and the FBI for months the FBI has tried to gain court orders and force Apple to unlock the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters. But not only did they want that iPhone unlocked, they wanted a backdoor system to unlock any iPhone upon request. Apple felt this was an invasion of their customers privacies and refused to entertain the FBI’s requests. Eventually the FBI contracted a third party who gained access to the phone without the help of Apple.

In the initial aftermath, experts are speculating whether this will lead to an increase in security apps and locks on customers phone, or more FBI requests for big businesses to follow their orders. Its also now leading Apple to demand the FBI release the information of the third party tool used to unlock the iPhone.

I don’t believe the FBI was wrong to ask Apple for help in unlocking a terrorists phone when they discovered they couldn’t do so themselves. However, to demand and obtain court orders forcing them to unlock it and add in back doors in all future devices is absolutely an invasion of privacy and Apple had every right to not comply with their demands.

Selyukh, Alina. "The FBI Has Successfully Unlocked The IPhone Without Apple's Help." NPR. NPR, 28 Mar. 2016. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.

World’s First Virtual Reality Operation Goes Live

On April 14th, 2016, the first 360 degree video of an operation was streamed live. This allowed medical students, surgeon trainees, members of the public to be immersed in a surgery in real time. This new learning tool will allow medical students, trainees, or curious members of the public to witness an actual surgery without having to crowd the operating room of an extremely serious procedure.

With the cost of using the internet on phones, laptops, and virtual reality (VR) headsets becoming cheaper to manufacturer, the easier it has become to make this a reality. In fact, the article even mentions that medical students who witnessed the live surgery were using VR headsets made of a pair of lenses and some cardboard (thegaurdian). However, those who did not have a headset could still watch it online. Dr. Shafi Ahmed, the head of this idea, claimed that this was more than just a mere gimmick. In the average surgery video, you only get the perspective what the head surgeon seeing. The ability to render these videos in 3D allows students to see beyond this narrow scope, absorbing other important parts of the procedure, such as what other members of the surgical team are doing.

George Hanna, Professor of Surgical Sciences at Imperial College, stated “If this technology allows the transfer of knowledge and skills [over] a wider range and in an easier way that would be very beneficial” (theguardian). However, the author of the article viewed the procedure on his phone, and claimed that the quality was good, but “not good enough to see the screen clearly”. A phone might not be the most efficient way to view this type of streaming video, but it is a valid criticism nonetheless. Another valid argument the author posed was that although you got a 360 degree view, you could still only see it from that one angle. So if something was obscuring the camera, you could not move to get a better view.

I believe that this is a fascinating new way to transmit knowledge across the internet. Virtual Reality was a mere gimmick years ago, but it is getting harder to deny its power given circumstances such as this. Not having to crowd an Amphitheater with medical students to view a surgery is extremely valuable, and it allows much more flexibility (you don’t have to actually attend in person at a certain location at a certain time). Furthermore, it seems like giving the public access to these feeds will inspire many future students who are considering becoming a surgeon. Not many (if any) jobs give you the option to sit on the coach while watching such an astonishing procedure in three dimensions, and I believe that this technology could be applied to many other types of businesses as well. Only time will tell, but it seems that we have only scratched the surface of what tools like these can let us accomplish.

The Video below showcases the new 3D teaching method in action 

Link to article
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/14/cutting-edge-theatre-worlds-first-virtual-reality-operation-goes-live

Tech Musing 3: Governmental Surveillance Beneficial to an Extent

In response to Ed Snowden and him revealing some of America’s deepest secrets, I am in favor of public surveillance to an extent. Although there should be limits as to what type of data the government can collect and what they can use it for, I do believe that they should have access to it to ensure the safety of our nation. Increased surveillance and using more advanced data analytics techniques on the massive amounts of data transmitted everyday can help make sure that similar horrible incidents like the ones in Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, etc. do not happen again. Many of the people who are against some of the government surveillance occurring and the future propositions, would not have those same feelings if they were in a situation where it could have saved theirs of their family’s life. I am a firm believer that most people in government are for the most part good people and their intentions are none other than to keep the people in this nation safe and secure. If the government could have used some of the great data analysis tools available and had access to more data, they could have detected the constant visits to terrorist-related websites, the down-right psychotic social media posts, and sketchy bank transactions of the cereal killers in San Bernardino. Along with other terrorists attacks, if the government had more access to phone messages then they would have been able to see that many of those terrorists were in contact with well-known Al-Queda, ISIS, and other terrorist group leaders in the middle east.

Both sets of terrorist groups involved in the San Bernardino and Paris attacks were influenced and trained through the internet but due to privacy laws the government could not use advanced analytics to find out what they were up to. Only after the incidents occurred and many people were killed was the government able to show the public the similarities in their communication behaviors to past terrorists. The government could have easily stopped these attacks if they could have accessed more data and advanced tools, spotted those trends, and intervened before it happened and many people were killed. Despite all of the evidence proving that these horrible events could have been avoided through increased government surveillance, restrictions and regulations are only getting worse. To me, this evidence would only prove that the government should be able to surveillance more forms of communication and have access to more advanced analytical tools. This in itself is a strong reflection of the pure stupidity that exists in American society today.

Many of those who are in the fight against much of the government surveillance occurring say that if the government was given “backdoor access”, it would be useless because the terrorist groups would switch to another form of communication and a different type of encryption they built on their own. What people do not realize is that if the government forced these terrorist groups into home-made encryption channels instead of the premium channels constructed by top businesses and the world’s experts, then they would not be able to operate as effective as they do now. This would complicate and deteriorate the transmission protocols and minimize their data communications, which is known as “virtual attrition”. This also gives the government an immediate alert of terrorist activity if personal communications are overly-encrypted, because they know that those on that line of communication are trying to hide something.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/time-for-a-rigorous-national-debate-about-surveillance-1451856106

Tech Musing 3 - For better or for worse, the Internet of Things will change the world.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is the connection of devices to the internet and to each other. These connected devices promise to bring benefit to consumers, businesses and infrastructure. The IoT enables smart-homes, appliances, and connected automobiles to function more efficiently and with minimal human interaction. The advantages of this are apparent but the less apparent aspect of the IoTs is the likely scenario where our government or others can use our connected devices to manipulate our environment and spy on us.

James Clapper, the current Director of U.S. National Intelligence recently revealed a frightening look into the possible future of domestic surveillance. Director Clapper testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee saying that “In the future, intelligence services might use the [internet of things] for identification, surveillance, monitoring, location tracking, and targeting for recruitment, or to gain access to networks or user credentials.”

In Citizen Four , the documentary about Edward Snowden we found out that simple devices like VOIP phones in hotel rooms can be hacked to turn on the microphone. Pretty much anything connected to the internet with a computer in it can be hacked if proper defenses are not put in place and sometimes even with firewalls and defenses. This is just the tip of the ice-berg as other reports show that “microphones in Samsung televisions were ‘always on’ so as to receive any audio that it could interpret as an instruction.

These revelations have certainly made me rethink bringing my home into the IoTs future. I consider myself an early adopter of technology but find that staying low-fi for a while may be beneficial until we get some of the kinks worked out in IoT technology. After watching many different interviews, documentaries and films about the NSA and Ed Snowden I think each of us needs to be more critical of what information we make readily available to others and we can pretty much assume that any connected device will at some point in the future will be used for nefarious purposes. Be aware.

The Guardian – February 9, 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/09/internet-of-things-smart-home-devices-government-surveillance-james-clapper

C-Span Video
http://www.c-span.org/video/?404436-1/james-clapper-testimony-global-threats
 

Tech Musing #3 Surveillance, Security vs. Privacy Rights

There are many factors which come in to play with whistle blowing in general. Although some people do support these acts which bring things to light that would not otherwise be known, it is in some instances, still recognized as wrong. Edward Snowden, did commit crimes against the country by indirectly releasing government secrets and if he wanted to make a point there were more official ways he could have done so. If he really did want to make a point, there are ways he could have done so without committing such a crime. However, since this has occurred, it has brought up this necessary issue even if it was under unorthodox methods.

It is clear that the issue of surveillance is necessary in order to have increased security but the more we place our lives in the hands of others, the more power they have over us. According to Business Insider 82% of people are in favor of monitoring communications of those whom are suspected terrorists. Business Insider also found that 60% find it satisfactory if leaders within America had monitored communications.

As it turns out most everyone isn’t a terrorist or a government leader and It’s always easy to say “monitor that guy over their so I know that he is a good person.” Monitoring laws are just simply not that simple. If that were the case, everyone would be monitoring everyone in this case our own system of security would defeat the purpose of its implementation. In order for the system to work effectively people need rights to a certain level of privacy.

I am of the opinion that those rights being upheld, could in fact hinder some investigations of security. That is the price of the mass use of the technological wonders which we have at our disposal. Occasionally, a misdeed occurs. Is that not why we have organizations which are designed to find evidence of misdeeds and bring them to be accused and tried for them?

The key idea is that the rights of people must be maintained. Violation of those rights will only bring about mistrust of the system. If someone has evidence against them which makes them a suspect of terrorism it is important to try them, just as has been done in the past when we did not have these technologies. If this were case, I am sure that there would be more than enough willing to state or even prove their position. In fact, Business Insider also found that 45% of people are not troubled if the government has surveillance on their email messages. This research goes to show that people are willing to say they have nothing to hide. The issue is they should be given the chance to do so if they are under suspect.

http://www.businessinsider.com/post-snowden-americans-remain-divided-on-surveillance-2015-3

Tech Musing 3--Thoughts on Snowden

Edward Snowden is a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee who indirectly released confidential information to the public concerning the extent to which our government not only monitors the actions of foreign individuals, but also the extent to which it monitors its citizens. These include being able to access phone records and information that one sends to other people in electronic form. There are two sides to the Snowden case, both of whom are antagonistic to each other. On one hand many regard Snowden as a traitor who revealed his own country’s national secrets; on the other hand, however, he is seen as a hero whistle-blower who elucidated on our government’s violation of the public trust.

The fundamental argument and issue behind the Snowden case is one which has been debated since antiquity, well before the establishment of our country; it is the issue of the social contract. According to John Locke, the 17th century English philosopher, government has no intrinsic power but obtains it from it citizens, the people. It is the citizens of a country who are endowed by natural rights and it is the consent to sacrifice some of these rights that enable laws to have power to protect and guarantee the freedom of the rights that are still retained. This concept is known as the social contract—the balance between the rights which we possess and the power that the government holds.

From my perspective, both sides have valid points to their arguments. There is something to be said for Snowden being a hero. The laws are something that we have given consent to in order for them have authority. However, legislation has become so abstract and so complicated that even those who are in charge of creating legislation do not have the full knowledge on the laws which they themselves create. Therefore, if they, the creators, do not fully understand the legislation, then how can this capacity be expected from ordinary citizens? As a consequence, without the capacity to content and give these laws power, there is no way that they should be allowed—for how can one give full content to something that one does not understand? Unfortunately, in this day and age governments have evolved into entities that has so much power that they are able to do surreptitiously act without the knowledge and backing of the people—something that the Snowden case heavily illuminates. Moreover, there is always the argument of how far is the government able to go; if they are able to ignore the laws and act if they believe themselves to be justified, then to what extent can will the laws, and our rights, be violated in the future? In a way the Snowden case is a legislative battle that helps to reign in and helps to restrict the government from becoming too out of hand.

Having said this, however, I also believe in instances in which the government should violate the rights of the people in order to guarantee and safeguard our liberties. If we could have prevented the twin towers catastrophe from occurring and its aftermath, then I am sure that few would describe the current degree of monitoring by the government to be extensive. Yet even if such a prevention were to occur, it would be hard for such legislation to be enacted which enabled the government to violate the rights of its citizens. Regardless of your stance in the issue the fact is Snowden’s action has incited the public to debate on this topic. It has allowed the citizens of the nation to be able to decide the degree to which they want to give up certain rights for a higher degree of safety—it has given a choice to the people something that is rare with the current size of the government.

While I didn't use any external articles, I did watch the movies along with the John Oliver interview. I also checked out Snowden's Ask me anything post on reddit. Here is the link:  https://www.reddit.com/comments/4cvhi0/i_am_edward_snowden_ask_me_anything/