Tech Musing 3: Microsoft sues U.S. government over data requests

The argument about government surveillance has raged on since Edward Snowden infamously leaked sensitive NSA documents back in 2013. Regardless of any one’s personal opinion about whether he is a criminal or hero, he has raised important questions about government control and what our privacy means to us. Only now have big businesses decided to step in and make their voices heard.

Early this week Microsoft filed a lawsuit against the U.S government for forcing “gag orders” upon their company. These gag orders forced Microsoft to hand over any information they had to the NSA if ordered to, and forcing them to keep it quiet under penalty of law. They argue that the government’s actions have violated the 4^th amendment right by illegal seizing and searching emails and other documents, which both businesses and U.S. Citizens have the right to contest. Furthermore, they argue that the company’s first amendment right of free speech is also being violated by not letting Microsoft tell their customers if the government is looking through their emails. Microsoft argued that “People do not give up their rights when they move their private information from physical storage to the cloud” (reuters).

This is big step towards limiting government power, and to a further extent the over-reaching arms of the ironically named Patriot Act. People spoke out against the NSA when the Snowden released classified documents that enclosed the abhorrent amount of power the NSA had, but many were quick to dismiss Snowden for the way in which he did it. This was a great first step, but having large companies like Microsoft and Apple (back door access for Iphones incident) file multimillion dollar lawsuits against the government has really sent out a message. Their voices are much louder than your average Joe, and this can’t be seen as anything other than step in the right direction.

As you may have already guessed, I am not a fan of this new era of government spying. The dismissive mentality of “I don’t have anything to hide” is a dangerous one, and people just don’t know how much they have to lose. If someone higher up in the government is not a fan of what I am doing, then they can dig through everything in your past to discredit you, and make you look foolish. This is a better known as the “chilling effect”, which means that you are inhibited from practicing your legal rights due to the threat of legal action. With words as vague as “terrorist” being thrown around , it’s extremely easy to falsify a story about someone based something as simple as a link you looked at on Reddit once. It’s a way for the government to fuel politicians that they want while “leaking” information such as this to the public the discredit anyone they don’t agree with. It’s extremely dangerous to have the power, and that’s why I am excited the companies like Microsoft are finally standing up for what is right, and making our voices heard.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-privacy-idUSKCN0XB22U

Tech Musing 3: Government surveilance does not result in increased public safety.

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-has-no-record-of-thwarting-large-terror-attacks-regardless-of-snowden-leaks/

The article above states the fact that the NSA has not thwarted a single act of terror in its lifetime. This article was published late in 2015. According to the John Oliver show, the NSA has stepped it up though, and managed to catch one transfer of a small amount of money intended for Al-Qaeda.

Of all the debates about whether the acts of the NSA are moral or constitutionally justified, I think that this fact right here should make the decision for many that the Patriot act should not be renewed this June. The Patriot Act was passed soon after 9/11 in hopes of preventing a tragedy like that from occurring again in the future. 15 years later, and after a significant expansion to the patriot act and the federal government’s capabilities, we are no safer than we were before the bill was passed. In fact, I would even argue that we are less safe after the passing of the Patriot Act. With the Federal Government now storing sensitive information, another access point is created for attackers trying to steal it.

While watching John Oliver’s segment I became increasingly frustrated as he played down his interview with Snowden. Snowden has permanently altered the path of his life for what he thinks is the benefit of informing his fellow citizens, and giving them the opportunity to protect their own freedom. Of course, this is a comedian’s way, and when the interview concluded, I understand another potential motive of Oliver that has nothing to do with being funny. As the segment showed, many Americans are uninformed when it comes this issue. Some are familiar with his name, and a general idea of what he did, but the majority we saw were misguided. I think that the problem is that our media fails to connect with all Americans. In pushing his “junk pic” analogy, I think Oliver enables more people to understand what is actually occurring, and what Snowden has risked his life to share with people.

Also, in all the interviews I’ve watched with Snowden, I thought he was very articulate and poised. I also believe that there were no anterior motives for his actions. He seems genuine that he acted in the best interest of all US citizens. I am grateful for what he has done, and all he has risked.

On an entirely different note, just wanted to say that I love Frontline! Aside from its obvious slant, it does a great job of getting to the bottom of pressing issues and informing us all. I wish more people would watch Frontline, then maybe people wouldn’t seem so uninformed in street corner interviews like in the John Oliver segment. NOVA is great too J!

Tech Musing 3: John Oliver's Picture Argument

I chose to focus my interests on John Oliver's interview with Edward Snowden. Although slightly inappropriate, but certainly attention catching, his analogy of sharing private pictures (i.e. pictures of your privates) was interesting enough. John Oliver's main point was that the US people are uninformed, do not care to be informed, or are misinformed. Interviewing people in Times Square about who Edward Snowden is and what he did illustrates this notion. Snowden wanted the people of the United States to know what the government was doing, so they can then take steps to either change or make an informed decision to let the government continue to have surveillance. However, Oliver was able to point out, sometimes pretty harshly, to Snowden that 'people don't care'. Snowden had a way of describing something that is very complicated in an almost more complicated manner. I think that Oliver's use of the "junk" circulation allowed for his viewers, and for Snowden himself, to understand the impact of Section 215 on the everyday lives of the American people in a more relatable way. I do not mean to say that everyone can empathize with the man who admittedly stated that he sent a risque picture to a girl not too long ago, however, they are called private parts for a reason. People are able to understand that fear and worry of private pictures getting out and relate that back to other personal information they do not want to be shared.

While this analogy caught my attention and raised eyebrows on the streets of New York, I don't believe it had the correct conclusion. Oliver asked Snowden if the American people should be worried about their pictures being seen by the government and change their ways. Snowden's reply surprised me. He said that people should not change their ways because it affects their values. He stated that people should continue to sending the pictures they want to send, and that the reform has to come from within the government. I understand that he is essentially relating this to all of our information, not just private pictures, however I think it is a two way street. Strictly relating to the photo analogy, if you do not want your pictures out there, do not put them there. If you cannot accept the risk or the idea that someone other than the intended recipient will see your photos, do not send them. Now, in the bigger picture, I do think that Americans have the right to privacy but in order for that to occur everyone needs to put in the effort. That is the beauty in a democracy. If everyone can stay informed and put the effort towards the change, change will occur. Whether it be in your favor or not, it is still progress. As Oliver said, this is a tough situation to negotiate; you can't have the rodent and the falcon. There has to be a middle ground, however it take informed people who are willing to search in order to find it.

Source: John Oliver's Youtube post on the blog 

Tech Musing # 3: Thoughts on Edward Snowden and Privacy

Edward Snowden is a former National Security Agency contractor known for whistleblowing, or releasing to the public a form of government corruption. According to Snowden, the United States government has kept secret the extent to which it monitors not only people from other countries but also its own people. The government is capable of accessing people’s phone records and can crack people’s email passwords in order to check their emails. Snowden, when he learned this information, felt that it was an invasion of privacy and decided to reveal this secret to the American people. His actions made him a traitor to the United States and he was forced to seek asylum.

Privacy is a very sacred thing, and every individual’s should be respected. If the government encroaches upon an individual’s privacy, it has violated its citizens’ trust. With free speech and freedom of the press, an individual has access to many resources through which they can find data. If the government monitors what its citizens are searching for, it is violating the fundamental social contract that it has with the American people. In a perfect society, privacy and government power would be balanced and the government would be able to use the information it gains to create a safer environment for the American people. In reality, there are no boundaries to what the government can monitor and look at, something not brought to light until Snowden.

In the article “Privacy can't depend on corporations standing up to the government”, Snowden talks of how free software's transparency and openness are cornerstones to preserving user privacy in the connected age. He believes that private data these days only stays private at the sufferance of the major tech companies that administer devices and services. Given the increasing centrality of smartphones and social networks and the myriad of other digital communication methods to modern life, simply trusting that those tech companies will protect their users' privacy is insufficient.

In my opinion, while privacy is an important thing that must be respected, the government does need to do something in order to protect its people. Both sides need to find a balance so that citizens do not feel their privacy is being invaded and the government can do its best to protect its citizens and create a safer country.

http://www.networkworld.com/article/3046135/security/edward-snowden-privacy-cant-depend-on-corporations-standing-up-to-the-government.html

Tech Musing #3 Chomsky Principle #5

After reading through Chomsky’s 10 principles I was able to see just how important his explanation of the principles were. Personally I found his 5^th principle, of attacking solidarity, to be most intriguing. Chomsky believes that the only way people will go after issues like social security and public education is by taking away the idea of caring about others out of people’s heads. Understanding just how hard it is to expect change or want change when people are so emotionally attached. It is hard to go after issues like public education and social security since it affects so many families, but in the end for things to get better as a whole a change needs to be made.

I also found an article about a debt free college option that reminded me of how Chomsky discussed how college was basically free in the 1950s yet it's impossible today. In Chomsky’s 5^th principle he discusses how with the G.I. Bill and other public funding the U.S. was able to make college basically free, and yet now that we are much wealthier than in the 1950’s we have serious experts who say its impossible to make college free. Purdue University is trying to take a new approach to let students be debt-free. The program is for juniors and seniors who can apply for an income-share agreement that makes the student promise a share of future earnings in exchange for cash. However, unlike most loan situations students currently face if a graduate earns nothing they pay nothing, and all contracts last no longer than nine years. The biggest concerns for this new debt free option is creating competition with the government, and only having poor performing students go after this option.

Chomsky’s principles make a lot of good points, and seeing the current changes in the country I think we can benefit from these principles a little bit. The program Purdue University is starting is in no way attacking solidarity like Chomsky wants but I do think it is a step in the right direction. Taking the control out of the parent’s hands and into the student’s shifts the responsibility of the debt after college with a program like this and can hopefully move towards making changes with issues like social security and public education. All of Chomsky’s principles are thought provoking we as a society just need to take the time to try and make a change for the better even if it isn't easy.

Sources: 

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/noam-chomsky-wants-you-wake-american-dream

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-other-debt-free-college-idea-1460931141

TM 3 US of Secrets

The Frontline video started out about Edward Snowden.  Given my background in IT & IS security, there are a vast number of trusts, privileges, procedures, and laws he violated in doing what he did, and he should be tried for each of them.  I'm curious as to how he gained the type of access he had to within the systems he did because it's a gross violation of not only his non-disclosure agreements, but being familiar with the formalities in place for that type of access, he would have had to receive even greater access to individual programs within whatever he was looking at. So whistle-blowing aside, he had violated security accesses, received and transported classified data, disclosed classified information in unsecured means to people who were not cleared to receive it, and I'm sure I could list off other violations. Regardless of the content of the leaks, my professional side finds him extremely in the wrong for everything he did.

This may be the geek in me, but I think William Binney was a genius.  I understand how many people feel that their internet privacy was "violated" by the government's actions, but you have to give him credit for designing a system of this magnitude and including an ability to encrypt private information within the system.  That being said, I have no problem at all that this system existed in the state that Binney had designed it.

The issue degraded when the executive staff and counsel removed the bystander encryption that would have still upheld the 4th amendment rights of the US population.  Privacy is not something to be expected outside of encrypted channels. Everything on the internet is accessible to someone else in some way or another, which is one reason why I do not trust cloud computing as a business platform.

The volume of industrial espionage and terrorism planning conducted online against the US from within its borders is a constant occurrence. A program like this, done the way it should have, legally, would have benefited the US intelligence community and national security in ways no other country is capable of.

A Reflection of the Conversation on Privacy

Beside the limited, biased material I have read and heard from the major news sources, I've never had a quality conversation with another individual discussing the actions of Edward Snowden largely due either party not knowing enough to draw an real conclusions. I watched the Conversation on Privacy over the live stream posted on the Web and was pretty surprised by how broad a concept privacy is. The following blog discusses some of the material that I took away from the discussion. This post is not intended to fully recap the discussion only to bring up the topics that I found most interesting.

Nuala O'Connor brought up a very interesting point when she said that the word "privacy" was not outlined in the U.S. Constitution. She started questioning what is privacy. Is it a contractual bond between the people and its' government? Is it an inherent right of the individual? Glenn Greenwald had the best response to Nuala in my opinion. Greenwald stated that even though the word privacy isn't written down in the Constitution, the concept of what privacy is defined conceptually in the Constitution. What Glenn is referring to is a section of the Constitution that states the illegality of a public entity entering and searching an individuals home without proper justification and consent from the judicial branch. The next assumption is that individual's activity on their personal device is an extension of themselves. The Center for Democracy and Technology defines this assumption as the Digital Self. I think Greenwald's argument for why privacy exists even though it isn't directly defined in the Constitution is reasonable and I agree with the CDT's Digital Self, that a individual's data generated from their use of technology is an extension of their privacy just as any activity performed within a home is private.

A few other interesting topics that were presented during the Conversation on Privacy are the development and contention between Self-Creation and the Domination of State. Noam Chomsky brought up this point early in the presentation. He points out that the Internet was developed in a Pentagon sponsored lab at MIT, so it was largely developed in the State sector and has been commercializing over the past 25 years. So what is the Internet? The government created it and undoubtedly released it to the public with some motive in mind (economic, power hungry, who knows, I certainly don't). I'm not quite sure what the answer to that might be because it is many things to many different people, just like how Edward Snowden said that privacy in a modern context is always different between individuals. My opinion on the conflict between Self-Creation and the Domination of State is that at this point in time Self-Creation is fairly dependent upon the Domination of State. For example, without the government developing the Internet who knows when such a technology would have entered the private market. So is it all a game for Big Brother, in which we, the individuals, are provided the illusion of self-creation and development, definitely not. How dependent is the State on its' people? In my opinion not a whole lot. How dependent are the people upon the State? More so than the State is upon us. These are a few questions I found myself asking while watching the video of the discussion.

At the end of the discussion Noam Chomsky is asked about his view of the actions taken by Snowden and journalists like Greenwald and MacAskill. Chomsky responded in an exuberant manner; he stated how happy and proud he was of these individuals and their contribution to society. I have to agree with him. I don't believe that Snowden did anything to hurt the people of the U.S., since Snowden and Greenwald spoke to the U.S. Gov't about every document they planned on releasing! The only group Snowden hurt and scared was the Gov't. From my view point it is very interesting that an individual is a major enemy to the State, but far from an enemy of the people. Hope you've enjoyed my rant!

https://web.sbs.arizona.edu/privacy