Re: nettime John Naughton: Edward Snowden: public indifference
Very good question. And why is the NSA bad? I read their budged and I liked it. Am 26.10.2013 20:44, schrieb morlockel...@yahoo.com: Why is surveillance bad? How does it affect one's life in unambiguous terms? What really happens to the victims of surveillance? They dont have to write CVs anymore. A bigger problem are personalised news and oversimplification. Computers and human dignity. We are all unique, arent we? H. # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Re: nettime John Naughton: Edward Snowden: public indifference
Hallo August - The current challenge, however, is first cultural, economic and political, then technical. Unless we can set aside some institutional support to build public electronic infrastructures that cater to users without the data surveillance and without major pressure from industry (again, like the internet), then we won't even get a chance to meet the technical challenge. Under current cultural momentum, this is unlikely to happen at the government or the University level (like it did with the Internet). Nor is it likely in the so-called free-market. I think this is now the core problem -- that constructing 'another' infrastructure (either from scratch or piggy-backing on existing (tottering!) systems) is simply not going to happen. No matter what social entity desires it. Even replacing the (aging) existing one is not possible. I read somewhere that for the US Interstate Highway system to be rebuilt (as it is in desperate need of after much of it exceeding its engineered life already) would have a direct energy cost of the equivalent of all Saudi oil reserves. This emphasizes that any wide-scaled infrastructure depends on the availability of significant (hydrocarbon) energy resources (a fact that, for example completely ignored by the 'hydrogen' economy people!). In a world where the US (or anybody else) was dominant and could gather the necessary energy resources, this was possible (i.e., 1960 USA). But now it is not. There is too much competition for shrinking resources. Even in an optimistic scenario with wide international cooperation (hah!), constructing any social infrastructure of a standardized scale that reaches a majority of the planet's population is not really possible, given basic energy resource restraints. This energy/resource question is a necessary precursor to cultural, economic, and political considerations and is the primary constraint on the technical challenge. (The issue of, for example, overall energy consumption of 'The Cloud' is going to hit the wall at some point in the (nearer future), an issue that will change that diffuse paradigm into a wet rag, or simply more dramatic global climate shifting...) As for the indifference, I think Allan touches on some sources. And perhaps indifference isn't quite the right expression. Stunned silence, as individuals in the US are beginning to understand that the juggernaut they have been riding in is not under their ideological control (as land of the free, home of the brave), perhaps never was -- something like Kennedy's riding on the tiger's back... That the platitudes of Amurikan exceptionalism that have bolstered many a citizens self-image are empty of any moral substance. And we all fall down... Not with a bang but with a whimper... etc... jh -- ++ Dr. John Hopkins, BSc, MFA, PhD ensconced, unarmed and dangerous, in an ultra-conservative stronghold http://neoscenes.net/ http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/ ++ # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Re: nettime John Naughton: Edward Snowden: public indifference is the real
Original to: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/public-indifference-nsa-snowden-affair John Naughton The Observer, Sunday 20 October 2013 Edward Snowden: public indifference is the real enemy in the NSA affair Most people don't seem to worry that government agencies are collecting their personal data. Is it ignorance or apathy? ... Interesting article. Thanks for posting. Is there a real reason to be more worried that the government agencies are collecting personal data when equally or more powerful institutions such as Google, Apple, and Facebook (who are lacking almost completely in any publicly democratic structure or input) are the main arbiters of this kind of actuarial surveillance? Not really, I think. Is there a real technical reason to have the kind of private centralized electronic communication spaces on the WWW that have been carved out of the decentralized and public internet by 'industry'. No, not really, I think. But, do we see the 'professional peers' or academics (who previously built the internet up and until the web) stepping up? Not really. What's more is, the people who really need to keep their data or conversations a secret from the US government - I don't know say Angela Merkel, drug dealers, paedophiles, journalists, activists, etc - should learn to use the existing tools to do so. The smart ones do already. But, do we see normal users turning to the existing alternative communication spaces and tools (that are often less-convenient or require more of users)? No, not really. Even so, I don't think it is really important that individuals are targeted or perhaps even marketed. That would be a policy issue. The collection of the data _by private parties_ is itself is the danger - turning data into private property into information into power. I really see a long road ahead. Unless users decide, as some have suggested, that they can cope ( they don't care, or decide that knowing what's going on is good enough to set them free?), the only way forward that I see is to build a public infrastructure (like public schools, public highways, public parks etc). That is, if I am not mistaken, the exact challenge that the internet engineering task force met when they circumvented the closed gardens of the old telcos. The current challenge, however, is first cultural, economic and political, then technical. Unless we can set aside some institutional support to build public electronic infrastructures that cater to users without the data surveillance and without major pressure from industry (again, like the internet), then we won't even get a chance to meet the technical challenge. Under current cultural momentum, this is unlikely to happen at the government or the University level (like it did with the Internet). Nor is it likely in the so-called free-market. This is not to say that the technical challenge is not great. It is. The WWW, where the vast majority of online communication happens and where these centralized vortexes have been established, is _worlds_ more complex than the internet that provides its transport. I'm not talking about the protocols and standards - which now that 2 of the 3 major browser vendors are free software - is mostly irrelevant. I'm talking about the entire space of the WWW: the software, data stores, API's, etc. Getting user data out of these private centralized networks is not just an engineering problem. -august. # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Re: nettime John Naughton: Edward Snowden: public indifference is
Let us hope that Daniel Solove is right, that the absence of public outcry is the public saying I have nothing to hide, and that it is not Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor saying In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.' --dan # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Re: nettime John Naughton: Edward Snowden: public indifference
The real problem is quantifying the consequences, the danger and negative outcomes of the surveillance. Why is surveillance bad? How does it affect one's life in unambiguous terms? What really happens to the victims of surveillance? Do they get less income/benefits in the future? Do they buy more of the shit they don't need? Do they get less influence in the society? How is this quantified beyond generalities? There are examples where mass education worked, which illustrate the hardness of the problem - like smoking, or relationship of microbes to infections. Smoke and you may get serious health problems in 15-20 years. Rather obvious, but it took several decades and billions of dollars of concerted government and non-government efforts to make some impact. Or when Pasteur demonstrated benefits of sterilization, it still took quite some time for everyone to get it, although the incentive was rather obvious. Where is such incentive regarding surveillance? That your folks will be doomed to remain lower class? That the state will become too strong? Good luck explaining that with measurable effects. The only way the surveillance can be tamed is if basic measures are widely and sustainably adopted by individuals, like elementary hygiene - washing hands and not eating from the garbage. Sustainably means that it does not depend on 10 or 1000 open source developers. This requires wide acquisition of technical skills, which is simply not going to happen in the today's society without demonstrating clear and present danger. No one will wash your hands for you. Is there a real technical reason to have the kind of private centralized electronic communication spaces on the WWW that have been carved out of the decentralized and public internet by 'industry'. No, not really, I think. But, do we see the 'professional peers' or academics (who previously built the internet up and until the web) stepping up? Not really. What's more is, the people who really need to keep their data or conversations a secret from the US government - I don't know say Angela Merkel, drug dealers, paedophiles, journalists, activists, etc - should learn to use the existing tools to do so. The smart ones do already. But, do we see normal users turning to the existing alternative communication spaces and tools (that are often less-convenient or require more of users)? No, not really. # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
nettime John Naughton: Edward Snowden: public indifference is the real
Original to: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/public-indifference-nsa-snowden-affair John Naughton The Observer, Sunday 20 October 2013 Edward Snowden: public indifference is the real enemy in the NSA affair Most people don't seem to worry that government agencies are collecting their personal data. Is it ignorance or apathy? One of the most disturbing aspects of the public response to Edward Snowden's revelations about the scale of governmental surveillance is how little public disquiet there appears to be about it. A recent YouGov poll, for example, asked respondents whether the British security services have too many or too few powers to carry out surveillance on ordinary people. Forty-two per cent said that they thought the balance was about right and a further 22% thought that the security services did not have enough powers. In another question, respondents were asked whether they thought Snowden's revelations were a good or a bad thing; 43% thought they were bad and only 35% thought they were good. Writing in these pages a few weeks ago, Henry Porter expressed his own frustration at this public complacency. Today, apparently, he wrote, we are at ease with a system of near total intrusion that would have horrified every adult Briton 25 years ago. Back then, western spies acknowledged the importance of freedom by honouring the survivors of those networks; now, they spy on their own people. We have changed, that is obvious, and, to be honest, I wonder whether I, and others who care about privacy and freedom, have been left behind by societies that accept surveillance as a part of the sophisticated world we live in. I share Henry's bafflement. At one point I thought that the level of public complacency about the revelations was a reflection simply of ignorance. After all, most people who use the internet and mobile phones have no idea about how any of this stuff works and so may be naive about the implications of state agencies being able to scoop up everybody's email metadata, call logs, click streams, friendship networks and so on. But what is, in a way, more alarming is how relaxed many of my professional peers seem to be about it. Many of them are people who do understand how the stuff works. To them, Snowden's revelations probably just confirm what they had kind of suspected all along. And yet the discovery that in less than three decades our societies have achieved Orwellian levels of surveillance provokes, at most, a wry smile or a resigned shrug. And it is this level of passive acceptance that I find really scary. What's even more alarming is that the one group of professionals who really ought to be alert to the danger are journalists. After all, these are the people who define news as something that someone powerful does not want published, who pride themselves on holding government to account or sometimes, when they've had a few drinks, on speaking truth to power. And yet, in their reactions to the rolling scoops published by the Guardian, the Washington Post, the New York Times and Der Spiegel, many of them seem to have succumbed either to a weird kind of spiteful envy, or to a desire to act as the unpaid stenographers to the security services and their political masters. We've seen this before, of course, notably in the visceral hatred directed towards WikiLeaks by the mainstream media in both this country and the US. As I read the vitriol being heaped on Julian Assange, I wondered how the press would have reacted if Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning had handed his CD downloads to the editor of the Des Moines Register who had then published them. Would that editor have been lauded as a champion of freedom, or vilified as a traitor warranting summary assassination? Last week in the US, we saw a welcome sign that some people in journalism have woken up to the existential threat posed by the NSA to their profession and, by implication, to political freedom. A group of scholars, journalists and researchers from Columbia Journalism School and the MIT Centre for Civic Media submitted a thoughtful paper on the effects of mass surveillance on the practice of journalism to the Review Group on Intelligence and Communication Technologies convened by President Obama. It's a longish (15-page) submission that is worth reading in full. It argues that what the NSA is doing is incompatible with the existing law and policy protecting the confidentiality of journalist-source communications, that this is not merely an incompatibility in spirit, but a series of specific and serious discrepancies between the activities of the intelligence community and existing law, policy, and practice in the rest of the government and most importantly that the climate of secrecy around mass surveillance is actively harmful to journalism, because sources cannot know when they might be monitored, or how intercepted information might be used against them. In which case, what happens to the
Re: nettime John Naughton: Edward Snowden: public indifference is
hey, patrice, thank you for posting this wonderful article. it may be that the sheer volume of data reportedly being collected seems an absurd amount to read and so an impossible task even for machines to scan that it can't be taken seriously. that said, does it really matter? a surveillance state can be produced regardless of actual accuracy and persistent real-doing of surveillance - if we all come to agree that it is indeed ok to live with being watched it is the same thing as being watched in terms of its social effects. isn't there a famous parable about this? then one day the people are told...you have been living in a lie...and so now you are free. that last paragraph of the author's is most chilling... (snip) ...that what the NSA is doing is incompatible with the existing law and policy protecting the confidentiality of journalist-source communications, that this is not merely an incompatibility in spirit, but a series of specific and serious discrepancies between the activities of the intelligence community and existing law, policy, and practice in the rest of the government (snip) there are so many instances of this kind of contradiction going on, at least in the States...on the surface, media outlets saying one thing, in fact, actions of government and other agencies in direct contradiction to the miasma being stated. scary thanks for the article. molly On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Patrice Riemens patr...@xs4all.nl wrote: Original to: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/public-indifference-nsa-snowden-affair John Naughton The Observer, Sunday 20 October 2013 Edward Snowden: public indifference is the real enemy in the NSA affair ... -- molly hankwitz cox, phd media artist::editor::consultant:: *You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. *--Buckminster Fuller # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
