Big Brother arrives

I read that sales of 1984 have been rocketing in the last week. I am not surprised. Orwell was quite prescient in many ways, also with Animal Farm. The revelation that the US government seems to be spying on everyone doing anything has sent conspiracy theory into overdrive.

 

Overall, I am quite relaxed about my information. Every time technology advances, some people do not fully participate because they are scared of misuse. In the early days of the internet, I recall some people saying they would never use it because of privacy concerns. Well, we have now reached a stage where the internet makes our lives so much easier that almost all of us are ready to take the risk.

 

The same happened with internet payments. It felt scary, but most of us got away with it, the Paypal came along, then other collectors improved security, and now most of us are happy to play along, enjoying the benefits of simplicity while accepting the risks.

 

Before the internet, it was the same with credit cards, even the telephone. Go back far enough, and there were probably people who refused to use the postal service.

 

Technology can help in so many areas now, not just connecting with friends or making transactions. True, it is a bit weird that pictures of our houses are plastered all over Google maps, but it is a lot easier to find our way around than before. I love the potential use of technology to monitor us medically, or to assess us as insurance risks (you can get a gadget to keep in the car that monitors where and how you drive). Scariest of all, when I log in each morning my computer seems to know what I am thinking, with a whole range of personalised content.

 

In general, I am very relaxed about all this, even welcoming. I also have no problem with having an identity card (or many even), or sharing my DNA with my local police should they be interested in it. The more details can be squeezed onto my identity card, from medical to criminal to taxation, I am all for it, if it helps us to live in a simpler and safer society. I see no problem with a swamping of the streets with CCTV and speed cameras. I should comply with the law, and if others don’t and it compromises general safety then let them be discovered.

 

Occasionally, progress leads to a strange situation. Technology may allow the police to target suspect groups very accurately according to characteristics. Then they can be forbidden from using the technology, because it feels like discrimination. Interesting. It feels wrong to reject technology. Yet black youths have a case to complain if they are stopped are hassled more frequently than others. It is easy for me to say as a member of a perceived low risk group, but for me any technology that helps make us safer should be welcomed. The flip side is that police have no right to tarnish any individual until they have clear evidence, and they should set some limits on the imposition of everyday lives of all of us. If we embrace the technology, then hopefully the next manifestation will be so smart that the blameless members of groups currently singled out would fall off the invasive radar.

 

By the same token, if I am a safer driver, I should get cheaper car insurance, and if my medical behaviour makes me a lower a risk I should get cheaper medical insurance. That is the market at work, and it should lead to a trend where people drink less coke and keep to the speed limit. Of course, this then plays into the whole debate about tax and welfare, since the same groups tend to lose all of these trade-offs. I say let the market work, but make sure welfare offers a way out for those who need it.

 

So this week we learn about the US Government and its incredibly widespread snooping. And, even though they are welcome to snoop on my all they wish, I am still angry. Why? Well, start with the various responses offered by the US government and other actors this week.

 

First came the denials. Always with weasel language. Try this from Google. “Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ internet activity on such a scale is completely false”. Note “on such a scale”. So a bit smaller (or even a bit bigger) would be OK then?

 

Next comes the claim that it works. We are supposed to believe that dozens of terrorist plots have been foiled due to this programme, and sometimes a suitably horrific plot is quoted as an example. Well, I have my doubts. And, I suppose if you lock up all the Muslims in the world, violence by Muslims might decrease (until they were let out, of course).

 

Then there is the claim that the agencies hardly ever use the data collected. So that makes it OK then?

 

Note the inherent contradictions within these first three responses.

 

Then comes the most insidious of all. We only spy on foreigners, not Americans. Apart from how unlikely this is (is there a citizenship tag on all information?) the degree of insult to foreigners is breath taking. It also betrays the way their brains work in legal terms. The only constraint seems to be US law. And that is determined by US politics. So the concept of a Briton using a service from a US company, who then gives its information to the US government is somehow acceptable, with no disclosure. Oh no it isn’t. No doubt the people at Google or Verizon hate it as much as anyone else, since it has the potential to invalidate their business model. But it would be asking a lot for Google to act as whistle blower here.

 

Next is a claim that the spying happens, but under tight judicial and congressional oversight. Which is in secret, therefore no effective oversight whatsoever.

 

Finally, they go after the whistle blowers themselves. From what I read, admittedly not from unbiased sources. Edward Snowden sounds like a hero, not a traitor. He has made a huge sacrifice, and will be hounded for it for life. The EU has taken steps to protect whistle blowers recently. Obama would be doing his country a service if he publicly exonerated Snowden. If he really believes what he says about debate being welcome, that is what he would do. Don’t hold your breath.

 

The idea that a programme of this scale could be secret in the first place is equally ludicrous. Seemingly, there are tens of thousands of people in run of the mill companies who are required to operate the programme and who therefore have required some security clearance. There is no chance that this could work without leaks, and the true terrorists must have a good idea what is going on, without any help from Mr Snowden.

 

So the responses betray the warped thinking and the insults that the programme entails, and we should all be angry. But the most important point is this. The existence of this sort of secret programme totally undermines any US counter-claim, whether about Iranian censorship or Chinese IP theft. All claim to the moral or even legal high ground is lost. It is no wonder that so many nations are so suspicious of the USA, and how little progress is made on global standards. The Iranians have already built an all-purpose internet firewall. The Chinese are doing the same. More will follow. Who can blame them? And what a tragedy for all of us who value openness and progress through technology.

 

Finally, let us cut the liberty bs. Americans are brainwashed into believing their nation stands for freedom and liberty. Compared with many, it does. But since 2001 the trend has been an ugly one, whether from lines at airports to background checks on driving licenses or the number locked up or via this sort of programme.

 

So please, USA, take whatever data you like about me. But disclose it. If you want to use private companies for your data, at least let me know so I can choose not to use those companies. Disclosure won’t make any difference to terrorism, and it would help our world in so many ways. From my memory, 1984 does not have a particularly happy ending.