As 4th year communication studies majors, most of us are familiar with the different debates and opinions that have circulated in regards to surveillance in our society. Many people feel that surveillance is a necessity to keep our society and citizens safe. However, many other people feel that government surveillance is a violation of our privacy and goes against the bill of rights. In the article Articulation and Assemblage, we learned that someone living in New York City is likely to have their photo taken up to 75 times a day simply walking through the city. These cameras are installed by both the government and stores themselves to keep constant surveillance of the city. The authors of this article explain that these enhancements in surveillance are created and expanded from our own feelings and connections. Although there were forms of surveillance prior to the tragedy that took place on September 11, 2001, it is clear that surveillance within society grew drastically after the tragedy. This is based on our own fears and suspicions. The 'assemblage' of surveillance technology is a result of our articulations/connections with the tragedy of 9/11. Attached is a link to a Ted Talk by Christopher Soghoian. He explains the different technologies that have been created by corporations to stalk potential threats in our society and obtain personal information. Soghoian explains that hacking is potentially a necessary evil needed to access the information of people who are harming society, however, we should be informed that this is happening and have a voice in the way it is being done. I agree that people should be aware of the level of surveillance that they are under, to eliminate the level of invasiveness and suspicion. Do you feel that any level of government surveillance is just?
http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_soghoian_government_surveillance_this_is_just_the_beginning?language=en#t-482138
After watching the attached Ted Talk performed by Christopher Soghoian and researching more about his career as a privacy researcher and activist, my opinion about government surveillance has become more clear. Government agencies around the world know how to obtain personal information without being detected. As Soghoian mentions, telephones and cell-phones were originally created for surveillance purposes rather than private communication. This is quite alarming when you think of it. Soghoian states that he does not want to live in a world where government agencies have access to all calls, text messages, emails and the like. And the more I think of why this would be so, I agree with him as well. Since he also mentions that cellphones and telephones are programmed to be able to be "hacked" into or be observed by third parties like the government, then what is stopping this from allowing technologically-intelligent hackers, stalkers, and criminals from doing the same? As this can sound like being too anxious or paranoid of the world we live in, the realities and outcomes can be harsh. A phone call to a friend stating your location can inform an unwanted, dangerous third party where you may be as well....
ReplyDeleteI believe that surveillance is necessary to keep society and citizens safe, although I understand how people may see surveillance as an invasion of privacy I believe it is needed to protect the greater good. I feel comfortable with knowing that my city is safer with government intervention compared to complete privacy. If an individual not a threat to society, they will not be affected by government intervention. However, on a lesser level, we are all affected of surveillance though the Internet. The way the Internet has evolved and developed has connected the products we search online to appear elsewhere on the Internet. For example, if I search a product on Google it will show up as an advertisement on my Facebook. Personally, I agree with government surveillance to keep society safe and am personally not affected by the online aspects of surveillance.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile I definitely think more people should be aware of the government's surveillance capabilities, I agree with Nicole Martino that it helps keep citizens safe. If I had to choose between complete privacy or surveillance in society with a lower risk of a catastrophic event that kills people, I can accept government surveillance as part of our society. Like Nicole mentioned if an individual is not a threat to society, they should not be overly affected. I think the surveillance that affects every day citizens' privacy more is corporate surveillance. An example that shows the great extent of privacy invasion is the incidence where Target realized that a young woman was pregnant before her parents did. By tracking her purchases and noticing a change in food purchases and feminine products, the store began sending advertisements related to pregnancy which led to her parents finding out about the pregnancy. It’s that type of stalking by corporations that affect us on a more daily basis, as corporations track what you do in stores and constantly “listen” to your conversations online.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.businessinsider.com/the-incredible-story-of-how-target-exposed-a-teen-girls-pregnancy-2012-2
On a side note, the possibility of abuse of the technology that governments use is definitely something to consider. If technology like that is out there that can hack into our webcams, microphones and phones without us knowing, we should consider the consequence if it falls in the wrong hands. What if the people governments are trying to spy on, like potential terrorists, find a way to use similar softwares to spy back on government officials and gain information that help them plan better attacks. The softwares that deem to keep us safe, could actually become the software that puts us in danger.
I believe that this issue of surveillance is a double-edged sword. On one hand, I agree that it seems there is too much surveillance happening within our modern society today. It seems as though all of our privacy has been limited, which definitely creates a sense of unease. LiveLeak is a popular website, where you can watch almost anything. Some of the videos are filmed on phones and posted, but there are also many videos that enable you and I the ability to watch violent crimes, murders, accidents and other awful events. For example, if you can recall the shooting that happened at Parliament Hill last year, there was a video I was able to watch on LiveLeak of the surveillance footage from that day. It’s a scary thought that someone was able to hack into the surveillance camera and post this footage online for everyone to see. Here’s the link to the footage:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.liveleak.com/view?i=94f_1414110699
On the other hand, since technology is becoming more and more prominent within our lives, I can see how an increase in monitoring is required. At the same time that we would hope the surveillance is being performed by the government only, it is a very scary thought to know that regular, and potentially dangerous citizens have this know-how as well, and may be able to hack into our computers, phone conversations, etc. as we see with LiveLeak.
After I watched the TedTalk you posted, I watched another one of Soghoian’s videos, which explained how it’s actually not as easy as some may think to wire tap into some technologies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni4FV5zL6lM). He explained that iMessage is difficult even for Apple itself to hack in order to ready messages. The same goes for FaceTime, as well as other platform programs such as WhatsApp. It seems as though many companies are now adding extra encryption into their software, so that hacking isn’t as easy, however this makes it more difficult for the government to access as well. It also doesn’t appear that it’s so difficult for some, considering the number of surveillance videos on LiveLeak. Do you think that this could become potentially dangerous if encryption becomes so hard to break that even the government has limited surveillance capabilities or do you think stronger encryptions are more safe so that people who hack as a hobby aren’t able to access footage that we see on LiveLeak?
It seems like most of the comments above agree that some form of varying degrees of government intervention is required. I too must agree with them.
ReplyDeleteWhile first reading through this post, I kept thinking about Keynesian economic theory which is a theory about government intervention in the economy (you can read more here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/keynesianeconomics.asp)
Although the economic differs from the public sphere, I believe certain parallels can be drawn. For example, Keynesian economics were a response to The Great Depression, and has evolved to fit contemporary markets and needs.As Claire mentioned, post 9/11 their was a dramatic increase in surveillance. This too can be seen as preventative measure. I believe the issue is much more complex than what I have stated thus far and I am frightened to dive further so I will leave it here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe government has to maintain a fine line between protecting citizens from the threat of terrorism and not infringing on their rights. On one hand, government surveillance can be thought of as an invasion of personal privacy, which many people believe is a right. On the other hand, I appreciate the high levels of surveillance in today’s society, because I know that it has prevented numerous terrorist attacks, and that in itself is enough for me to accept surveillance as becoming a way of life. It appears that a large number of people are willing to give up some of their freedoms in order to live in a safer world. Besides, a good argument would be, would you rather have the government monitoring your phone calls and emails, or have a devastating attack happen that could have been prevented?
ReplyDelete