Highbrow Magazine - spying https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/spying en A Photographer Captures Images of Italian Life Through Windows https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/10628-photographer-captures-images-italian-life-through-windows <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/photography-art" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Photography &amp; Art</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Thu, 05/07/2020 - 21:06</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/1italianview.jpg?itok=WtUdYmQ6"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/1italianview.jpg?itok=WtUdYmQ6" width="360" height="480" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p> </p> <p>Gail Albert Halaban’s new series <em>Italian Views</em> — with an accompanying monograph from Aperture (2019) — extends the photographer’s ongoing<em> </em>project to the cities of Venice, Rome, Naples, Palermo, Florence, Lucca, and Milan, collaborating with pairs of neighbors in these cities to create visual short stories that the viewer is invited to write for him/herself.</p> <p>Halaban, who lives and works in New York, began photographing at the age of 6, when she made a camera for her first-grade science fair. Her art explores the chasm between public and private life.</p> <p>Halaban’s series<em> </em>is a collection of images taken through and into windows in New York City, a project that earned her international recognition in 2012 and which she continued in 2014 with <em>Vís a Vís Paris’<strong> </strong></em>haunting exploration of that city’s windows, and now with <em>Italian Views</em>.</p> <p>In these Hitchcockian tableaus, she acknowledges unspoken voyeurism and exhibitionism, and   pushes us to confront the hope, isolation, and other emotions that lie behind the gaze.</p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/2italianview.jpg" style="height:400px; width:600px" /></p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/3italianview.jpg" style="height:600px; width:450px" /></p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/4italianview.jpg" style="height:450px; width:600px" /></p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/5italianview.jpg" style="height:400px; width:600px" /></p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/6italianview.jpg" style="height:450px; width:600px" /></p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>For more information, visit </em></strong><a href="https://www.jacksonfineart.com/" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline"><strong><em>Jackson Fine Art.</em></strong></a><strong><em>     </em></strong><strong><em>       </em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Jackson Fine Art has a near 30-year history in supporting fine art photography artists and collectors.  The gallery cultivates and provides both emerging and established collectors with access to fine art photography of the 20th and 21st century, across both traditional and innovative photo-based mediums.</em></strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Highbrow Magazine</strong></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/gail-albert-halaban" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Gail albert halaban</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/my-window" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">my window</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/photos-italy" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">photos of italy</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/jackson-fine-art" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">jackson fine art</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/photography" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">photography</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/new-photo-exhibits" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">new photo exhibits</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/looking-through-window" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">looking through window</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/spying" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">spying</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/voyeurism" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">voyeurism</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">The Editors</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">All photos courtesy of Gail Albert Halaban -- Jackson Fine Art</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Fri, 08 May 2020 01:06:24 +0000 tara 9530 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/10628-photographer-captures-images-italian-life-through-windows#comments Hold the Ethics: Surveillance, Data Mining and the Destruction of Personal Privacy https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/2558-hold-ethics-surveillance-data-mining-and-destruction-personal-privacy <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Fri, 06/28/2013 - 09:26</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediuminvasionofprivacy_0.jpg?itok=hngUAfCA"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediuminvasionofprivacy_0.jpg?itok=hngUAfCA" width="480" height="320" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p> <em>"Why, tell me, why?</em></p> <p> <em>I wanna reach you with this binary mind</em></p> <p> <em>Cause if I do I'm sure that we'll be complete"</em> -Ra Ra Riot</p> <p>  </p> <p> A mid-2000 Klondike bar <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U07CcrzgW4">campaign</a> poses this question: "What would you do for a Klondike bar?" The answers run a predictably banal gamut: a fatuous act of self-imposed embarrassment, a singular performance of suspended inhibitions. The commercial follows this template: I'll offer a glimpse of my private self (or, temporarily deactivate my defense mechanisms and self-consciousness) for a Klondike bar, but I'm unwilling to concede anything more penetrating (i.e. exploitation of my failing relationship, my arachnophobia, my mounting debts) for public display.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Each actor willingly offers a tiny slice of their private consciousness for the ice cream treat, relinquishing very little for very little. Today, the Klondike exchange represents a nominal sacrifice. The exchange of very little for very little has bloated to colossal and disturbingly so-real-it's-surreal proportions. We no longer sacrifice a superfluous glimpse into our personal lives for a measly Klondike, we offer everything and all for the newest and trendiest anything, and sometimes without knowledge of the transaction. The rupture between our personal and public self, hemorrhages toward complete elimination of personal privacy. If the commodification of our private lives (or, private data) is the currency for today's transactions, are we receiving appropriate compensation for the keys to our diary?</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Futurism --&gt; Transhumanism</strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> As technological fervor took root in Western culture during the late 19th/early 20th centuries, the future of the human population underwent a physical and philosophical morph. Industries adapted to welcome the means of mechanized production, commodity output accelerated, and labor became displaced by the quicker, cheaper assembly line. Typical to periods of industrialization, the populace lacked the terminology to comprehend what Vaclav Smil referred to as "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Industrial_Revolution">The Age of Synergy</a>" (or, as Hollywood might say: “When Science Met Production!”). As the population furtively shifted to accommodate internal combustion engines and radios, a cultural movement formed in Italy, dubbed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism">Futurism</a> by its progeny.</p> <p>  </p> <p> In homage to the new era, Futurists walked "in step with the progress of the machine, of aircraft, of industry, of trade, of the sciences, of electricity." (<a href="http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/T4PM/futurist-manifesto.html"><em>The Futurist Manifesto, Filippo Marinetti)</em></a><em>. </em>Futurism embraced the speed and violence of mechanical energy, and the youth and vitality it proffers (unsurprisingly, many futurists rallied around fascism). As the Futurists' devotion to industrialization adjoined and eventually meshed with the prevailing Western culture, human life became inextricably linked with technology.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Futurism re-entered the cultural canon thanks largely to the work of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Toffler">Alvin Toffler</a>. Toffler observed the dawning of the super-industrial society and unceremoniously hitched the new epoch of industrialization with overstimulation in his seminal piece, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shock"><em>Future Shock</em></a>. Industrialization, to Toffler, signified "too much change in too short a period of time." This phenomenon continues to resonate with humanity; apps, updates and innovations define our day-to-day. The consequence of too much change in too short a period of time? Information overload, said Toffler. Information overload registers particularly familiar in the 21st century, where every day is a world's expo.</p> <p>  </p> <p> As Futurism waned from <em>avant garde</em> to normality and subsequently, irrelevance, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism">transhumanism</a> gained traction.</p> <p>  </p> <p> A quick summary on transhumanism for the unacquainted:</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Nietzsche’s</strong><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch">Übermensch</a> plays a significant role in transhumanism, as does <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane">J.B.S. Haldane</a>, geneticist and author of the monograph: <em>Daedalus</em> or <em>Science and Future</em> in which Haldane posited that new inventions will be considered "blasphemous" and "perverse." Transhumanism transcends salivating over unsexy cars or trains like futurists; it's artificial intelligence that makes their toes curl like venetian blinds.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Contemporary transhumanists you may recognize:</p> <p>  </p> <p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil">Raymond Kurzweil</a> (probably the most well-known transhumanist, more on him later), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Moravec">Hans Moravec</a> (robot philosopher - well,philosopher of the evolution of robots, not an actual robot). Anyone affiliated with the NGO. World Transhumanist Association, now known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanity%2B">Humanity</a>+. Humanity+'s definition of transhumanism: The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies. Humanity+ produces a transhumanist magazine, H+.</p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/2mediuminvasionofprivacy_1.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 829px;" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong><em>Futurism &lt;--&gt; Transhumanism</em></strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> In this 21st century, the term futurist/m receives postmodernism's highest honor of hackneyed trendiness, where the once emergent aesthetic is scrubbed clean of its origins and tidied up for creatives in black V-necks to throw on their Linkedin resumes. Futurism and Transhumanism co-exist in the modern epoch, but Transhumanism entertains serious academic luridness, while futurism exists chiefly as a neo-corporate buzz word. Kurzweil, one of the more renowned academics associated with Transhumanism (he's the director of engineering at Google, a prolific inventor and a regular futurist/transhumanist mouthpiece), is rabidly enthusiastic (despite his monotone delivery) about the evolutionary transition into transhuman culture, and acts as one of the most clamorous harbingers of the tipping point into super intelligence. This watershed shift in the not-so-distant future is known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity">singularity</a>.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Enter Singularity or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Cyborg</strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> When singularity will tip the scales and change everything remains completely unpredictable, despite what your technophile roommate preaches as he jailbreaks your iPhone. Some say 40 years from now, others say 30, and the more authoritative offer a range between five and 100. Paul Allen speculates singularity won't occur within this century (this seems important, somehow). When singularity will take place is indeterminable, but trust your local technophile, it will occur.</p> <p>  </p> <p> What is singularity? Technological singularity is the moment human technology creates a super intelligence, representing a tipping point for human intelligence to make way for artificial intelligence. For some, this marks the beginning of the book of Revelations, for others, the dawning of a new species and the humankind's crowning achievement. </p> <p>  </p> <p> Return to Haldane's <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0CDEQFjAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.transhumanism.org%2Ftv%2FHaldane.htm&amp;ei=TJOjUfmxIcSLiAKLyIGwAQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNGPoSZbZ19heQFBrIfv3xAQ-N_WRw&amp;sig2=-BFJLzyWPB_A6bW7jHUaBA&amp;bvm=bv.47008514,d.cGE">quote</a> (full length version): "The chemical or physical inventor is always a Prometheus. There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god. But if every physical and chemical invention is a blasphemy, every biological invention is a perversion." Like the hindsight condemnation of a great invention as blasphemous or perverse, there's a tendency to deny and repress the coming of imminent creation, by the creator or the prescient. In response to the imminent singularity, a staggering amount of the population will (to borrow a loathsome phrase) call shenanigans and resume reading <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/blue-like-jazz-film-christian-cheesy_n_1371203.html"><em>Blue Like Jazz</em></a>, but the evidence offered in favor of singularity is quite staggering.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Raymond Kurzweil, who has already begun the countdown to singularity with red X's on his Google calendar, famously extrapolates to the exact moment of singularity through an adaptation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law">Moore's law</a>, or the Law of Accelerating Returns, which demonstrates an exponential rise of technological progress. From <a href="http://amiquote.tumblr.com/post/21801485946/we-wont-experience-100-years-of-progress-in">the man</a> himself: "We won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century—it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate). The 'returns,' such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There’s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity." Kurzweil estimates 2045 as the year of Singularity, and according to <em>his</em> calculations, we're right on track.</p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/2mediumgwbush%20%28BeverlyandPack%20Flickr%29.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 409px;" /></p> <p> As humanity endeavors ever closer to "The Singularity," a negative correlation emerges. Each invention, each progress of technology indirectly influences a loss of the collective private consciousness.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Shut Up and Take My Privacy!</strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> <em>How humanity lost the private space isn't a tale of struggle or resistance. We gave it willingly, blithely and with no thought to consequence.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> During the nascent George W. Bush era, Vice President Cheney <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney">admitted</a> to the public that American military intelligence will employ "dark side" methods (a.k.a. illegal and despicable methods of torture) to battle terrorism. Which begs the question, why admit to torture now? If Cheney felt comfortable advocating torture (which the Bush administration played ignorant to for at least five years afterward), what other inhumane perpetrations are left unsaid? To quote Slavoj Žižek: "Here we enter the domain of secret operations, of what power does without ever admitting it."</p> <p>  </p> <p> A few years prior (1999), Sun Microsystems then-CEO Scott McNealy infamously <a href="http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538">stated</a>: "You have zero privacy. Get over it." Like Cheney's call for America to back torture, McNealy calls for Internet users to halt the war for Internet anonymity. McNealy's candor is simultaneously refreshing and threatening, but his dismissive attitude toward personal privacy is suspect. Was McNealy attempting to manipulate the public into lowering their defenses against corporate and government invasiveness, or is privacy actually nonexistent? Was it a proclamation or a certainty?</p> <p>  </p> <p> "<em>Privacy, after all, encompasses much more than just control over a data trail, or even a set of data. It encompasses ideas of bodily and social autonomy, of self-determination, and of the ability to create zones of intimacy and inclusion that define and shape our relationships with each other. Control over personal information is a key aspect of some of these ideas of privacy, and is alien to none of them</em>." -<a href="https://twitter.com/mfroomkin">Michael Froomkin</a></p> <p>  </p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/mediumAOL%20%28Wiki%29.jpg" style="width: 512px; height: 449px;" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> Digital privacy found itself in corporate crosshairs since the web's inception. In 1994, the <em>Washington Post</em> outed America Online for selling subscribers' (around 1 million at the time) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_service">personal information</a> to direct marketers without consent. Before and after America Online's gaffe, users suffered invasive incursions into their personal privacy. Beholden to avarice, the data economy was too profitable to question the ethics of privacy destruction. And so, the benefactors of dataveillance set about strip-mining Internet user privacy <em>par tous les moyens nécessaires</em>. Subsequently, user data is stored and sold to the highest bidder, be it corporation or government. Users received nothing in compensation.</p> <p>  </p> <p> "Ah!" McNealy and his contemporaries cry, "That's where you're wrong. Users have gained much in exchange for their privacy, they have the Internet. They have Facebook and Skype; open source software and the ability to quick-design infographics and minimalist renditions of kitsch Hollywood films. The user is in power!"</p> <p>  </p> <p> At what cost? What is our privacy worth?</p> <p>  </p> <p> The America Online scandal is now status quo. Every digital service and platform subsides off user data, and marketing agencies encourage data mining to drive e-consumption. For our part, we depend on these companies to sate our desire to connect and create. And so, we turn over our personal data to the faceless digi-corporations in exchange for programs that extract pertinent personal info, commoditize it and sell it back to us with some varnish and packaging from Amazon or eBay.The result? This is us losing ourselves.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Not-So-Anonymous</strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> As 9/11 jingoism ebbed and the Bush administration initiated the maligned war on terror, the <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Patriot%20Act">Patriot Act</a> took the future of citizens and their personal privacy and placed it at the mercy of a particularly invasive government. The act withstood excoriation from civil rights activists and leftist media for the past 11-plus years, and in spite of its spurious title and First and Fourth Amendment infringements, the Act metastasized into a reliable trump card for government security branches (specifically the NSA and Dept. of Homeland Security) to flash after direct attacks on American privacy.</p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/3mediumprivacy%20%28Tom%20Murphy%20Wiki%29.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 309px;" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> The ensuing invasions on personal privacy in the name of the Act are well-catalogued (<a href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/tara/My%20Documents/Downloads/Downloads/NSLs">NSLs</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order">gag orders</a>, circumventing the Fourth Amendment through <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneak_and_peek_warrant">sneak and peeks</a>), and the transgressions are only accumulating as hyper-surveillance normalizes: the Dept. of Homeland security's <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=2&amp;ved=0CDgQFjAB&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dhs.gov%2Fhow-do-i%2Flearn-about-biometric-identification-us-visit&amp;ei=y5ajUeqSB-OBiwKH04HoDA&amp;usg=AFQjCNG6PeObzrS4x_bB4MbUyoRr6sbIBg&amp;sig2=pBNymTilZHCTafQryyJ6QA&amp;bvm=bv.47008514,d.cGE">biometric database</a>, the National Security Agency's multibillion-dollar <a href="http://www.barchanfoundation.com/index.php?option=com_project&amp;view=project&amp;project_id=496">Fort Williams data center</a> and so on. Balance, the founding principle of America's representative republic and safeguard against totalitarianism, is slipping, shifting impassively in favor of the government and their cronies. While the argument for government transparency wages on, our government (thanks to the Act's room for maneuvering among other succeeding clauses) is methodically amassing the facilities and power to render the populace completely transparent. And, conversely, through layers of bureaucracy and private contracts, our government becomes more opaque.</p> <p>  </p> <p> If, like Scott McNealy assures us, privacy is a figment of the past, how is it that our government is so inscrutable?</p> <p>  </p> <p> Criticism against the government intrusions into our personal spheres foments in the digital margins on blogs/news <a href="http://www.thedailysheeple.com/invasion-of-privacy-just-because-government-can-doesnt-mean-they-should_032013">outlets</a> or <a href="http://www.infowars.com/">Revelations-obsessed podcasts</a>. The mainstream response remains lethargic, reacting/responding to the intrusions with a "<a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/">nothing-to-hide</a>" mentality of indifference. This mentality pervades in the public, yet the significance of the statement is in its contradiction. If you truly have nothing to hide, why make the claim?</p> <p>  </p> <p> When public opinion is indifferent to personal invasion, we find ourselves on loose footing. "I have nothing to hide" betrays much more than our desire for secrecy - it's a disempowering concession. By saying, "I have nothing to hide" you condone a culture of investigating the innocent (Go ahead and search me, I have nothing to hide!). Search and seizure laws exist to promote the culture of innocent until proven guilty (You can't search me, I still remain innocent!), and the growing trope of "I have nothing to hide" deconstructs our assumed innocence into the new era of surveillance: all are guilty.</p> <p>  </p> <p> From <em>Personal Privacy in an Information Society: The Report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission, </em>as transmitted to Jimmy Carter in 1977:</p> <p>            </p> <p> <em>The balance to be struck is an old one; it reflects the tension between individual liberty and social order. The sovereign needs information to maintain order; the individual needs to be able to protect his independence and autonomy should the sovereign overreach. The peculiarly American notions of legally limited government and the protections in the Bill of Rights provide broad theoretical standards for reaching a workable balance. But the world has a way of disrupting the particular balance struck in past generations; the theory may remain unaltered but circumstances change, requiring a reworking of the mechanisms which maintained the balance in the past.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/mediumjimmycarter%20%28WhiteHouseDOTGov%20Wiki%29.jpg" style="width: 406px; height: 600px;" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> The emerging information technology requires a serious "reworking of the mechanisms which maintained the balance," and the government and corporations are speaking for the individual, causing the balance to slip into the precarious realm of "<a href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/tara/My%20Documents/Downloads/Downloads/which,%20in%20John%20Adams'%20mind,%20provided%20the%20spark%20that%20ignited%20revolution">unwarranted intrusions by government [and corporations] which, in John Adams' mind, provided the spark that ignited revolution</a>."</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Patriot Acts and Social Widgets</strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> After the Boston bombings, surveys asked if Americans are willing to give up more of their civil liberties to ensure safety. The answer? "<a href="http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/01/poll-americans-more-concerned-about-civil-liberties-in-wake-of-boston-bombing/">No</a>."</p> <p>  </p> <p> American citizens operate largely in hindsight. We lampoon the Obama Administration's torture practices after offering our blessing to the Bush administration to use "dark side" measures. Of course, there were no weapons of mass destruction. Of course, the U.S. profits from occupying, destroying, and rebuilding countries. Such certainties surface long after the original deception, when the populace musters the courage to stand as one and declare "No!" when the damage is already done. As counter-terrorism measures are bolstered by the Boston Marathon deaths and injuries, the aggressive security measures that followed the attacks on September 11 are now <em>non grata</em>. In line with our torture and war-profiteering dissent, our cries against the destruction of civil liberties, especially in the form of dataveillance, are too late.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Like a nude photo, user data is impossible to retrieve from the digital realm. Every relinquished personal detail becomes a permanent data gene stored in the ether. Companies such as America Online and Google were quick to recognize the value of user data and cultivated applications intended to encourage users to hemorrhage their personal information. America Online quantified the data and sold it to direct marketing companies. Google used the data internally, personalizing their ad-space and making a killing off of their users’ personal inclinations. Other companies adopted similar models, and today, the data economy features <a href="http://readwrite.com/2012/04/26/here-are-20-companies-who-sell-your-data-how-to-stop-them">thousands of companies</a> offering digital consumer profiles for corporations or providing assessment of civilians for the government. To trade and compile user data more efficiently and fruitfully, the government-corporate barriers were pushed aside, allowing corporations and the feds to analyze Internet users with dual scrutinies. A user could feasibly purchase a mass-produced Quran one day, and be placed on the government's No-Fly list the following morning.</p> <p>  </p> <p> With the accumulation of consumer/civilian data in capitalist vogue, most new technologies are either devised with the data economy in mind (i.e., <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system">customer relationship management software</a>) or manipulated to feed the economy's unslakable thirst for analyzable data (reddit, instagram). Technological innovations, no matter how ostensibly open for public use, will always be subject to this process.</p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/amazon%20%28DSearls%20Flcikr%29.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 398px;" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> It is important to note that those dealing in the buying and selling of data work through corporate or government mediums. The technology that propels us toward Singularity operates in the same realm. Even if Singularity occurs in some anonymous garage in the armpit of Kentucky, the achievement will file through corporate and government channels. Each institution will alter the intelligences to their specifications and only then will the new technologies be made available to the consumer. For corporations, surveillance delivers the consumer genotype, including buying habits and the products each consumer is apt to purchase. Consequently, corporations now enjoy unprecedented <a href="http://beloved-brands.com/tag/customer-intimacy/">brand-consumer intimacy</a>. <em>Federales</em> use surveillance to "keep the peace." Of course, peacekeeping is simultaneously a <a href="http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/91804">mediating and nefarious process</a>, where maintaining public routine is a function of political agenda. And the dominant agenda, keeping the throne, bears little oversight.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Each power structure is immeasurably dependent on public disinterest in anonymity and this common interest has encouraged campaigns in favor of privacy destruction on both sides. The government's campaign acquired considerable territory during the post-9/11 security measures extravaganza, where America happily forked over personal rights to eliminate the faceless other in the war on terrorism. Corporate campaigns gained momentum as technology evolved and dazzled, trading slices of user privacy for the newest design program or social widget.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>And Amazon Shaped Users in Its Own Image</strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> The transformative power of technology is astounding. E-commerce, one of the principle beneficiaries of advancements in technology, gains considerable potency as the capacity to market and sell goods on the Web develops on the cutting edge. To better sell their wares, digital businesses use data-based technologies to strip and rebuild every consumer into a more receptive, more programmable participant. As a result of the reprogramming, when an online shopper makes their umpteenth Amazon purchase, they're already shopping more fluidly then when they began. The process of personalization, in the form of search personalization or personalized consumer profiles, catalyzes the transformation from casual consumer to guided buyer.</p> <p>  </p> <p> How this goes down (example: Amazon): Every search inquiry, purchase and review provides Amazon with valuable data. The data (when analyzed) spits out products statistically proven to be of interest to specific users. Although some occasional tweaks will transpire now and again, Amazon uses the data to sculpt a working digital profile of each consumer and caters to this projection. Users can either accept the proposed digital Projection or shop in the margins of this e-commerce behemoth.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The Internet, in this sense, has changed drastically. Now, by using the Internet, a user agrees to an unwritten contract requiring the person to betray sensitive personal information. Like the public sphere, the digital sphere went the way of the corporation, where our enjoyment of the Internet depends largely on the whim of monopolies and corporate influence. This isn't the age of the empowered consumer; it's the age of the well-trained buyer, receptive and conditioned. In this vein, the Projection never changes. An individual's cast is taken and remains the same ad infinitum. And Amazon shaped its users in its own image.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>A Trap of Our Own Design</strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> As more desirable products crowd the digital sphere, personal data proves difficult to quantify. Granted, some users aren't interested in the retention of privacy (the "I have nothing to hide" purview). For those unaware of privacy loss or even for the moderately concerned, the digital commodity always shines brighter than the value of personal privacy. However, determining value of an ostensibly complimentary service, such as social media, is incredibly difficult. This dilemma has users a bit psychologically scrambled. They're given a <em>free</em> service, but they suspect (correctly) that <em>free</em> is a misleading descriptor (it's the same doubt associated with a free cookie from a younger or older sibling where the immediate response is suspicion: "What's in it?"). Conversely, there's no pricing sheet for our personal data and if there is, it's unavailable to the public.</p> <p>  </p> <p> And so we use the <em>free</em> service, relinquishing slices of our data (or large swaths, depending on the service in question) and suppress our doubts. Michael Froomkin refers to this phenomenon as the <a href="http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/privacy-deathof.htm">privacy myopia</a>: "Consumers suffer from privacy myopia: They will sell their data too often and too cheaply. Consumer privacy myopia suggests that even Americans who place a high value on information privacy will sell their privacy bit by bit for frequent-flyer miles." In contrast, if companies attempt to take away privacy in a one-hand-swipe (Instagram, SOPA, CISPA, Facebook), ardent Web users go bonkers. Why?</p> <p>  </p> <p> We're more comfortable dismantling our private sphere bit by bit than letting corporations throw wrecking balls into our fortress of solitude. Psychologically, this makes sense. It's how relationships work — we relinquish bits and pieces and throw down our baggage only when we feel safe to do so. But a relationship with a digital program, an app, or an e-device? Demonstrating amor for a digital object is Hollywood's favorite form of foolishness, yet we can't help but defy ourselves in spite of our own logic to the contrary. We know using an automaton as a confidant represents a personal flaw (perhaps our inability to confide in ourselves?), but we fear self-judgment or peer judgment. And automatons don't judge. Ultimately, we realize that indulging in ill-advised technophilia is much more satisfying then admitting to our own need for physical comfort.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Questioning the motives for our digital affair won't shed any light on the phenomenon of privacy destruction. There are too many variables at play (atomization as a result of technology, the fickle nature of human relationships, social psychoses, and so on). What we can (and should) do is analyze how we are courting the machines that may one day forge with our own intelligence.</p> <p>  </p> <p> When a potential buyer uses Kayak, or one of many travel aggregator sites (we'll stick with Kayak as an example), the platform stores a significant amount of information about the user for later sale and personalized ads. Additionally, Kayak stores a cookie on their computer that indicates when the user was on the site and what flight they searched for. If a user views flights to Oaxaca and checks prices the following day, the price inevitably rises (to create the perception of less supply/more demand). The value of the tickets remains the same, but the multiple views of the ticket indicates added value. Unintentionally, the user gouges their own prices.</p> <p>  </p> <p> This model succeeds on two planes. The user purchases the ticket as a result of the added value (out of fear that prices will only rise higher) or, aware of the process, the user shops impulsively, opting to avoid rising ticket prices over the benefits of looking around and comparing prices (you can circumvent the ticket-cost algorithm by clearing your cookies regularly). Behind this interface is the heart of Kayak's data model. Kayak's <a href="http://www.kayak.com/privacy">privacy policy</a> on why they use cookies: "To serve you with advertising content in which we think you will be interested. As part of this customization, we may observe your behaviors on this website or on other websites. We may also get information about your browsing history from our trusted business partners." Is this not exploitative? Not only is Kayak manipulating ticket prices, they're using your data, selling your data and buying data from "trusted business partners." Is the buyer not to be trusted? Can we not decide what we want for ourselves?</p> <p>  </p> <p> We can, but prevailing sentiment concedes to Web <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalization">personalization</a> making our decisions for us. By returning to kKyak's privacy policy, specifically this clause (italics added): "To serve you with advertising content in which <em>we</em> think you will be interested," a snapshot of the current consumer atmosphere emerges where personalization reigns as the in-marketing tool. "We think you will be interested" evokes the transformational process that exposes our indecisiveness for exploitation. This transformation removes the user, and replaces our multitudes with a simplified digital projection. As our projection or data is passed around, marketers personalize us into a confined space; presenting the user with the choice to conform and receive all the Internet has to offer or refuse and miss out on the trappings of the Web. It's a precarious wedge with extensive implications for the destruction of personal privacy.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Neil Gaiman's <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sandman_%28Vertigo%29">Sandman</a></em> contains this excellent quote: "Sometimes I suspect that we build our traps ourselves, then we back into them, pretending amazement all the while." It summarizes hindsight culture quite well, but it also speaks to humanity's flirtation with Singularity. The drive to destroy the private sphere of consciousness inextricably links Moore's law and Singularity with advances in surveillance, data mining and the systematic destruction of personal privacy. Singularity and privacy will not coexist, although the technology that propels us toward the Singularity needs privacy and its destruction to study human intelligence more acutely. As private consciousness becomes more available for examination and translation, Singularity becomes more realistic. Thus, the Singularity will occur, but only when personal privacy is compiled, analyzed and ultimately extinguished. The implications of this tradeoff represent an enormous paradigm shift in humanity, but those (engineers, computer scientists, and so on) impelling us toward the Singularity seem to shirk any moral universe. We'll revel in amazement post-Singularity that we hadn't employed moral scrutiny beforehand. But perhaps we wanted to omit scrutiny all along. I'll take Singularity for the future please, and hold the ethics.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p> <em>Tyler Huggins is a contributing writer at </em>Highbrow Magazine.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <em><strong>Photos: Wikipedia Commons; Beverly and Pack (Flickr); DSearls (Flickr); Tom Murphy (Flickr).</strong></em></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/privacy" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">privacy</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/singularity" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">singularity</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/invasion-privacy" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">invasion of privacy</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/government-surveillance" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">government surveillance</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/aol" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">AOL</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/amazon" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">amazon</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/kayak" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">kayak</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/america-online" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">america online</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/ethics" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">ethics</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/government-spying" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">government spying</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/spying" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">spying</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/data-mining" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">data mining</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Tyler Huggins</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Wikipedia Commons</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:26:57 +0000 tara 3085 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/2558-hold-ethics-surveillance-data-mining-and-destruction-personal-privacy#comments From COINTELPRO to PRISM: The Long History of Government Surveillance https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/2543-cointelpro-prism-long-history-government-surveillance <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 09:54</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/1surveillance.jpg?itok=EThqWZNq"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/1surveillance.jpg?itok=EThqWZNq" width="480" height="268" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p> From <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2013/06/from-cointelpro-to-prism-spying-on-comm-of-color.php">New America Media</a>:</p> <p>  </p> <p> WASHINGTON D.C. – Revelations of a massive cyber-surveillance program targeting American citizens holds particularly chilling consequences for immigrants and communities of color. Given the history of such programs, going back to the pre-digital age, these groups have reason to fear.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Who is mined, who is profiled, and who suffers at the hands of an extensive regime of corporate and government surveillance raises issues of social and racial justice.</p> <p>  </p> <p> PRISM, the National Security Agency’s clandestine electronic surveillance program, builds on a history of similar efforts whose impacts have affected racial and ethnic minorities in disproportionate ways. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Counter Intelligence Program (“COINTELPRO”), established in 1956, represents one of the forbearers of PRISM. Created at a time when political decision makers worked to promote the idea of national security in the public consciousness, the program targeted first Communist sympathizers and later domestic dissenters under a broad remit which allowed COINTELPRO to monitor and interrogate groups that threatened social order at the time.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Though COINTELPRO targeted whites and nonwhites, journalists and researchers have shown that some of the program’s most controversial—and life-threatening—targeting focused on African Americans, or what the FBI categorized as “Black Nationalist Groups.” The lion’s share of COINTELPRO targeting fell upon the Black Panther Party. The agency also targeted mainstream civil rights groups, like the NAACP, Congress for Racial Equality, and Southern Christian Leadership Conference, as well as mainstream civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. Other minority groups, including those representing Arab Americans, Filipino Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans, also found themselves under COINTELPRO’s watch.</p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/mediumfbi%20%28fbi%20Wiki%29.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 402px;" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> Though COINTELPRO was eventually dismantled and held up as an example of overbroad, abusive exercise of government surveillance, subsequent administrations have expanded government surveillance programs, including most recently with the aid and abetment of digital technologies. Former Attorney General Ashcroft, for example, amended guidelines to permit the FBI to purchase data profiles from commercial data mining companies (e.g., Axciom) without cause for suspicion. Ashcroft’s guidelines also permitted the FBI to store such information for an indefinite amount of time.</p> <p>  </p> <p> For communities of color, this expansive, digitally enabled form of surveillance has had particularly dire consequences. For example, the availability of big data has facilitated government efforts to map and monitor Arab American populations. As reported in <em>Wired</em> Magazine, the FBI’s analysis was extensive: it included and tracked ordinary Arab Americans, suggesting that the FBI suspected and classified all Arab Americans as potential terrorists. Moreover, as the ACLU (which was responsible for surfacing FBI mapping and monitoring documents) has argued, the commercial data purchased by the FBI and other agencies is riddled with errors, which once stored indefinitely become truth. Using a set of indicators that correlate with terrorist activities, analysts compute the likelihood that a person represents a threat to national security. That is, flawed data become part of routine analysis and reanalysis that wrongly targets individuals.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Despite the Obama Administration’s attempts to define PRISM’s consequences narrowly, it is fair to speculate that the burden will fall unfairly on communities of color. Like domestic surveillance under Ashcroft, PRISM collects electronic communications and also stores information indefinitely, a process which again risks wrongly classifying and targeting communities of color.</p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/mediumblackpanthers%20%28SFPublicLibrary%29_1.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 392px;" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> In fact, little is known about the parameters used to define algorithms that search PRISM data or a combination of PRISM and other commercial data. As privacy advocates have argued, characteristics that define everyday behavior of some ethnic and racial minorities –the use of cash versus credit, purchase of a pre-paid cellphone, or mobility (e.g., moving residence frequently) — may also be used as parameters to identify likely terrorist activity. Until there is greater transparency in the nature of data analysis, including the possibility to examine and assess the accuracy of the analysis of telecommunications records, email communications, and other commercial data, ethnic and racial minorities will remain at risk of discriminatory data profiling.</p> <p>  </p> <p> For now, there are three potential avenues for addressing the unique problems that government surveillance poses to communities of color. First, community members can speak up and express their concern about the overbroad nature of government surveillance and demand that decision makers scrutinize its particular effects. That means not only contacting members of Congress and urging them to reform laws like the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act and Patriot Act, but also asking them to lead a broader national conversation on surveillance, online privacy, and justice. Questions of surveillance go beyond national security; they connect to the ability of groups to define themselves as opposed to being defined by flawed algorithms, to partake in everyday transactions and routines without recrimination, and to express themselves without fear of being erroneously categorized and linked to terrorist activity.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Aside from pressuring Congress, communities of color can also explore using technology to protect themselves against undue surveillance. This entails using search engine tools like DuckDuckGo, which keep online searches anonymous, or privacy protecting plug-ins like Ghostery that prevent corporate entities from collecting and storing data about an individual surfing the Web. Increasingly, these tools are becoming more user-friendly, making it easier for the ordinary individual — as opposed to a person with a programming background — to avoid being tracked and targeted.</p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/mediummartinlutherking%20%28Nobel%20Foundation%20Wiki%29.jpg" style="width: 385px; height: 545px;" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> Lastly, communities of color can connect with organizations that advocate on their behalf to begin thinking holistically about privacy and surveillance in a digital age. A holistic approach means thinking about when, how, and why to share information about oneself and one’s community. With these small steps, we can begin to reclaim our own digital reputations rather than leaving them to corporate and government data analysts.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p> <em>Seeta Peña Gangadharan is a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute (OTI). Her research focuses on the nature of digital inclusion, including inclusion in potentially harmful aspects of Internet adoption due to data mining, data profiling, and other facets of online surveillance and privacy.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong><em>Photos: New America Media; Wikipedia Commons; SF Public LIbrary.</em></strong></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/cointelpro" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">cointelpro</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/prism" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">PRISM</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/fbi" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">FBI</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/cia" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">cia</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/government-surveillance" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">government surveillance</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/spying" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">spying</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/edward-snowden" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">edward snowden</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/privacy" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">privacy</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/individual-privacy" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">individual privacy</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/black-panthers" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Black Panthers</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/martin-luther-king-jr" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">martin luther king jr</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/naacp" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">NAACP</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/data-mining" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">data mining</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/data-profiling" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">data profiling</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Seeta Pena Gangadharan</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">New America Media</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:54:34 +0000 tara 3055 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/2543-cointelpro-prism-long-history-government-surveillance#comments Uproar Over Alleged Chinese Internet Attacks Has Cybersecurity Community on Alert https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/2213-uproar-over-alleged-chinese-internet-attacks-has-cybersecurity-community-alert <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Wed, 02/27/2013 - 12:39</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumcyberattacks.jpg?itok=TnJrQ7bo"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumcyberattacks.jpg?itok=TnJrQ7bo" width="480" height="268" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> From <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2013/02/china-hackathon-harmful-to-american-national-interest.php">New America Media</a>:</p> <p>  </p> <p> Despite Bloomberg <em>Businessweek's</em> accusation that the Chinese army is spying on Americans, the report that led to the charges has serious flaws. These raise troubling questions about a repetition of  the "China spy syndrome."</p> <p>  </p> <p> Beginning with <em>The New York Times</em> January 30 disclosure of Chinese hacking, every publication of note or of little note has since run one or more stories on cyber attacks emanating from China.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The release of a report by the Internet security firm Mandiant on February 18 set the stage for an announcement from the White House on February 20 that the administration was determined to protect American businesses and punish the perpetrators at home and abroad.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Is this an orchestration for a new policy initiative? Or, is this just a reinforcement of Obama’s “pivot to Asia” and “Trans Pacific Partnership,” two major initiatives aimed clearly in response to the so-called “Rise of China”?</p> <p>  </p> <p> Since the nascent art of hacking and counter measures of cybersecurity are subjects too esoteric and beyond the comprehension of most except those skilled in the craft, the media focused instead on the more lurid details taken from the so-called Mandiant Report.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The report alleged that most of the cyber attacks levied against corporate America came from a 12-story building in the Pudong neighborhood of Shanghai that belonged to a particular department – the ominously named Unit 61398 – of the People’s Liberation Army.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Since the issuer of the report is in the business of selling its services to safeguard company networks from cyber attacks, presumably it is in Mandiant’s interest to portray the attackers in ways as menacing and sinister as possible. The PLA certainly fits the bill.</p> <p>  </p> <p> However, shortly after the Mandiant Report broke the news, articles that presented contrary points of view began to appear. The most comprehensive belonged to Jeffrey Carr, a cybersecurity expert in his own right, who pointed out that there are more than 30 nations with the capability to run “military grade network operations” necessary to mount the kind of sophisticated attacks found in the report. According to the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, Russia, Israel, and France are among the leading countries when it comes to cyber hacking activities.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Carr concluded that Mandiant was too quick to identify China as the culprit without performing rigorous analysis to eliminate other competing hypotheses and comparing its cyber espionage activities with those of other countries.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/mediumwhitehouse%20%28Rob%20Young%20Wiki%29.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 399px;" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> Two days after <em>The New York Times</em> article appeared, the U.S. edition of <em>The World Journal</em>, a Chinese-language daily, reported that 7 of the IP addresses identified by the Mandiant Report as coming from the PLA office in Shanghai were actually from Hong Kong, including one from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.</p> <p>  </p> <p> This should not come as a surprise since hacking can emanate from anywhere in the world and can easily be misdirected to appear as if coming from somewhere else. What was surprising was that this finding came from a little noted ethnic paper and not from the major media stars.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Maybe Al Gore did not invent the Internet but it is an inconvenient truth that the U.S. defense agency did and Americans have since led in the development and use of the Internet. As the world’s most advanced economy, the United States has invested heavily and become most dependent on networks in cyberspace and thus most vulnerable to attacks.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The United States has also led in the development and use of weapons in cyber warfare. For example, the American-developed Stuxnet virus has been credited with causing the centrifuges to spin out of control in the Iranian nuclear enhancement facility. Being the first known country to launch a cyber attack in peacetime and in the absence of any international treaty and protocol, the United States has lost the moral high ground to define appropriate conduct in cyber space.</p> <p>  </p> <p> This is of course not the first time that Washington is reaping the consequences of what it has sowed. The United States was the first (and to date) only country to use the atomic bomb. Since then, it has had to devote decades of diplomatic efforts to promote nuclear nonproliferation and now lives in fear of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of rogue nations or terrorists.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The next Pandora’s box, one the U.S. has already opened and soon will be trying to shut, is the use of drones for transnational surveillance and assassinations of terrorist suspects without due process. Friends and foes alike have seen the cost-effective capability of a drone in rendering destruction and killing and all are rushing to develop their me-too ability.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The day is nigh when Americans will be troubled by the prospect of encountering drones operated remotely and in the hands of someone holding a grudge against America. We will then, again, have to expend endless diplomatic efforts in proselytizing the idea of “do as I say and not as I do.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> As for China, it has in its way been trying to tell the United States that it does not hold a grudge. In typically understated signals, China has let Washington know that it possesses silent running submarines, stealth planes and missiles capable of downing communication satellites. China even went out of its way to make sure that American intelligence got a full picture of its nuclear weapons technology, as suggested by nuclear scientist Daniel Stillman of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The latest airshows in China are displaying a large array of domestically manufactured drones.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Indeed, China appears to be practicing a porcupine defense strategy, i.e., peaceful intentions but beware of the ability to retaliate in kind. Some have suggested that the alleged PLA hacking has been deliberately sloppy, thus leaving visible trails to let the United States know that China too possesses cyber warfare capability.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Cyber espionage and warfare are serious problems that are here to stay. Washington needs to develop effective, long-term countermeasures and a thoughtful and balanced diplomacy. Singling out China as the sole villain without critically examining what other nations are doing, including us, is counterproductive, potentially misleading and in the long run, harmful to our national interests and world peace.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p> <em>Dr. George Koo is international business consultant and board member of New America Media. Professor Ling-chi Wang is a retired professor of Asian American history at the University of California, Berkeley.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2013/02/china-hackathon-harmful-to-american-national-interest.php">New America Media</a></p> <p>  </p> <p> <em><strong>Photos: New America Media; Rob Young (Wikipedia Commons).</strong></em></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/chinese-cyber-attacks" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">chinese cyber attacks</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/cyber-attacks" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">cyber attacks</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/internet-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">the internet</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/cyber-security" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">cyber security</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/white-house" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">White House</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/internet-attacks" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">internet attacks</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/hacking" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">hacking</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/online-stalking" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">online stalking</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/mandiant-report" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">mandiant report</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/spying" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">spying</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/chinese-army" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">chinese army</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/intelligence-community" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">intelligence community</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">George Koo and Ling-chi Wang</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">New America Media</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:39:46 +0000 tara 2441 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/2213-uproar-over-alleged-chinese-internet-attacks-has-cybersecurity-community-alert#comments