Until INF1001, I didn’t know any of the details about
the Snowden and his revelations about the National Security Agency (NSA)
surveillance. In his article “Surveillance,
Snowden, and big data: Capacities, consequences, critique,” David Lyon claimed
that surveillance practices were permitted by law in the United States after
9/11. This article’s strength lies in its ability to address the shifts that
have occurred in surveillance practices (the particular part of the article
that I was drawn to). I can support governmental agencies breeching individual
privacy rights when they are targeting a particular individual or group
believed to have committed a crime. While this may be selective and based on
one’s unique perception, extreme cases like 9/11 (where a country’s security
was jeopardized) have forced governmental agencies to boost their security
measures and I am 100% FOR supporting our national security. However, what I
find hard to justify is the current surveillance trend of “mass monitoring” and
the use of surveillance practices for premeditating and pinpointing potential
dangers. More importantly, the fact that private information (and metadata) is
obtained and analyzed without user knowledge with no intended use, troubles me.
As a user, I have limited my social media use because I can no longer control who
has access to the information I share, how it will be used (not that I am
sharing anything bad, but still). If I knew for certain what information of
mine would be accessed, maybe I could make more informed decisions on how I
share my information online, but right now I find it hard. If these agencies
don’t even know HOW they will use the information that they collect from me,
how do I know it wont be used to accuse me of something in future years? We
spoke about this in lecture several weeks back and it stuck with me. What if
something I say in 2015 is considered illegal in 2030? Could I be punished for
it? It may be a longshot, but it’s something media critic, Bruce Schneier, is
quoted for in the article when he states that, it is HOW the information
collected is used that should be more of a concern to users. I think we should
all consider this statement when sharing information and developing personal
opinions on surveillance.
Before I took this course, I had heard of the NSA and the name "Snowden", but I didn't know about the entire controversy. I think this is interesting since I do stay connected with current news stories and this must have been quite prevalent in the media for a period of time. I think your points highlight the fact that there's an incredibly thin line between surveillance for "the greater good" and invading people's privacy/freedoms. Oddly enough, people don't get a say in this.
ReplyDeleteThe point you raise about how our online identities/information will be perceived decades from now is an interesting one. I'm not sure about whether or not there are legal policies that prohibit/allow the use of online material. However, I think we are all aware of the consequences that can occur based on social media and online activity in less formal instances. As an example, we have likely all been told that we should clean up our social media and delete anything that may deter an employer from hiring us. I'm sure we've also all heard about situations where folks are losing their jobs for the ideas/opinions expressed on their social media profiles. I don't forsee this type of situation disappearing anytime soon, and I'm curious to see how this type of surveillance will deepen with time.