Privacy & Surveillance

Tumblr Post I was debating what to write this final post on when I turned on the television and CBC was discussing the CRA Breach and the Heartbleed Bug. -- Change your Tumblr password if you haven't already, it's on the compromised list! -- The day that it was first announced I was told early in the morning by my fiancé who is an accountant. They were told to stop using the website to complete tax returns. He was so concerned for our privacy and security that he insisted that I not use many vulnerable websites or perform any online transactions. In the last few weeks of class we have started to discuss technological security and internet security, so this misfortune could not have been more serendipitous in its timing. We talked at length in the last class about how much data Google collects about us (after which I promptly switched my search engine to DuckDuckGo) and then a day later the Heartbleed Bug is discovered to have hacked into half a million North American websites. Originally the CRA had promoted electronic tax forms as the more efficient route. It is supposed to make things easier for both those filing and those assessing. The problem is that you can't always skip the human element. We can't eliminate humans from the process and entrust all to electronics. Electronic filing, instead of protecting people's data and being a quick and efficient process that lengthened the process. Challenging the work of the CRA as well as accountants. it put numerous citizen's information at risk. My friend was doing a little happy dance because he had procrastinated filling out his and his wife's tax return and now are safe from the CRA hack. I would say that his attitude is emblematic of many Canadian's attitude towards the new electronic form. We are very conscious about this information, but perhaps we should consider about what information about us is already available. For my essay, I looked at the recently released book Cress from the Lunar Chronicles. The title character is a computer hacker, who is kept by the queen of Luna (yes, the moon) in a satellite to perform surveillance on earth. I think her personal skills have made me hyper aware of how vulnerable we are on the web. The information that we put out there on the internet is there to stay and there's a bunch of devious extremely intelligent people who are willing to search for it. In the case of the Heartbleed Bug case, apparently one these people is a teenager from London, Ontario. If our discussion of Google and its quest to the perfect search engine, RFIDs, and the recent internet security breach are any indication, our society is on a dangerous path. Instead of everything working for our benefit - Google giving us what need, RFIDs saving time, the internet giving convenience - these things are working to compromise our privacy and ultimately making it easier for us to subject to surveillance. Before we were the subjects of Marx's external surveillance. External constituency surveillance from banks and stores we enter, external non-constituency surveillance (as well as constituency) from companies like Google who want our information to sell to us and predict social trends (25). As much as I want to say this is agent-initiated surveillance, I wonder if it has become subject-initiated, since we put this information out there, knowing that someone will be looking at it. After all, we only get mad when the wrong person is seen looking at it, we don't all get mad that Google collect our search data (though enough of us do) we get mad when we think Google will sell this information for their profit. What amuses me more than that is the actual issue at hand isn't privacy violation, it's having control over your privacy. People would be happy selling their information if they thought they would profit. With all this, I feel like it's impossible to argue that we're not well on our way to a maximum security society. This entry only talks about one aspect, the network society, but be sure, we check all the boxes.

@ LISers: We talk about the evils of Facebook all the time. Can we just invent a new website, please? All I want is a social media site that won't sell my information, won't invade my privacy, and doesn't put my name in search engines. Come on, that can't be hard! 9723 project next semester maybe? We can get the whole of FIMS together, I guarantee there's enough FB hate their to fuel it.

          In class on Monday we talked about RFIDs as well as other technologies in relation to how they may affect our privacy. Xanthia gave a great presentation on this. What I found particularly interesting and/or disturbing was the discussion of the implanted RFID chip. Otherwise, I’m well aware of how I have allowed my privacy to be compromised by Apple and their app makers or by the many other things on the internet that collect my information. — I was also amused in our discussion of Facebook’s collection because despite the amount of information I have given them (too much in my mind) they act as though they know nothing about me. Perhaps this is in contrast to how much they get from everyone else? —The VeriChip or, as they are now called, PositiveID was one the focuses of Newitz's article. The chip is simply a specifically designed RFID chip that is encased in glass. The glass protects the person from being poisoned by the chip. According to the company, the implant is put in fatty tissues which prevents it from moving around, but as Xanthia pointed out, the pet equivalent often migrates in cats.     This discussion reminded me of a YA fiction novel that is on my reading list The Bar Code Tattoo. In particular, when Xanthia brought up the RFID bracelets for students at a Texas school. When a girl refuses to wear one because she believes it to be the mark of the beast, it is reminiscent of the main character's struggle in The Bar Code Tattoo. ** chooses not to get the tattoo which stores her information and money despite the fact that she knows it is nearly impossible to exist in the society without it. This is what the girl at Texas school feared about the RFID bracelet because the mark of the beast is intended to prevent Christians from being able to be part of society while also identifying followers of the devil. This also conveys a certain technophobia and Luddism that comes with new and intimidating technologies. According to Newitz's stories, we should fear these new technologies. RFID chip cards are easier to hack. As shown through the numerous examples of hacking employee cards for secure buildings and in the clip Xanthia showed, hacking amex cards and attaching to another card. Now, they're adding these chips to American passports. They offer protective sleeves for American passports already because they are in danger of triggering bombs. American passports will need even more protection as a skilled hacker could steal a person's identity merely by scanning their passport.     So despite the fact that I don’t quite believe that RFID chips are the mark of the beast, I do believe they are a mark of where society is heading and I’m not a fan of this path. Can we just go back to the rotary telephone and books please? At least then you had to steal my wallet to get my identity. Now all you need to do is just type a few numbers, pay the right amount of money, or make the right the machine. Newitz, A. “The RFID hacking underground.” Wired Magazine. 2011.14.5.

And what are they doing with all these recordings exactly?

I was doing a reading for a class project and stumbled on this gem: "Not only is reading Foucault more intellectually challenging than reading Goodnight Moon (although the two have quite a bit in common, both emphasizing omnipresent surveillance), but the application of reading differs" (from "Learning to Read, Again" by Fine et al). Since we read Foucault for class last week, I thought you might all be amused by the comparison. Reading and understanding Foucault is sometimes like sticking your head through a wall and finding a different universe on the other side. My conclusion for today? -- Ladies and gents, the moon is watching you! ... Which is made all the more intriguing if you're a fan of the Lunar Chronicles by Marissa Meyer.

EDIT: Here's a link to find story 1 :) http://www.rogers.com/web/content/smart-home-monitoring-real-stories

In class on Monday we watched this commercial in which Facebook is compared to chairs. According to this ad, Facebook is for relaxation, communication, and discussion. This simile "Chairs are like Facebook" is rife with flaws of course. A chair is generally a static object, Facebook is a technological product which is constantly undergoing change. As John put it: "if my chair was like Facebook it would want to know my weight... who else sat in my chair... and I would come in one day and there would be ads on the armrests." The only sense the simile makes is that Facebook is trying to make itself part of the social norm as chairs did. They want 'everyone' to use Facebook. Hard as it may be to believe, chairs started out the same way. As something rare and unusual to the norm in most countries. One of my classes in third year began with an hour without chairs. Our professor taught the class as we all sat in a circle. Chairs were once a sign of power (hence "the throne"). The throne put the nobility physically above the rest. The best way I can think to explain this is using a scene from The King and I where the King of Siam insists that Ana lower herself so that her head is not higher than his. The scene continues as the King continues to lower his position and force Anna to go even lower until they are both lying on the floor. This professor has taught me many things I never thought about before. That particular day, of course, was about chairs. Have you ever thought about how chairs affect our posture? Try to remember how easy it was to sit on the floor cross-legged in kindergarten. Now we need the chairs in order to hold our backs up. So, perhaps this is another way that our chairs are like Facebook: they are ultimately bad for our health but we don't know how to exist without them.

Sunday night my fiancé informed me that an old school we had visited several times is going to be put on the market within the next year. You may say, so what? Why do I care about some old school? First off, closing off local schools is an atrocious ideas. I understanding funding limitations but I the public school system needs to support community schools rather than mass box schools. J (my fiancé) went to a school where he graduated with maybe 20 people whereas I graduated with 200. These are small compared to some big city schools but its hard to argue that those students are getting a better education that those in the small town school like J's. I believe that we'd be more willing to contribute to our community if we knew it would better our children's education. There are also tons of unemployed teachers who are available. The huge, massive main reason that I care is because I love this building. If J would have let me, I would have adopted it, cleaned up and organized this poor abandoned derelict school. This space, I believe, has the potential to become a well-used and well-loved community space. And we need those if we're going to have a successful Habermasian public sphere. I think with a little tender, loving care, the second floor library space could be more than revitalized as a reading and play area for children. The small community could have its own library. It could easily work in conjunction the next town's library. Community libraries allow for more programs and better literacy since parents don't feel they have to go as far to give their children a literary advantage. Once the junk is cleared away, the first floor could easily be converted to a teen community centre as well as a general community centre. The main space on that floor is a open gym space with a stage. It's a good space for an after school program or for a community children's theatre. The outdoor playground needs to be replaced but the community has no other outdoor play structure for children so they need to build one somewhere. Of course, as much as I want to, I can't leave economics out of the equation. The truth is, what I want for the school requires funds without monetary payout. My fiancé thinks I'm rather idealist about this place because it would be very difficult to convince local and other governments to help in the funding. Buschman discusses this trouble in "Libraries and the Decline of the Public Sphere." Finding funding for community resources is challenging. The public sphere is degrading as public spaces like libraries and community centres are becoming technological centres rather than centres of information and information exchange. Buschman observes how easy it is to technology grants but not grants for building upkeep or collection development. Since the school desperately needs some updating and collection expansion, converting it to a community centre would require extra funding that must, apparently come from a private source. I've been not so subtly trying to tie in the public sphere into the discussion above because we need it. Habermas coined the phrase to identify as space outside of the private (home and personal life) and the state (government control etc) in which ideas could be expressed and exchanged for the strengthening of a democratic state. These public spaces like libraries and community centres are struggling to keep people's interest and support. We may not notice it, but we use public spaces for political discussion everyday. We get into a debate in class, we debate Hollywood in Tim Horton's and so on. We need more public spaces not less, or else it will be as Habermas feared, society will lose its public sphere and ultimately its democracy by reverting to a feudal state. After all, if discussing Hollywood in Tim Horton's is the height of our political involvement, doesn't that say sad and terrible things about our culture. A little bit of scare tactics I suppose... but I really value public spaces and I cannot stand to see them abandoned or devalued. Update: Before I could complete this post (some pressing schoolwork distracted me) my fiancée informed me that one of the people looking at the abandoned school was a Pastor and his wife who want to turn it into a community space of sorts. But, as he pointed out, they're only one interested party and they would have to place the highest bid.

It's therefore no surprise that the show Big Brother freaks me out. One, it's named after George Orwell's 1984 (a classic) where he a portrays a society controlled through a panoptic presence. Cameras are omnipresent, you can only assume you are being watched. As we mentioned in class, Winston is corrected by the television during his daily exercises when he does the move wrong. Two, whether or not people understand the utter awfulness of Orwell's 1984 society, they are volunteering to be watched 24/7. Can we simply be bribed with money and a little attention to sacrifice our privacy, and perhaps ultimately, our freedom? And why do we find the idea of it so entertaining?