From: Matt Helton <mch2117@columbia.edu>
  To  : <CPC@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 11:48:45 -0400

[CPC] Paper 2: Public Apathy Losing the War for Privacy and A Free Internet Part II

Public Apathy Losing the War for Privacy and A Free Internet - Part II -
Propaganda War, Public Privacy as Collateral Damage
	
	In the battle between large private interests and public rights
groups over control of the internet, the public rights groups and academics
appear to be losing the war, while internet neutrality, freedom and privacy
suffers as collateral damage.  As I mentioned in Part I of this essay, this
not due to any fault of the advocates, but rather due to an apathetic
general populous.  Without the support of the public, advocates of free
internet become entrenched within their own niche, while the strong private
interests (Media Conglomerates, Nascent Broadband market, corporations, and
the government) retain power and maintain the status quo and continue to win
the war and placate the public with their enormous political and economic
arsenals.  Certainly there are different interests at play, corporations
seeking information for marketing and consumer manipulation (indirect
control) while the government seeks information in order to directly control
the public.  Public perception of unconstitutional liberty and privacy
invasion is shaped by private corporations, the government, and the mass
media through entertainment programming, news shows and newspapers.
	Private corporations seek to shield identity and privacy issues from
the general population (for example, how they use information to market to
and theoretically manipulate consumer decisions) in 2 ways: (1) by offering
benefits for customers to 'willingly' give up privacy interests and (2) by
fostering a false sense of security.  First, most major supermarkets have
frequent buyer cards that give perks, online retailers provide purchasing
suggestions or coupons tailored to your preferences (Amazon's Gold Box) and
internet email/personal management software (everything Google) provides
efficient methods of using technology to make life 'easier', but at what
cost?  The fact is, as we may have all discovered after querying our friends
or family about their use of such services, the general population is
unaware of any cost associated with free perks online (save annoying ad
pop-ups - which conspicuously relate to the subject of your Gmail messages)
.  
Secondly, private corporations have deflected generalized internet privacy
concerns by taking advantage of and fueling the fire of public concern about
criminal identity theft.  By marketing products such as firewalls, or credit
cards designed to protect consumers from identity theft, the public is left
with a feeling of false safety from privacy invasions.  Citibank markets its
credit cards as part of a package designed to protect against identity
theft, while in fact it is merely part of a marketing campaign designed to
ensnare the most vulnerable: those who have already been exploited.
Interestingly this creates an information market for lists of persons who
have been affected by identity theft.  While identity theft is certainly a
concern and should be addressed, it is not the only concern, nor the most
important (with anonymous encrypted internet data transmission, identity
theft would be neutralized).  Moreover, often the very products sold to
protect consumer privacy are also used to collect marketing data, the very
personal information that needs to be protected for all of the reasons
discussed in class regarding manipulating consumers through predictive
modeling.
	The government as an entity surely has an interest in the public's
personal information and continues to retrieve this information through
subpoenas, national security letters to search engines, warrantless
wiretapping, and the list goes on^fn1.  Unfortunately for both the public
and privacy rights advocacy groups, the government has been able to quash
major dissent by justifying and cloaking these activities as necessary to
protect national security.  In fact, some would go so far as to provide a
'fair and balanced' conclusion that because there have been no major recent
terrorist attacks in the US, infringement of privacy and liberty must not
only be working but necessary.  In addition, the government has been able to
increasingly justify nearly any interference with privacy or liberty
interests by the use of Terrorist Watch Lists.  Although many Americans are
placated by this fact, and assume that a person would only be placed on
these watch lists [Black Lists] with some requisite showing of evidence, in
fact, the Director of the Terrorist Screening Center acknowledges that "many
only have tenuous or inconclusive ties to terrorism"^fn2.  Whether the
government is sufficiently scrutinizing additions to Terrorist Watch Lists
or playing a bizarre form of Six Degrees of Separation of Kevin Bacon[Bin
Laden] is of course for the interested reader to decide.
	Arguably the most influential medium on public perception of privacy
concerns is the mass media through movies, television, newspapers, and news
programs.  Unfortunately, most of the advocates of the free internet are
limited to blogs, advocacy sites and specialized niche websites like
Slashdot.  While Slashdot regularly has articles discussing governmental and
corporate invasion of privacy rights, traditional media like the Washington
Post headlines articles entitled: "Terrorists' Web Chatter Shows Concern
about Internet Privacy" which discusses the 'subversive' methods terrorists
are using to erase their digital footprints and avoid capture^fn3.  The
implied message to the public is either that only terrorists need be
concerned with internet privacy, or that those concerned with internet
privacy and eluding governmental surveillance are subversives.  Moreover
television programming and feature films are more and more effectively
becoming vehicles for propaganda.  While it is a tried and true action movie
formula to pair the maverick with the 'by the book' cop who then must
disregard the rules to get the 'bad guy', that formula has evolved.  As
Thomas Lee mentioned in his first paper "Surveillance Can be Murder", there
are movies like Se7en that go beyond the formula and show the dark side of
privacy invasion, however today's entertainment landscape is dominated by
televisions shows such as "24".  In 24, Jack Bauer a government counter
terrorist agent faces a huge terrorist threat every season and manages to
prevent most of the disasters because "he is willing to do what needs to be
done," of course this generally involves torturing/wiretapping/kidnapping
anyone who may have any information leading to terrorists.  In the show,
even those tortured who are not terrorists themselves, always manage to
reveal at least 1 bit of information which in the mind of the public
'justifies' the use of force.  Although obviously a work of fiction, it is
interesting to observe the primary objections to the television show 24, not
that it advocates destruction of personal liberties, but rather that it is
simply too violent (somewhat akin to a "do what you must, but we don't want
to see it" mentality).
	In light of the information bombarded towards the public at large
("CitiCards make you safe"; "wiretapping is necessary to prevent terrorist
attacks"; "Terrorists are concerned with privacy and therefore they use
encryption" and "Torture leads to terrorist capture") it is no wonder that
the level of public apathy, misdirected concerns and otherwise passive
contentment is at an all time high.  As I mentioned in Part I, in order to
win the war and achieve a free and neutral internet, the public needs to be
galvanized into action.  In order to achieve public support, not only does
the public need a cause, but the massive machine described in Part II also
needs to be overcome.  Perhaps a starting point is simply to show the public
that the war exists, that there are consequences to everyone, and that there
are large private interests currently in quasi-control of everyone's lives.
Ideally this knowledge alone would place a kernel of doubt in the minds of
the public, just as many of the topics we have discussed in class have done
so for many of us, and stir us all into action.


Fn1 - FCC recently ordered all broadband providers to implement CALEA,
allowing law enforcement to snoop online voice and text conversations.  "FCC
Affirms VoIP Must Allow Snooping"
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/05/04/2338233.shtml

Fn2 - Sherman, Mark "US Terror Database Includes 200,000 People" Mar 19,
2006 http://www.technewsworld.com/story/49361.html

Fn3 - Noguchi, Yuki. "Terrorists' Web Chatter Shows Concerns About Internet
Privacy" Apr 13, 2006.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR20060412019
68.html


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list