‘POFMA’ and the Internet Society in Singapore

Introduction:

History of POFMA

Substance of POFMA

A “correction direction” does not necessarily require an online statement to be removed, instead the direction will state the necessary adjustment that must be made to ‘correct’ the false statement. However, in more “serious” cases, a “stop communication” or “disabling” direction may be issued instead. Stop communication directions instruct the statement-maker to remove access to the false statement within a specified time. A disabling direction disables access to an entire online site in Singapore. Supposedly, directions can only be issued if “a false statement of fact has been or is being communicated in Singapore through the Internet; and it is in the public interest to issue the direction”. Non-compliance with POFMA directions result in fines and/or jail time for offenders.

POFMA orders are subject to judicial review if offenders wish to appeal. In Online Citizen, the Singapore Court of Appeal established a five-step framework to determine if a POFMA correction direction should be set aside in a judicial review process. The Online Citizen Pte Ltd v Attorney-General [2021] SGCA 96. Firstly, the reviewing court must identify the false statement targeted by the direction. Secondly, the court must determine if the POFMA-wielding minister’s interpretation of the statement is reasonably objective. Thirdly, the court must determine if the statement is indeed a “statement of fact”, and not merely an opinion. Fourthly, the court must determine if the statement is indeed “false”. Finally, the court must consider if the statement has been or is being communicated in Singapore. The Court also established that the burden of proof lies with the POFMA offender – adding another hurdle to avoiding liability under POFMA. Notably, the POFMA appeal process remains financially and administratively burdensome.

Assessing the effects of POFMA

POFMA has been deployed against rival political parties such as the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and small, independent alternative media outlets such as Jom Media. As often seen in these cases, the resource imbalance between the POFMA user and POFMA offender is massive. As such, a POFMA direction can be seen as a crushing blow to the operability and credibility of alternative media sources or opposition political parties.

One central concern about POFMA is the Act’s likely effect in stifling legitimate political discourse. The substantive legal language in POFMA and POFMA’s appeal process is arguably vague and relatively broad. For instance, what is seen to be in the “public interest” ranges from matters of public health, national security, and the maintenance of public confidence in governmental institutions. It is thus likely that media actors in Singapore will develop a culture of self-censorship in order to play the safe side in complying with POFMA, given the onerous nature of being issued with POFMA directions. The threat of POFMA alone is likely to act as a deterrent in publishing alternative, diverse viewpoints on a range of public issues in Singapore, contributing to the development of a one-track political discourse culture.

Conclusion

Singapore’s implementation of POFMA highlights a difficult balancing act between the safeguarding against misinformation and preservation of a fundamental freedom of expression. The broad powers wielded by the government in POFMA along with the difficulty of accessing judicial oversight poses serious questions to media freedom in Singapore. The international condemnation and scrutiny surrounding POFMA underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in checking governmental power. The rise of POFMA raises questions around the direction of Singapore’s meteoric development in the digital information age – as the country matures into a true first-world nation, it must address how much it believes in democratic principles and media freedom.

Sources cited: https://rsf.org/en/country/singapore

https://web.archive.org/web/20180927125021/https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/government--seriously-considering--how-to-deal-with-fake-news-sh-8712436

https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POFMA2019?TransactionDate=20191001235959

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/falsehoods-freedom-speech-and-burden-proof-key-findings-apex-courts-landmark-pofma-judgment-2230541

Introduction

"What is a VPN?"

When the average consumer inputs this Google search, the first thing that pops up isn’t the Google dictionary result. In fact, it’s not even an option on the page. What does pop up is a link to an article written by NordVPN? , better known as the sponsor of any YouTube? video with over 10,000 views. In a world where multiple competitors have been offering the same product for years, a relatively unbiased definition should be simple enough to find. The fact that a popular brand’s attempt to sell you a VPN pops up before you even know what it is demonstrates a much larger problem. Rather than empowering people with the tools to fully take control of their own privacy, companies like Nord, Express, and Surfshark jump to charge consumers high prices for much, much less privacy than they could easily get on their own. Over the course of this essay, I will discuss what VPNs can/should do, and then discuss why many paid VPN services fail to offer the promised protections.

Body

First things first. A VPN, also known as a virtual private network, is a tool that creates a secure connection between two networks, or between a computing device and a network. Typical categories of VPNs include Remote access, host-to-network configuration, site-to-site, and extranet-based site-to-site VPNs. Illustrations liken a VPN to a secure underground tunnel between your computer and the websites you want to reach, keeping your information more secret than it would be if it traveled through the open-air, aboveground internet.

The part of the YouTube? video you skip usually describes two main benefits of having or using a VPN. First and foremost, paid VPNs promise their users access to content they couldn’t otherwise receive based on their location. In ads targeted at Americans, plucky YouTubers? usually show skits of themselves watching shows that are unavailable in certain countries. This also makes VPNs a sensible, one-time purchase for people traveling abroad. Students doing a semester in China might purchase a VPN so that they can stay up to date on their favorite TV shows and movies, using the services they also already pay for (Netflix, Hulu, etc). This also implies that a VPN might be a good tool for people who are based in countries that block more content to do the same thing . However, this isn’t the main advertising ‘hook’ VPNs use. Companies like ExpressVPN? and NordVPN? usually make claims about privacy. Typically, this involves a story about a hypothetical person walking into an airport, completing a bank transaction on the free public wifi, and getting their banking information stolen during an ARP spoofing attack. Very Sad and scary, but ExpressVPN? can help. Similarly, companies also claim that a VPN can stop an Internet Service Provider from reading up on all of the sites you visit to sell your data and create targeted advertising. Purchasers, they claim, can rest easy knowing that their anonymous Reddit posts and weird 3 a.m. google searches are safe from any prying eyes that might use them for nefarious or uncomfortable purposes. Sufficiently scared and a little intrigued about what shows are available outside the US, a consumer may fork over $8 per month for security and a little convenience.

The problem with many of these claims is that, while potentially true, none of this stops the VPN company from doing all of the things a consumer is worried some anomalous ‘bad guy’ might do, the personal data isn’t that much more secure than simply staying on ‘padlocked secure’ HTTPS sites, and if someone really wants that cartoon that releases at different times in different countries a couple of months earlier, they can find it more easily, safely and cheaply through torrent than they would using a streamer’s website.

Sure, one could say that they’d rather roll the dice with a paid VPN service that they’ve researched before buying and trust. The problem is that, much like a simple, clear, and useful definition, unbiased research on which VPNs are best is hard to find. Companies buy review websites, and around ten minutes into a YouTube? review search, you’ll start to find channels begging you NOT to buy a VPN. Furthermore, even the largest VPN services, like ExpressVPN? , have been bought by companies with a history of collaboration with ad-injection malware companies. Furthermore, by sending your data to a VPN company, you simply trust an anomalous bag guy with venture capital firm money, along with some of your own.

If this is true, why would so many companies be allowed to make these misleading claims? The law, after all, should stop blatantly false advertisements from reaching mainstream audiences. [FTC’s role in false advertising: We have cases like Federal Trade Commission v. Bunte Bros, Inc.and, more recently, Static Control v. Lexmark that should protect us from puffed upp claims of a product’s worth.]

Conclusion

However, courts can be slow to adapt to the use of new technology, so it’s possible that we won’t see any meaningful legislation on the claims or use of popular VPN services for some time. In summary, while companies claim that VPNs can give you access to better content and protect your data from harmful attacks and prying eyes, they aren’t worthwhile purchases for the safety-conscious consumer. Because the court system likely won’t kick in to stop VPNs that are not useful, and, in some cases, actively harming your computer, consumers should take matters into their own hands.

A few recommendations for better alternatives:

[Rcommendations for secure browsers from Prof Moglen]. [Article on how to torrent].

Sources https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVDQEoe6ZWY (IS THIS A GOOD SOURCE?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_private_network https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/technology/personaltech/are-vpns-worth-it.html

The risk of discrimination highlighted by these researchers became painfully real in the Netherlands. In 2013, the Dutch Tax Authorities employed a self-learning algorithm to detect child care benefits fraud. The risk indicators used by the system included having low income or belonging to ethnic minorities. As a result, thousands of families were wrongly characterized as fraudsters and suffered severe consequences. This led to the Dutch Government’s resignation and a 3.7 million Euros fine on the Tax Administration from the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the Dutch Data Protection Authority, for breaching several GDPR rules. In particular, the Authority found that the Tax Administration had no legal basis for processing the personal data used as risk indicators. Under the GDPR, personal data processing is allowed only if one of the legal bases listed in Article 6 applies.

In the hyper-regulated European Union, the GDPR has attempted to address these issues by introducing Article 22, which allows individuals to opt out of "automated decision making, including profiling, and obtain human intervention whenever their personal information is used to take a decision which produces a legal effect (e.g., entering into a contract with that individual). Additionally, the proposed EU AI Act aims to place serious limitations on "AI systems providing social scoring of natural persons for general purposes by public authorities." These limitations prohibit social scoring systems from leading to detrimental or unfair treatment in unrelated social contexts or based on unjustified or disproportionate criteria.

A Growing Need to Protect Privacy in an Era of Growing Willingness to Give it Up

The Advent of Privacy Challenges

The Modern Issues

Earlier this month, former Facebook employee France Haugen released files revealing the results of the company’s internal research results regarding the impact of Instagram on teenage girls. A key statistic that has been highlighted in the media is that “32 perfect of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse” (2). One solution addresses that children under thirteen aren’t even supposed to be making accounts, because data collection on children under that age goes against our country’s privacy laws. Yet, I know many of my classmates signed up for Facebook before they were thirteen with fake birthdays. Facebook also mentioned a potential to create “Instagram Kids.”

Similarly, humans invariably offer up their data. Sometimes due simply to being unaware of what they’re revealing by doing so (as with the military base that was revealed when soldiers decided to compete with each other, uploading their fitness tracker data in the process and creating a map of their exercise route). In other ways, we do so for convenience, as with the FreeStyle? Libre sensors that have been using AI to recommend personalized diets based on individual’s glucose levels (4).

Attempts at Solving The Issue

Apple created a lot of buzz (and some very creative advertising campaigns) when they released a pop-up window that notifies users that an app is tracking their data, allowing users to prevent the app from doing so. (3) Many small businesses and apps were upset by the change, arguing that this was how they allowed users to access their services for free. Facebook responded saying that it was attempting to create a method of advertising that doesn’t rely on user data (3). But is it really that easy to dismantle a $350 billion digital industry? These companies have different views of how much they should roll back such advertising.

While BigTech? attempts to revamp their own privacy systems, can and should users do more to take privacy into their own hands? I’m positive that many people would rather use an app for free than pay to remove advertising (as evidences by the numerous app-store complaints when apps roll out pay-for-no-ads versions of their products). There has been a growing industry of products that market themselves as shirking ads (for example Brave, the private web browser), but how many people choose to use this service?

Furthermore, what is the state of media literacy in our country? One of the first ways we can protect young children who will undeniably sign up for these enticing social media services is to inform them about what they give up in exchange for access to endless streams of videos, 150-word posts, and their friends’ photos.

In the long run, I would argue that this education is a must if we’re to convince people to pay for subscription fees in lieu of paying for such services with their data.

(1) https://safecomputing.umich.edu/privacy/history-of-privacy-timeline

(2) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/parenting/instagram-teen-girls-body-image.html

(3) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/technology/digital-privacy.html

(4) https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/oct/05/intimate-data-can-a-person-who-tracks-their-steps-sleep-and-food-ever-truly-be-free

:

What

Does the GDPR adequately protect individuals' privacy?

General Data Protection Regulation:

The GDPR addresses the power imbalance between data controllers, who derive significant commercial benefit from the use of data, and users who bear significant harms associated with the usage of their own data. The legislation does this by placing explicit consent and anonymization techniques at the core of data processing. However, by focusing on these two specific aspects, the European legislators construct “structural regulatory spaces that fail to understand the ongoing challenges in delivering acceptable and effective regulation”. By exclusively concentrating on consent and anonymization techniques as a way to ensure data privacy and security, the GDPR fails to address not only the issues these concepts create but also how these should be implemented by app developers.

There are two issues created by the GDPR regulation, and that consequently significantly affect individual users’ privacy and data. Firstly, by using individuals’ consent as the gatekeeper to the legal processing of data, the GDPR places heavy emphasis on internet platforms themselves to fulfill the necessary GDPR standards. While simply obtaining users’ consent to the processing of their personal data does not make the processing of such data lawful, the fact that it is up to internet organizations themselves to implement adequate privacy standards says very little in terms of the protection that such standards afford in reality. Secondly, the GDPR stipulates that when data is anonymized, the need for explicit consent of the processing of the collected data is no longer required. At its core, by placing emphasis on anonymization techniques, the GDPR aims to reduce harmful forms of identification by preventing the singling out of natural persons and their personal information. However, as Narayanan and Shmitikov’s Paper on De-anonymization of Large Datasets and Oberhauses’s article on anonymous browsing data underline, de-anonymization of large data sets is standard industry practice for a majority of internet platforms.

Is the GDPR the right standard for privacy protection?

As outlined above, there are several issues associated with using the GDPR as the standard for privacy protection, the two biggest ones being treating consent as the standard for privacy, and the ability to de-anonymize data. Despite these issues, there are a number of benefits associated with using GDPR as the standard for data protection, namely that it functions in what Profesor Moglen as part of his “The Union, May it Be Preserved” speech in a transactional sphere. While Professor Moglen sees this as a problematic quality of the GDPR, the fact that the GDPR functions as a transaction where users consent to collection and usage of their data as a “transaction” for which they receive the benefit of accessing internet platforms means that the regulation can easily be implemented by any type of corporation. The issue with the GDPR is that the standards of implementation are too lax, and upon drafting the GDPR in 2018 the impact of de-anonymization technologies was not sufficiently considered. One could argue that if amendments were implemented into the GDPR that would tackle the issues of de-anonymization technologies the current privacy issues would be adequately addressed. However, such an argument fails to address the fundamental power imbalance created by internet platforms such as Google, Yahoo, and Facebook, where individual users are not given a choice as to how their data is processed.

Instead of working within the confines of the GDPR as it exists currently, Professor Moglen argues that we need to challenge our basic assumption that privacy and our data is part of the “transaction”. To some extent this idea has merit, in that why should our own personal data be a transactional token by which our privacy is achieved? In this sense, Professor Moglen’s definition of privacy as “ecological” and “relational among people” rather than an issue of individual consent is one that seems to provide a stricter standard of privacy protection. While an ecological conception of privacy could provide a much stricter standard of individuals’ data protection, the means of achieving such protection are less concrete. Namely, what standard of privacy is going to be the baseline to which all protection is measured (if an ecological protection of privacy is adopted akin to environmental protection)?

Finally, these tools are embedded into our daily lives and we have relied on them enormously that we are unable to envision an alternative. Google, Facebook, Apple, et al want to render the choices they want us to make easier, and the choices they don’t want us to make harder, or inexistent.These tools are the new norm and we do not fear what we know, or think we know. We genuinely that we cannot function, keep track of our events, find a date, find a job, have a social life, listen to music, stay healthy without these tools. We have thus surrendered into a fascist way of thinking where we don't question things if they are working.

Getting Out of the Matrix We need to start by being aware of the reality of things. This attractive "object" has taken on the form of a physiological nervous system capable of creeping into our conscious and subconscious mind and manipulate our behavior. This "being" is a frightening threat to humans and our freedom of thought which should activate our defense mechanism and response. We must educate ourselves and those around us that there are other alternatives. We can use technology which allows us to live freely.Most importantly, we must educate the generations which are growing up believing that this physiological nervous system is their security blanket. We must teach them how to code and they fight it from the inside.

Once we are alert and aware, we must take actual control by push backing instead of being pushed around. We refuse to be the submissive, passive, engaged victims of these tools. We can start by not swiping up for advertisements, turning off all notifications, not watching another episode, and gradually decreasing our interaction with it. Our time, attention, and freedom of choice are invaluable and we must protect them.Get out of the Matrix.

The Matrix is a “science fiction” movie about humans trapped in a simulation being controlled by machines, while other humans play with the switches. In the world of surveillance capitalism, is the Matrix still a science fiction?

Why are we not scared of surveillance? It is no longer a secret that these tools are being used to surveil us and modify our behavior in order to maximize company profits. Yet somehow, even when Mark Zuckerberg is testifying before the Senate post the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook was still making billions. So why do we not fear this surveillance? We do not fear it because the tools are attractive, give us a false of control, and have embedded themselves into our existence. Fear is an emotional response largely motivated by what we perceive threatens our existence. This response can then be tempered by a conscious realization of the situation. These platforms surveilling our every move and mood are purposefully designed in a way that attracts us to it, like humans are attracted to beauty. It is not violent nor ugly. We perceive it as an object, not a being threatening our existence. All the while this object is taking on a physiological nervous system interconnected.. Google, Facebook, Apple, ByteDance? and all other companies pour millions of dollars in product design. Moreover, they market themselves as tools that are there to serve us, giving us a false sense of control. Meanwhile we have become preys to this instrument. Users of email, social media, health apps, and smartphones in general are in a continuous state of distraction. Without knowing why we find ourselves on social media and unintentionally jump from one platform to the other. Finally, these tools are embedded into our daily lives and we have relied on them enormously that we are unable to envision an alternative. We feel we will be isolated from society, incapable of monitoring our health, lost, unable to find a date, etc. We have surrendered into a fascist way of thinking that no one will question things if the trains run on time. We got used to it, so why change it.

The Way Out We need to start seeing things the way they really are. The internet is a physiological nervous system. It is a being on its own that can be used by companies and governments to surveil, control, and alter our behavior. This is a real frightening violent threat to human beings and our freedom of thought. As such, we need to treat the beautiful tools which are at our disposal but not under our control as a hostile agent with a structure and mind of its own, which activates our defense mechanism. The idea is not to put the genie back in the bottle, nor to completely shun these tools. Rather, the idea is to

• Moving Beyond Institutionalism
• Lessons from Free Software
• Blunting the Tools of Surveillance Capitalism _ * Moving beyond the social media platforms
  • Enabling secure news capture_
• Conclusion

A New Journalism

Moving Beyond Institutionalism

Lessons from Free Software

Blunting the Tools of Surveillance Capitalism

Moving beyond the social media platforms

Enabling secure news capture

Conclusion

The day our internet best friend betrayed us

Introduction

The rise of the internet best friend

The apple, or the loss of innocence

The tumor

The IBF is thus a collection of paradoxes. It is an advertisement, but not; a reality, but also a fantasy; a voyeuristic experience, but also an exercise in surveillance. Viewers are so distracted by what the IBF purports to be and the sheer pleasure of consumption that the silent changes within us go undetected. By the time we realise, the tumor has already formed. Our apathy towards surveillance will be so deeply engrained in our tissues that it will be impossible to remove. All that remains is for mankind to be subjugated by the state, divided into little cells flooded with light.

Social Media and the Masses

Process of Polarization and Potential for Progress

Polarization and the Division of Society

People used to rely on news outlets to know what's happening around the world; now, most of us get our news from social media. For example, we used to read articles to determine 'what' is happening, and then we used to think for ourselves on 'why' this happened and 'how' we should feel about it. Now, with convenience at our fingertips, we are in the midst of a reversal. The politics we are partial to already define for us 'what' has happened. This is a product of the increasing bipolarization and division in our society. To a large degree we already know what we will believe and what we will not accept, establishing a dangerous dichotomy of thought. Along these lines, the convenience of social media - the content of which is continually shaped by unseen forces and algorithms that prey on our technological footprints - has fed into this dichotomy. Now most follow their news to better understand the 'how'--how should we feel? How should we react? What fits the narrative of the rhetoric we've already accepted? And because we share articles that fit in with our beliefs and connect with others who have similar views to our own, social media makes it easy for us to bolster this mindset of finding support for our biases rather than allow new information to broaden our insights. The news we intake becomes recycled based on our previous biases. Here lies the ultimate danger of social media without due regulation: the guided polarization of digital news only exasperates the existing divisions in our society.

Social Media and the Masses

The idea of our influences directing us toward belief and action is not new. Le Bon, a polymath dedicated to the work on crowd psychology, makes the case that since the dawn of time we have always been under the influence of religious, political, and social illusions (See The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind). He states that because the masses have always been under these influences, we are ingrained to seek out an illusion to grasp to under any and all circumstances. He noted that while philosophers in the 19th century have worked greatly to destroy these illusions, they have not been able to provide the masses with any ideal that could effectively sway them. Accordingly, the masses now flock to whichever rhetorician wets their appetites. Le Bon may have written his seminal work at the turn of the 20th century, but his words seem appropriate now more than ever. Social media has become a universal outlet to which we grasp onto our illusions, and refuse to diversify ourselves to viewpoints that differ than our own. Living in this new digital age, we are thereby narrowing our visions of reality and widening the divisions we have from one another and, perhaps even, from truth. Truth itself has become fragmented, relying on the whims of the reader. All the while most of us remain clueless to the puppeteers behind the curtains.

It's natural for our experiences to dictate our way of thinking in the Lockean framework of epistemology, but the problem with polarization in social media today is that it leaves little to no room for genuine discourse. What social media offers us is a steady and consistent affirmation from our peers who think similarly to us. Social media is intrinsically designed to connect us with others who will encourage our way of thinking, even if our logic is flawed or our news misguided. In other words, for many social media has made home to a great convenience of getting the assurance we want from others who already agree with us that productive speculation or positive self-doubt becomes a foreign process. Many people then become so encouraged by their opinions that they begin to confuse them for facts. In order to bridge the gaps in our society, we must, at the very least, understand the diverse markup of our communal struggle for survival.

Process of Polarization and Potential for Progress

Social media and similar digital mediums largely influence our thinking through targeted advertisements. Every time we swallow the mental pill on Facebook, Reddit, and the like, the databases on those sites store our personal and private data to their advantage, keeping close track of what we search and what our interests are. This misuse of our privacy and the self-selective filter bubbles social media creates for us works to keep the masses addicted. We connect with others who have beliefs aligning to our own, we 'like' their posts and share their posts, and without second though allow behemoth companies to track our personal information and internet consumption tendencies. Social media works by continuing to offer us exposure to our interests; unfortunately this is the problem. Since we are more likely to accept ideas that align with our pre-existing beliefs, and thus continue to scroll down our social media feeds, the posts that pop up first on our accounts are the news sources that work with our existing confirmation biases. Under such a system, what should be expected except for a widening of the rifts that divide us?

If we want our society to progress more efficiently towards unity, we must depolarize our social media. To do this, we must begin by introducing legislation and regulation that prevents companies from providing overly filtered access to misguided illusions. It is not enough to fault the masses alone. If we read more articles from various news sources, share those with friends that hold our current viewpoints and create further connections to others with entirely different perspectives, we may begin to undo the process of polarized information that has so heavily influenced our social media and negatively impacted our society. But to be truly successful, we must target the unseen as much as the obvious.

The idea of our influences directing us toward belief and action is not new. Gustave Le Bon, one of the greatest philosophers dedicated to the work on crowd psychology, makes the case that since the dawn of time we have always been under the influence of religious, political, and social illusions. He states that because the masses have always been under these influences, we are ingrained to seek out an illusion to grasp to under any and all circumstance. He states that philosophers in the 19th century have worked greatly to destroy these illusions, but have not been able to provide the masses with any ideal that could sway them. Due to this, the masses now flock to whichever rhetorician wets their appetites. It seems social media has become a universal outlet to which we grasp onto our illusions, as Le Bon mentions, refusing to diversify ourselves to viewpoints that differ than our own and thereby narrowing our visions of reality and widening the divisions we have from one another and, perhaps even, from truth.

To avoid a future shaped by today’s likely candidates and their inherent flaws, I advocate the establishment of a socialized multinational AI research project that is subject to public input and oversight and is less constrained by capitalist and political forces. A unified global public project strikes me as the best opportunity to cultivate sufficient resources to surpass the efforts of Big Tech and national governments.

Even if such a project were initiated imminently, the hour is late and the competition is fierce. Thus, drastic action must be considered. Legislation granting data portability rights could be extremely helpful, allowing individuals to obtain their personal data from service providers and, in turn, share that information with the socialized project. Similarly, legislation that protects adversarial interoperability in the software industry could catalyze transitions away from predatory products upon which the public has become dependent. If necessary to achieve competitive dominance, further data collection on a consensual basis may be pursued.

While the collection and processing of behavioral information is inherently risky, an international socialized model may greatly reduce the risks of our present private and national models.

I do not advocate any surrender in the fight for privacy. I simply support the development of contingency plans. An arms race is afoot in both the private and public sector with many convinced that surveillance is the key to future dominance. In humanity’s failure to denuclearize, I see an inability of modern society to relinquish powerful tools of control and I fear that digital surveillance may be similarly destined to proliferate.

Constant parent surveillance started in my generation. Friends got busted for lying about their whereabouts when their parents tracked their phones. Sneak in after curfew? Good luck. Your phone, the “Ring,” the cameras inside are the nosiest neighbors. For concerned parents the gadgets of the internet age allow for a type of helicoptering like never before.

What if we told these concerned parents that with a few lines of python anyone can watch? Or that there are websites listing webcams that are set to the default passwords (or without passwords) that anyone on the internet can access?

Hacking is Easy

Accessing someone’s unsecured webcam isn’t difficult and sites like Shodan and Insecam make this easier. Bots randomly scan for unsecured devices, something that can be done across the entire internet in a matter of hours. If one runs a quick search on Shodan she can find a slew of web servers that use the username and password admin/admin or that can be accessed through a password found by googling “manufacturer default credentials.” These default credentials are conveniently assembled on ispyconnect.com’s “user guide.” Still other cameras can be accessed through known vulnerabilities such as Boa webcams. Boa has a vulnerability that allows you to reset the admin password. In 2015, security firm Rapid tested nine popular baby monitors for security. Eight of the nine got an F, the ninth a D minus. Despite the reporting on this in 2015, nothing has changed.

There have been accounts of mothers catching hackers hijacking the cameras. One mother noticed her baby monitor moving without anyone controlling it. She realized it was scanning the room and landing on her bed. Everyone who was supposed to have control was in the same room not moving the device. Others reported their baby monitors talking. One particularly disturbing case involves a hacker yelling at babies on baby cams.

If peeping Toms on the internet are watching through baby monitors, what comes next? Surely those who lived in Stalin’s Soviet Union would find bringing a device into your home that anyone can access foolish. Even if you aren’t worried about your own government, there is nothing stopping other countries from peeping too. This can allow for more targeted advertising, election campaigning, perfect price discrimination. Even if governments or companies aren’t themselves watching, the dangers of commodification of personal information are real.

The dangers of these insecure devices goes beyond concerns of creeps or the hypothetical 1984 sounding concerns of the government or companies watching, they can bring down the internet. In 2016 DNS provider Dyn was attacked by Mirai botnets which took down sites including Netflix, Twitter, and Spotify largely using IoT? devices (such as baby monitors) infected with malware. Hackers took complete control of the monitor. Further, baby monitors can grant a hacker access to the home network to get information from computers.

The Law

As is common with the law and the internet, the law hasn’t caught up with the baby monitors. Some have noted the right to privacy should apply here. What is more of a violation of privacy than someone watching you in your bedroom? Seeming natural applications of existing laws don’t go far enough to solve the problem. While applying peeping Tom laws to those watching over baby monitors could prosecute some people and give some justice to victims, avoiding prosecution wouldn’t be hard and it wouldn’t solve the problem. Security experts have proposed other solutions including regulation of baby monitors, allowing victims to sue the baby monitor companies, and hacking back.

Security experts have called on the government to get involved by regulating IoT? devices. Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer for F-Secure, for example, compared leaking WiFi? passwords to devices catching on fire: it shouldn’t happen and the government should make sure it doesn’t. Experts have proposed civil and criminal penalties for creating unsecure devices and laws requiring buyers to change the default password before the device can be used. Others, however, believe regulation would be useless because U.S. regulations won’t affect other countries.

Some have proposed allowing victims of baby monitor hacks to sue manufacturers or sellers of the monitors. The Mirai attack shows the widespread hacking of these devices and suggests the possibility of a class action suit. If companies are hit with hefty fines they would be incentivized to send shoddy security for IoT? devices the way of lead paint.

Still others have proposed a more radical solution: hacking back. Rob Graham, security researcher and hacker, suggested the NSA launch a proactive strike to knock compromised IoT? devices offline. Graham sees this as a solution to U.S. legislation being useless overseas. While that may be true, there are likely other Constitutional concerns with the NSA hacking into people’s devices to knock them offline.

Conclusion

This paper discussed the security concerns of hackers accessing baby monitors and what this could mean for commodification of personal data and access by companies and governments as well as widespread attacks. Other concerns with baby monitors go beyond the scope of this paper: children growing up constantly surveilled and the ethics of spying on your babysitter, to name a couple. Parents have begun to worry about sharing about their children on Instagram. A class action suit is currently going against Disney for scraping data from children’s video games. It is time parents become concerned about the safety devices they bring into their homes.

Although a network in name, the Internet is a creature of the computer. During the early computing age, computers were incredibly expensive to produce and operate. An early computer, the Electronic Numerical Integrator Analyzer and Computer (ENIAC), cost $500,000 ($6,781,798 in today’s money), weighed 30 tons, covered nearly 2,000 square feet, and had almost 18,000 vacuum tubes. The pursuit of “gain” motivated “for-profit” corporations to produce smaller, faster and more affordable computers, with more memory and user-friendly software.

In 1948, Bell Laboratories introduced the transistor, an electronic device carrying and amplifying electrical current, but much smaller than the vacuum tube. Ten years later, scientists at Texas Instruments and Fairchild Semiconductor invented the integrated-circuit, incorporating the computer’s electrical parts into a single silicon chip.

In 1971, an Intel engineer developed the microprocessor, one of the most significant advancements in computer technology. Before this invention, computers needed a separate integrated-circuit chip for each function (hence the need for such large machines). Microprocessors were the size of a thumbnail and could run the computer’s programs and manage its data. Intel’s first microprocessor, the 4004, had the same computing power as the massive ENIAC.

These innovations led to the birth of the small, relatively inexpensive “microcomputer” now known as the “personal computer.” In 1974, a corporation called Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems (MITS) introduced Altair, a mail-order build-it-yourself PC kit. In 1975, MITS hired two young programmers to adapt the BASIC programming language for the Altair. In April 1975, the two young programmers formed Microsoft, responsible for the hugely popular Windows operating systems. By some estimates, Windows runs more than 90% of all PCs.

Over the next two years, two engineers in Silicon Valley built the Apple I and Apple II PCs, with more memory and a cheaper microprocessor than the Altair, a monitor, and a keyboard. Innovations like the “graphical user interface,” allowing users to select icons on a monitor screen instead of writing complicated commands, and the computer mouse made PCs more user-friendly. Bell Laboratories, Texas Instruments, Fairchild Semiconductor, Intel, MITS, Microsoft and Apple were all “for-profit” corporations. These corporations and their inventions spearheaded the PC revolution.

Soon, other “for-profit” corporations, like Xerox, Tandy, Commodore and IBM, had entered the PC market. PCs, networked over the global telephony infrastructure, created the Internet we have today. Innovations in personal computing facilitated the Internet’s expansion to 201 countries and to 3.8 billion or 51.7% of the human population. There might have been an Internet without PCs, but it would have been uninteresting, and probably confined to the research community and computer scientists.

In my Syracuse finance classes, professors inculcated the axiom that “for-profit” corporations exist for the sole purpose of maximizing shareholder wealth. According to Columbia alumnus, Milton Friedman, “[t]here is . . . only one social responsibility of business- to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud."

Moreover, shareholder wealth maximization is the law. For decades, Delaware courts, which dominate U.S. corporate jurisprudence, have espoused the tenet that the maximization of shareholder wealth must be every “for-profit” corporation’s ultimate objective. In essence, a corporation that pursues “capitalist gain” is merely following its legal mandate and complying with contractual obligations to its shareholders. As Senator Franken reminded us, “it is literally malfeasance for a corporation not to do everything it legally can to maximize its profits.”

No doubt, the U.S. government, through DARPA, funded some research and technological developments that made the ARPAnet, and eventually the Internet, possible. However, in many cases, this funding was provided to private “for-profit” corporations, like Xerox. It was the desire for “capitalist gain” that led these corporations to develop the technology products commissioned by DARPA.

Having advanced the Internet architects’ goal of reaching every human on earth, it should not come as a surprise that “for-profit” corporations would then seek to exploit the Internet for “gain.” These corporations are simply following market and legal expectations. The “gain” sought is a cost of the corporations’ facilitation of the Internet’s expansion. As Friedman stated, “[t]here’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

Hacking as Spectacle

Introduction

At current, a large portion of consumers are unaware of the extent to which software companies are “selling” or giving away their personal information by accepting user agreements found in most major “free” programs like GoogleMail? or Apple’s iCloud. Therefore, the question we must address is not how to reach sophisticated users of technology, but rather in mobilizing the masses or the casual users. From this perspective, the exposure of software deficiencies as spectacle through hacking may be an effective means of undermining programs structured to take advantage of it’s unwitting users. Despite the fact that the practice of “hacking” means and functions in many different ways for many different people, over the years, the term “hacker” or “hacking” has become increasingly demonized. As discussed in class, hacking can be characterized as the ability to use creative means to make power move or be shifted in directions it was not originally intended. In a more positive light, hacking can also be described as a means of expressing dissatisfaction with a current system or a form of civil disobedience. Applying Henry David Thoreau philosophy from his 1848 essay on Civil Disobedience and applying it to consumer software, users should not permit systems to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable said systems to make them the agents of injustice. Most importantly, hacking as spectacle can provide an effective means of advertising the necessity for greater open-source software to improve the dissemination of information in a more transparent manner. It is not enough to merely undermine the system, but hacking as spectacle should illustrate how unconscionable many programs and systems are to both privacy and autonomy.

The significance of spectacle

Hacking as spectacle has the potential to serve multiple purposes. It can both create national dialogues on questions of surveillance and privacy, but may also provide solutions or reform to remedy the privacy issues identified. Hackers have long played a vital role in improving both software and hardware issues. For instance, as it relates to open source software development, hackers are indispensible for both innovation and their ability to continually improve and repurpose software code. Even developers of proprietary or copyrighted software hire “white hat hackers” to test the security and functionality of web sites or new software.

Moving forward, hackers will play an increasingly important role in bringing to light deficiencies in “privacy” protocols, website surveillance, and other security mechanisms that are purposely hidden from the majority of technology users. Two recent examples have demonstrated how strategic hacking and the use of internet leaks can bring the question of privacy front and center in national and global debate. In the first instance, Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor, leaked documents outlining numerous global surveillance programs being run by the NSA with the cooperation of telecommunication companies and European governments. Through these leaks, Snowden not only brought to light the practices of the NSA, but more importantly, his actions sparked an international dialogue on internet security, privacy, and government surveillance. On a smaller scale, the celebrity nude photo leaks from Apple’s iCloud this fall have similarly sparked public concern over privacy and the security of cloud computing, with a particular emphasis on their use to store sensitive or private information. While Apple’s iCloud leak did not have the same National Security implications or backlash as Mr. Snowden’s work, these leaks were an effective means of demonstrating the deficiencies of broad based cloud computing to the general public.

As illustrated in the aforementioned examples, hacking as spectacle can be an efficient means of affecting change because the efforts have low marginal costs. This low marginal costs mean that in theory, the practice cannot be “outspent” by capitalism. Similarly, like open source software, the practice of hacking as spectacle, because of it’s low marginal costs, will be superior to the efforts of capitalism as it will be constantly improved through collaboration. Along with this, the distribution of the information on the practice will also be superior, given the low marginal costs. With this in mind, if attacking sites and programs like iCloud, Gmail, or the Facebook server become pervasive enough, less consumers would use them. If this is to happen, there will likely be changes in these programs that will address the concerns of users, or free/open source alternatives will be created to satisfy the new demand for more secure applications.

Redefining and repossessing rights

Under these circumstances, hacking can help expose the way that privacy has turned from a right that the government must be justified in violating, to one that individuals must affirmatively defend. As stated by Edward Snowden in an interview as a part of the New Yorker Festival, people say they don’t have anything to hide and when that happens, the model of responsibility for how rights work is inverted. “When you say, ‘I have nothing to hide,’ you’re saying, ‘I don’t care about this right.’ You’re saying, ‘I don’t have this right, because I’ve got to the point where I have to justify it.’ The way rights work is, the government has to justify its intrusion into your rights.” Hacking can also introduce costs that have long been unrecognized by mass consumers of so-called “free-applications” and re-introduce questions of how privacy should function in the Internet age. This dialogue will be increasingly important as the “Facebook” generation transitions into positions of influence with a skewed sense of privacy, as a premium is currently being placed on the ability to volunteer your location, activities, relationships, spending habits, job experience, and other personal information to the general public. The movement from the era of the written word to the era of technology is an ongoing trial, which hacking as spectacle may improve down the road, although no one can truly be sure of what social results will come from this hap hazardous experiment with social media and internet surveillance,

-- WyattLittles - 16 Oct 2014

<--/commentPlugin-->