Paranoia strikes (digitally) deep
Today, the internet is essentially a computing and communications space. During the next decade, a vast array of embedded-internet devices will hop aboard what was once jocularly referred to as the infobahn.
Be they supermarket barcode scanners, electronic toll collectors, ID-card readers, home refrigerators, smart electrical meters, healthcare devices, or whatever, being internet-connected these devices will all potentially be able to talk amongst themselves in the next decade's omniscient cloud, sharing data while cross-checking usage patterns.
All that data taken together will paint a highly detailed picture of you, your whereabouts, diet, health status, purchasing patterns, and lifestyle. And in some hands - say, those at the end of the long arm of the law or those clenched into an iron fist - that information could be used against you.
Don't get us wrong. You might feel perfectly comfortable with your life being an open book, agreeing instead with Google CEO Eric Schmidt's peculiar notions of privacy. As he recently told CNBC. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
The operant word in Schmidt's smug statement is "anyone." He assumes a benevolent, paternalist "anyone" who's just like you and me, and keeps us good folks safe by watching out for terrorists, pedophiles, and other odious "thems". In Schmidt's world, there's a "them" and an "us".
If only life were that simple. It isn't.
The definition of "them" is a highly mutable one. Here in the United States, citizens out of step with the dominant political philosophy have been regularly designated as "them," and subjected to both extra-legal and legal-but-selective scrutiny - think of the McCarthy years, the late 1960s, and the post-9/11 hysteria, for example.
A patchwork of legal protections currently exists to protect against the unfettered tracking of such digital droppings as your location, buying practices, financial dealings, and health records. Although that protective shield is in clear need of consolidation and strengthening, it exists. Today, at least.
But data is an increasingly valuable commodity. And wherever there's value to be found, there's money to be made - and that money will fund an army of lobbyists to fiscally twist pliant lawmaking arms to weaken those protections.
The phrase "increasing shareholder value" is a talisman of almost religious power these days, matched only in its magical inarguability by its working-class mirror mantra of "job creation". Expect both of those incantations to crop up in data-deregulation debates during the out-of-control 2010s, no matter which political party is in power.
Information about you is worth money. Big money. But to take an even darker view, it might be worth your life.
Come a significant breach in public security - a "9/11 redux", if you will - and data safeguards will evaporate. Poof. Faced with an existential threat - whether real, imagined, or trumped up - the Schmidt philosophy will rule, and personal privacy and protection will dissolve.
This is not news. Just ask the 100,000 or so Japanese Americans from California, Oregon, and Washington who received all-expense-paid vacations in sunny Arizona, Utah, Wyoming and elsewhere during World War II.
The difference during a security crisis in the 2010s will be that there's so much more data that avid dot-connecters might use to implicate possible "thems" - and that the majority of that potentially incriminating data is increasingly out of your control.
Those datapoint dots can be reassembled into narratives that suit the goals of the reassembler. As has been proven in many a grad-school psych project and as sung by Paul Simon in the key of B major, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
And there will be many, many dots for those narrative builders to choose from. Today, as we ease our way into the out-of-control decade, tracking your habits and whereabouts is mostly either helpful or benign. In the San Francisco Bay Area, for example, a FasTrak electronic toll-collection devices helped one motorist recover her stolen car by reporting that car's comings and goings.
In Blighty, although an enormous network of CCTV cameras make UK citizenry the most watched-over in the world (there are over one million cameras in London alone), when it comes to crime-fighting the system is a joke. One report, for example, determined that one crime was solved per 1,000 CCTV cameras in London.
But electronic fare collection and CCTV are mere baby steps. During the next decade, information collection will expand by leaps and bounds. Advances in location-awareness, for example, may add passenger information to vehicle tracking, then extend that tracking beyond mere checkpoint monitoring to continuous surveillance. CCTVs will add more-infallible-than-not face detection and will thus be able to track individuals' movements from camera to camera to camera.
If you're a dot-connecting prosecutor with a narrative to build, you're going to have plenty of info with which to construct your argument. And if you're Mr. or Ms. Average Consumer, you'll have little or no control over your own dots.
And it's Mr. and Ms. Average Consumer - or, more correctly put, billions of Mr. and Ms. Average Consumers - who will find themselves increasingly out of control in the coming decade.
You, dear reader, as a technically sophisticated consumer of technology, can choose to avoid such relatively benign losses of control as Apple lock-in. You can also work your way around Google's multi-tentacled grip on your personal information and web activities. With sufficient effort, you can also keep most of your personal digital dots out of the cloud, where they could otherwise be pounced upon by those who might want to rewrite your narrative to their own ends.
But Mr. and Ms. Average Consumer can't. You might be able to retain a modicum of control during the coming decade, but most folks won't be able to.
They'll be out of control. ®
Terrorism is just an excuse
Look at the UK-US extradition treaty, originally sold as an expedited treaty need to quickly extradite terrorists suspects. That quickly collapsed into juridiction shopping and petty nuisance stuff:
"If this order is approved, the United States will no longer be required to supply prima facie evidence to accompany extradition requests that it makes to the United States. By contrast, when we make extradition requests to the United States we shall need to submit sufficient evidence to establish "probable cause""
Then there was the acceptance of hearsay even in the claim made:
"the advice we had from the US that the requirement to show a prima facie case could in some cases undermine the chances of the case ultimately succeeding at trial, if for example an inability to rely on hearsay evidence in the extradition request exposed a prosecution witness before the trial."
American Bar Association’s symposium (the US lawyers discussed the treaty) discussed how the UK authorities conspired to misuse the treaty:
"But perhaps the most disturbing part of the Standard's Las Vegas transcript is when the Department of Justice man describes how Britain decided to reinterpret the law to help out its American friends with the Norris case. As we have heard, price-fixing was not an offence at the time in Britain. Happily, however, conspiracy to defraud was. So, said Hammond, "the UK Government looked at the information we provided in support of the extradition, and said: 'You know what? That looks like conspiracy to defraud to us'."
And Jacqui Smith, is REQUIRED to uphold *UK* law, if UK law says the penalty is 1 month and US law says it's 1 year, and the crime was committed in the UK, it's not for Jacqui Smith to seek to apply US law.... yet that is exactly what she did:
"In December 2007, the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, referred to “inaccurate claims in the press” that she was about to introduce an additional statutory bar to extradition called “’forum’ which could prevent extradition where a case could be tried in the UK”, adding that the key issue was to ensure that offences were dealt with in the place where they could be most effectively prosecuted,"
So you see how terrorism is just an excuse, once the right is taken away, it's taken away for all crimes. So now we have extradition without evidence, hear say evidence, jurisdiction shopping, uncontrolled surveillance, and a security mechanism working like the AIDS virus causing the immune system to attack itself.
Now we have a smart device that knows you every move, who you communicate with, when, even the direction your phone was at the time, we have companies collecting all this information and arguing that collecting this info is a *good* thing. We had a privacy directive that should stop them, but an EU Commission that won't enforce it. We have a collapse in civil protections, secret blacklists, warrantless surveillance the lot.
It's like a slow motion train wreck we're all witnessing.
"Ten years from now, the concept of keeping all your personal apps and files on your local device - except for high-end systems used by pro-level content creators - may be as passé as booting your PC using toggle switches."
All I can say is: not me mate, not me, maybe my customers, maybe my relatives. Me? no way jose.
I already made the "personal" decision of not running at home anything MS proprietary beyond XP/2003, and that's because I do not trust Vista/7/2008 privileged system processes that I can not see or control.
I'm IT old school, the penguin so far is my democratic IT friend and does allow me to do as I please with my files and my data.
Stallman, and Freedom
"It's stupidity. It's worse than stupidity: it's a marketing hype campaign... Somebody is saying this is inevitable – and whenever you hear somebody saying that, it's very likely to be a set of businesses campaigning to make it true."
(Stallman speaking to the Guardian)
What is acutely distressing about the hysterical use of 'terrorism' to justify civil liberty infringement is the blurring of the distinction between Government and corporate interest, at the expense of people who should be represented and protected in a democratic nation.
Politicians find it expedient to privatise data gathering and surveillance for 'our safety'. The corporates find it convenient to exploit data harvested by the Government for marketing, and so perpetuate the fear.
How exaggerated is the risk?
On average, every year in the UK the same number of people die falling out of trees, as die from acts of terrorism. Yet no one is putting crash mats under oak trees, running breathless news stories of corpses found under a chestnut tree, or proposing strip searches on entry to woodlands.
Thankfully, no one has died from an act of terrorism on the UK mainland since 2005. Tragically in that event, 56 were killed. That suggests our Security Services are doing a good job.
Yet in the four years since 2005, approximately 114,000 people a year have died from smoking related disease caused by the poisonous products of the tobacco industry. That is around 450,000 dead. Around **half a million** dead. But no tobacco executive has been arrested and prosecuted.