Carah Goldoust Blog Post #6

I found Bergen’s piece on NSA surveillance interesting and well thought out. It is an important question to not only ask but to look into, whether or not the NSA surveillance program is really doing what it promises. I believe that there are two main reasons why it has created such a massive amount of controversy since it has been revealed to the public. The first reason is because it is arguable that it is an infringement on our fourth amendment rights as U.S. citizens. Also, the second reason is that people really do question whether or not this type of program is doing more good than it is doing bad. It is apparent that more people are concerned about their fourth amendment rights than they are seeing the larger concept that this program may help catch terrorists. Therefore, I think it is great that a piece like this exists and that the authors really went into detail with their study. However, even though as this study shows that the program does not really do as much as we think in terms of protecting us, I do believe that it still has a great purpose.

Bergen does make a great point that after 225 cases they studies; they found that it was still traditional methods of investigation that led to “catching” most terrorists. Bergen states, “Traditional investigative methods initiated 60 percent of the cases we identified.” These traditional methods include something as simple as someone providing a tip. While it may be true that not that many cases are not detected with this particular tool. I believe that it is important to not only remember that it is a new and developing method of surveillance. But also it is important to remember that the scope of information that is being gathered may just be too massive to comprehend just yet. Basically, since it is a new tool for intelligence gathering, they are still learning how to “zero in” on information that could actually be of use. Bergen did mention however that recent cases may not have been made public yet, but I do not think the number would be significantly different than what their study displays. Regardless, I believe that this program needs to stay in place as it is just getting developed.
Furthermore, just because this program is not providing that many cases, does not make it inefficient. Bergen mentions that some of the cases it is providing may have to just do with terrorist financing. Even if this is the type of information that is being gathered, this is still very helpful. Any lead that can be gathered as to the activities and whereabouts of terrorists will help our national security overall.
Ultimately I think that while this program is controversial, it does need to stick around. It was put in place for a reason and it should remain. Once it is accepted that this program will stay, I think it is important to see how it is possible for it to narrow down it's targets. This would not only help the American public, but it would also potentially help the intelligence community find what they are looking for in the first place. 

Angella Ferrufino Post #5

For my final entry, I chose to analyze Hasan Elahi's FBI, here I am! talk at a TED conference. Elahi managed to make a very serious topic into a comical one. While the grim reality is that in this present day and age, there is no true meaning to the word "privacy", Elahi has taken it upon himself to relieve the government from having to do any extra work to follow his daily activity. Modern day technology and government intervention has taken away people's sense of privacy. Such scandals like that of the NSA phone tapping have caused people to feel uneasy. The state of national security that we currently live in has caused many innocent people to make he FBI's terrorist watch list. That's exactly what happened to Hasan Elahi after he was detained in the Detroit airport after flying back from a presentation he was doing overseas. As he mentions, when you know you are being monitored, tracked and documented, you begin to feel as if you are losing control over your life. Therefore, in order to get his control back, he began documenting every single moment of his life, including traveling, food eaten, toilets used, all since he knew that the FBI was doing it to him anyways. 
         I found it rather humorous and daunting at how one sided this invasion of privacy is. While I think most can agree that national security is extremely important, it is also curious to realize how little we know or are allowed to know. Elahi points to that we are not allowed to take pictures of federal buildings, but meanwhile the government is allowed to tap into our phones and private messages and use other forms of AI. This brings us into the recent use of drones. It is not an unknown fact that drones have the capabilities to not only conduct surveillance in its surrounding area but also they are able to record conversations and view activity inside of buildings. While the government is not actively using drones to conduct surveillance within the United States, private corporations such as Google have been known to use technology such as their google cars in order to tap into home wi-fi networks and view private information. It is also unsettling to know that while the government is able to brush aside people's concerns about unlawful activity by claiming that it is not listening to everything, or that it is for the purpose of keeping us safe, individuals are expected to hand over their entire life history. 
           When Elahi was first detained in Detroit, he was asked a series of questions concerning his whereabouts and random dates, particularly those surrounding the attack on 9/11/2001. Luckily for him, he actually had his entire schedule very well documented. However, even after having shown proof of his whereabouts, he was still asked to go to the FBI office multiple times over the course of 6 months and undergo 9 consecutive polygraph exams. After that,  Elahi felt the need to contact the FBI every single time he chose to travel, so that they would not think that he was fleeing for any reason. He then took it to the extreme of "watching himself" which is of course very humorous but also eerie that he felt that was his only option to regaining control over his privacy. 
       Again, all of this makes a full circle and comes back to data collection and security measures taken by government officials to combat terrorism. At what point does the cost outweigh the benefit? While it is understandable that government agencies are dong their best and using all resources possible to find actual threats, it is also not permissible that their data collection would lead to errors such as adding the incorrect people to their terrorist watch list. Accosting and completely violating an innocent person's right to privacy without having concrete evidence is crossing the line. The use of AI has left too much room for error, in which government officials feel they can fully rely on their data to make a difference and when they are wrong, they still seem to deny any responsibility. 

Justin Stuart Blog #6

      For the final blog post for this class, I thought that it would be interesting to look at data from missions of drone strikes in certain areas of the world. The data was compiled by the New America foundation and provides a non-partisan, transparent update on covert military strikes in country’s such as Pakistan and Yemen. Information is not found out through direct U.S. releases but by news reports either from international or local reporters that have strong sources. I thought it was important to look over something from a non-governmental organization as it provides an opportunity to use what we have learned and gives us an insight into missions that may be otherwise ignored.

The first country I looked at was Pakistan. Pakistan has been ground zero for covert and drone mission since the start of the War on Terror. It has also been the area of great distrust and uncertainty regarding these missions. Locals and governmental leaders have said that the U.S. is infringing on the sovereignty and rights of its people in hopes to destroy national enemies. Too many civilians have either been killed or villages destroyed.

In 2006 two drone strikes killed 94 civilians and zero terrorists. With this data point one can see why those in Pakistan were outraged but most importantly it can as a surprise to me. There was never a large story about an incident pertaining to this and it made it seem as the Pakistanis’ were at fault. But overtime, drone strike became more common and more efficient. The use of drones became greater once Obama took office. 

Since 2008, the use of drones has increased 8 fold. Interestingly enough, the kill ratio has moved from civilians to terrorists. In the same period as Bush, Obama has killed the same number of civilians but almost ten times the number of militants. Also, as each year goes on, this percentage distribution reaches zero as of 2014 as all those killed were terrorists while the number of overall drone strikes decreased.

Another country experiencing the same type of covert action is Yemen. In Yemen, a emerging country full of distrust and almost anarchy, terrorist organizations have been able to thrive. Throughout the Bush term, strikes were rare, with only a handful to account for. Only during President Obama’s term as drone strikes increased with over 110 of them. In the beginning there was collateral damage but is was not as bad as in Pakistan. Compared to militant deaths, civilian deaths were equal to only ten percent. But as technology and information became more sophisticated, less strikes were needed while terrorist killed increased and civilians caught in the cross-fire decreased.

To me, the most interesting points about the data is how over time technologies, be it drones themselves, data and intelligence collection or general government workings has seemed to become more precise. We see in data representing Bush that strikes were a lot more deadly on a civilians death basis. But going into Obama’s term, militant deaths increased while strikes and collateral damage decreased. This was not special to one country but both Yemen and Pakistan.

The data also shows that the war itself is evolving. Pakistan is a densely populated country so its easy to see why civilians are likely to be killed. But now terrorist organizations are moving into sparse countries with little government making it harder for intelligence organizations. Although as we see, the technology has worked and terrorist are being struck more efficiently. This is a positive sign for drone and artificial intelligence warfare as it causes less problems. Governments won’t have to worry as much with drone strikes as they have to seemed to become more precise and overall more protective of greater society.

One reservation I had was the increase of drone strikes during the Obama administration. In 2008 Obama preached transparency and respecting rights around the world but the data provided by New America seems to show otherwise. Obama ratcheted up strikes, violating due process or any idea that we are trying our best to respect local populations. There is also the idea that not all data may be correct or believable based on the locations. Just some food for thought.

Overall, I believe that this data has a lot of good points be it pro or anti drones. Most importantly it shows that strikes are becoming more useful to the overall global community. It also shows that the war isn’t ending but moving and so is the use of strikes. The data also doe not forget the underlying issues of collateral damage and being responsible but I think that as time goes on, these ideas will come to more importance and eventually work itself out.  

Angie Ferrufino Blog Post #4

This week I chose to analyze Nathan Newman's "Why Google's spying on user data is worse than the NSA's". Newman attacks multiple aspects of google's "spying" from how they collect the information to what they use the illegally obtained information. Many hardcore patriots would oppose much of what Newman has to say, particularly in his support of Edward Snowden's release of confidential NSA files. But even those who are strongly patriotic might have a problem with private corporate companies invading the public's privacy for not greater reason but for personal gain. As argued by Newman, at least the collection of data done by government agencies have been for national security and been approved by courts and congressional committees. However, corporate companies such as google have received no approvals and in fact have been found to be conducting illegal collections of data multiple times.
            Newman reports that google has illegally collected private information ranging from photos to private conversations through their "wi-spy" program, which collects data through people's home wifi networks. Once confronted by the FCC, google was forced to agree to a 20 year consent in which they would have their privacy policies monitored. However, after only a year of having agreed to that consent, google was found by the FTC to have secretly placed cookies that would track users without their consent. Google was forced to pay a sum of $22.5 million dollars due to this violation. However hefty the fine was, the amount of profit that google is possibly making through the use of this data is much higher.
           This leads us into Newman's second point which is, how exactly is this data being used? Newman agues that the data collection is primarily being used for corporate gain and to financially impoverish individuals. He states that Google sells ads placements to companies that are known to either sell illegal products or loans that have been banned in multiple states due to there exploitative nature. Additionally, there is a discreet price discrimination practice that  Google conducts by taking into account the individual's location, search history and census information in order to determine what ads to supply you with. Google's lack of discretion in choosing what ads to allow has led to many individuals being targeted by fraudulent home loan companies. Even after Google was alerted of these companies, they still refused to remove the ads until the Treasury Department forced them to shut down 85% of the ads known to be scam. Even more so, in 2012 Google was fined $200 million for knowingly allowing fraudulent pharmaceutical companies to advertise on their site. As Newman states "This was not passive activity by Google, but active complicity with advertisers often selling fake prescription medicine to desperately ill individuals or marketing illegal steroids." Newman provides a strong argument towards the illegal practices conducted by corporate companies. While the NSA and other federal agencies have been accused of illegally obtaining data, at the very least they are doing so for national security and not for the sake of making a profit. Companies such as Google and Facebook have been violating privacy protection laws purely so that they can make additional profit. Federal agencies such as the FCC and FTC need to provide greater protection for individuals from these companies. Failing to do so has resulted in many people becoming victims to fraudulent activity to the point that many have lost their homes. If data collection by the government has been so greatly scrutinized in the past, then it is also important for the public to understand the dangers of data collections from corporate companies.

Carah Goldoust Blog Post #5

I chose to address the article by Julian Sanchez, The Fourth Amendment Shell Game. Sanchez is very critical of the NSA surveillance program and provides valid information to support his argument. While the NSA surveillance program can very well be argued to be an infringement on our Fourth Amendment rights as US citizens, but it is does have a purpose. Sanchez argues that a program such as this sets a dangerous precedent because ultimately the government does not need a judicial warrant in order to look at citizens’ records. I was not aware of the specifics of the president’s new proposal until I read this article. Before, with permission presented by the Patriot Act, the government would get records from phone companies of information they already kept for themselves (for business purposes). However, now, the phone companies are being asked to keep information according to what the government needs. The idea is that with this third party – being the phone company – is going to be made aware of your activities and therefore by allowing them to have this information you are waiving your right to the privacy of this information. While it may it intruding on our Fourth Amendment rights, I believe that the program should remain.

A program like this again is used to track down illegal activities and potential threats to our homeland. This program is not in place for our everyday conversations to be listened in on. Essentially, if an everyday citizen is not doing anything wrong there should be no intense worry about the government conducting surveillance. In today’s age it is impossible to believe that things will move forward without each move being monitored in one way or another. With changing times, tactics also have to change, so a program like this is only keeping up with modern times.

Smith v. Maryland supports the activities carried out by the NSA because it reasoned that you are knowingly exposing any phone number that you dial to your phone company, and therefore you are waiving your right to “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The NSA is legally able to obtain this information, but at the same time it is completely valid to argue that it infringes on our Fourth Amendment right. However, with changing times we cannot expect to keep all of our privacy if we expect terrorists to be stopped. I believe that as time goes on and technology advances, we should not expect more privacy but rather less. While it doesn’t mean that a citizen is unfavorable of the bulk surveillance because they are conducting illegal activities, it is important to remember that the government is not working to monitor everyday conversations of everyday citizens. While again it is just the principle that one of our Constitutional rights is being infringed upon, this is a helpful tool for our government to weed out our country’s enemies.

Justin Stuart Blog #5

In “Uber has an asshole problem,” reporter Matthew Yglesias talks about the recent growing pains happening inside of the world’s largest start-up. He categorizes the company as one created on “violating the letter of the law” and thriving on “violating the spirit of the law.” But Yglesias was not bashing the company based on its disruptive ideas but on its disregard beyond that. Uber has become a representative of modern day technologies that when introduced to impulsive people creates issues that can become worse than before. 

The problem with Uber is not that it may have forced taxis out of business or broken laws in the cities that it operates, but that it did so in a way with little or no recourse. This, to me seems to be the authors main issue with the company. The founder Travis Kalanick wanted to “destroy the value of [taxi] licenses” without any permission. This way of taking certain actions is very representative of what is going on in government itself.

The modernization of intelligence collection and unmanned drones has experienced the same type of distaste. Many feel, just like in Uber’s case, that these methods are only to skirt around certain laws and regulations for the possibility of greater efficiency. There is no feeling of responsibility as the end users feel the power to rewrite rules leaving people on the outside feeling vulnerable. Unfortunately these regular people have no way to veto these uses there is also no ultimate way to measure the net positive impact these data collections may have.

Another reason that made Yglesias write this article and makes Uber controversial, are the recent threats by a high-ranking executive that the company has and will use customer’s data at its disposal. Uber has become an intelligence company in it own right. Keeping track of customers pick-up and drop-off and where they are in real-time without them actually using the app. The company prides itself on being liberalizing to the customer, but what Yglesias is trying to show is that under that veil, the company may be breaching basic rights.

He then relates Uber to other serious companies such as Google to prove is overall point on data and the misuse of it. Google built trust with users by no matter how much they hated one, they would not use it against them. They respected the basic rights even in an innovative way of business. Uber on the other hand has the ability to ruin its reputation just to outweigh certain people that may have hurt its feeling, without any due process its willing to release any information to ruin such people. 

Again, this heavily relates to government today. The collection of detailed information either on computers or phones has led to citizens to distrust officials. These technologies are integral in our everyday lives and any information not relatable to certain cases could cause harm when made public. To the government, all this data is fair game while many others see it differently. There is no concrete way to use information for digital sources and there is also a belief that if there was, a new technology would be able to walk around it. Like in Uber’s case, customers have the right to trust a company with its personal data but assume such regulations internally will be there so that trust will not be broken. When it is, like in government, there becomes too many cons that outweigh any real benefits. 

Overall, I thought that the story was interesting. Uber has become an important part in my life no doubt and has increased choice. But there were some issues I had with the story and also some agreements. I did agree that Uber has acted in ways not commendable. A company of such innovation needs to protect it brand from certain bad actors. I also though that the author took a very sharp slant from the beginning. Vox has had issues with deep spin and misuse of facts so I had a hard time believing from the beginning. 

The story was also too short to lay out a trustworthy opinion and felt like a notecard. It had an opportunity to relate Uber to NSA or the CIA but it didn’t. If it did this, I think it could hit on the much larger issue of data collection and the one-sidedness that it gives it collectors. Without it, it just became a wikipedia page. But what was interesting was the Uber ads on the side of the Vox webpage, which showed real-time data at work and further diminishing the credibility of the work.      

 

Joseph Ippolito Post #4

Timothy Burke’s The Slow Poison of the Covert Imagination argues that the “surveillance culture” created by the U.S. government only serves to enable those in power who want to chase their unrealistic vision of a future where terrorist attacks can be predicted and stopped based on the mountain of data collected and analyzed by intelligence agencies. Burke’s argument raises several valid points about the act of data collecting (as opposed to the particular data collected) infringing on the personal rights of Americans. However, it loses steam when it characterizes the government as agencies that view data collection as as way to justify its “grandiloquent, self-flattering imagination of its own power.” This argument isn’t based on facts, but rather burke’s personal view that intelligence agencies have overstepped their bounds with their data collection tactics, creating a culture in the government based around secrecy and a too-intimate knowledge of its citizens habits, whereabouts, etc.

Based on the accounts of those interviewed in The Watchers, I am of the opinion that data collection initiatives such as TIA cast too wide a net in their quest to be the hub of all personal information available. It appears that 99% of this information is useless to these informations agencies; they probably don't care where I was last tuesday. However, Burke makes a valid response when he opines that it isn’t the nature of the data that’s the issue, but the idea that it can be accessed anytime, anywhere that’s the issue for most Americans. If Burke had rooted the rest of his concern in the what the government could do by preying on this public fear of a surveillance state, I would have supported the rest of his concerns about the affect it has on American democracy. However, by turning this into an attack on the American government’s “character,” I find his argument too philosophical and opinionated.