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.

Carah Goldoust Blog Post #4

I chose to focus on the piece by Timothy Burke, The Slow Poison of the Covert Imagination. It was interesting to read Burke’s views on the revealing of surveillance by the NSA because he presents the issue at hand but then portrays it well on a larger scale. By that, more specifically, I mean that he is able to argue very well why the surveillance that we are facing by the NSA is essentially going against the very principles that the United States stands for. However, my argument is that we in fact are benefitting from the surveillance by the NSA.

Burke makes his point very clear, “the U.S. Constitution proposes two ideas in particular: that the actions of the governmental institutions draw not just from the consent but the participation of the people.” This statement I do agree with, our country is certainly based off of the idea of a government for the people and by the people. I do not agree with the idea that the people need to fully participate in all aspects of the government when it pertains to national security. Matters of national security are classified for a reason, that reason being that it is for the people’s own safety. We do not question a highly classified Navy Seals operation because ultimately we know that it will benefit the United States and that it is for everyone’s safety that it remains top secret. Now it is clear that this is an entirely different scenario, one in which it could be argued that our right to privacy is being infringed upon. Burke proceeds to say that, “that government should never, ever be able to claim power and simply say, ‘Trust us’.” While this is true, this is not the purpose or goal of the NSA surveillance program. A program such as this may in fact infringe upon our privacy rights, but we are not the “targets” of the program. While there is access to our personal content, this is not the focus of the program. It is not merely a program to offer government employees with the chance to listen in on every day Americans’ conversations or view their activities. Just recently it was revealed that this surveillance aided in preventing an attack on the U.S. Capitol. This is a great example of what a program like this can do. So while Burke believes that, “we become like people who can’t play a game without a hint sheet and a speed hack,” we are being protected.

Burke’s overall tone is very evident, “Oh, perhaps you stop a plot here, sabotage a facility there, play a gambit, steal a plan. But the episodes that change the lives of nations and individuals for the long haul, the seismic shifts in social power and economic life?” However, a small “plot” saves many lives. The surveillance program recently saved the United States Capitol and all of those that work there. It saved the very building that represents our democracy, a building that allows officials elected by the people to create laws. So while Burke mentions stopping a plot or sabotaging a facility “there,” many lives are being saved. I believe that the purpose a program like this is to protect the American people, and if it accomplishes that very goal then it serves it’s purpose. Terrorists are not plotting their attacks out in the open, they are doing so in secret; therefore surveillance is needed and proved to be efficient.

Angella Ferrufino Post #3

Timothy Burke's "The slow poison of the covert imagination" analyzes the facts known about covert operations and draws a firm conclusion about their role in the current world. Leaders have justified the use of covert operations by proclaiming their success and necessity to protect the better good of the people. Burke's distrust of the government's meddling with privacy is apparent from the very beginning.
He states "For one, no one should ever be assured when political parties assure you they're not doing something that they presently cannot actually do" While criticizing the government's invasion of privacy and utter disregard for the 4th amendment in regards to the NSA's phone tapping, he also criticizes the citizen's willingness to accept the justification and reassurance without a second thought.
               To Burke, surveillance culture is unnecessary but world leaders continue to use it for years with the excuse that that it is needed in order to make important wise decisions.  While the NSA's tapping into the privacy of millions of people was a clear violation of our 4th amendment rights, the government was very quick to clear it from people's memory by simply saying that only bad people we're being listened to and simply normal law abiding citizens had nothing to worry about.
        Here, Burke builds an interesting theory. He states the state powers are always attempting to be on a path to predicting what will happen next, how to respond to it and how to keep the world safe. He states that world leaders use AI and in order to make their decisions, instead of using morals and human beliefs in order to make decisions. This is an important theory as it draws the question of, where do we draw the line between when is the government's intervention necessary and when is it in all actuality a violation of our rights?
          This leads us into the use of artificial intelligence and its ambiguity in regards to the actual guidelines that it must stay within. While drones have been said to save american lives, and to provide us with necessary information to catch the bad guys, it's secrecy has made many people skeptical. Burke states that while the government promises that AI is responsible for great progress in security measures, they maintain that they cannot tell us the details of how AI helps us or why it helps us. Not to mention the consequences that would come to our soldiers from the use of AI, such as those who have developed PTSD.
           While Burke does point out many fallacies in the use of covert operations, dating back to the cold war and the CIA operations that put regimes into Cuba and Congo, he also creates a certain cynicism within his writing that causes him to lack credibility. He lacks any actual argument or facts to support his skepticism of covert operations. While, I do agree that there is much we do not know about covert operations and drones, I also believe that the use of AI has been responsible for changing warfare and preventing the death of more innocents.

Justin Stuart Blog #4

       In “The Slow Poison of the Covert Imagination,” Professor Timothy Burke goes into the apparatus that is covert operations. More importantly he talks about the lack thereof in the operations themselves and the belief of the systems. The only thing that is covert in such actions is the success proclaimed day in and day out by leaders and advisors who see it necessary. To say that Burke is a libertarian is an understatement. He is a soldier on the field of trying to figure out if advanced covert operations like those in the past cause the problems themselves.

Near the beginning of his report, Burke draws critical parallels to domestic issues that are front in center. But he is not trying to start a conversation with them but more showing how easily issues can be spun by pundits and how naive we as a people can be in accepting them. His view of gun and rape culture is that is can become more of a tool than issues that can promote progress. This same train of thought is used to explain his belief on surveillance culture, a covert method designed of taking in as much content as possible and deciphering so that events can be determined.

One big issue he has with this is the overreach of such actions. Burke talks about the incident involving the NSA in which it was caught spying on domestic soil. Immediately groups were enraged with such findings but were quickly quieted by those in government. The President and other elected officials reassured the mass that the NSA was not spying and was only looking for content of interest. Now what defined content of interest is interesting as it seems very flexible.

This type of generality pronounced by government is what covert operations have always been about. Burke makes a strong point that generality if covert and covert in general. There is no specific case or guidelines that it follows. Most important Burke is trying to make a point that this has been going on since the Cold War. No leader wants to believe that a super governmental organization is failing, so to hide that, they just widen its scope. This avoids the organization from really having to produce any real outcomes.

I think that this case study as some may saw draws on a lot of issues that have been discussed regarding drones, data and artificial intelligence. Using this article and the specific points will help explain what these thing really are on the battlefield and how they interact with civilian operators and populations. 

For one, drones and the efficiency in which they operate in can be very broad. There is a perception pushed on the public that drones allow for less causalities, at least in the short-term. This allows for leaders to be in strong favor of drone use as the public is not directly feeling any pain. But in actuality there is a lot of issue in which drones are similar to conventional warfare. Typical symptoms of PTSD to stress to depression can be felt when operating drones.

Because of this there is a much larger issues to step up and solve the problem. But as leaders won’t accept it, problems will just continue on. They don’t want to believe that a weapon unlike any other, with the ability to attack targets from around the world have the same flaws. These technologies were suppose to solve the problem not make it worse. Unfortunately, as Burke preaches in regards to surveillance culture, drones are in the same camp. 

I would say that drones, like humans are inherently flawed in some way. Just like spy agencies or fast computer content aggregators, there is no real precedent to go on. This is mostly so because of the lack of responsibility and the confession of failure on all levels at the highest leadership positions. No one wants to be the person who tells the public that in actuality we would be better off without them then with them. The same goes with drones as the may seem like the end of civilian deaths but the striking and displacement capability can further accelerate what are small issues into much larger ones.   

Carah Goldoust Blog Post #3

             I found the concept of PTSD pertaining specifically to drone operators very interesting. focused on the NPR piece by Rachel Martin, Report: High Levels of ‘Burnout’ In U.S. Drone Pilots as well as the Daily Mail piece by Helen Pow, ‘Did we just kill a kid?’ Drone warfare is a very new concept and a great display of the advances that our military technology has faced in just recent years. Since it is a new kind of warfare, there are new factors that will affect the soldiers that are manning these drones. The idea of “remote control” warfare sounds very bittersweet. It is worrisome that a war could be conducted at the tip of one’s fingers, literally, but at the same time does mean that less of our troops are directly in harm’s way. However, as I am focusing on the PTSD that these drone operators are facing. It seems that although it is a very advanced method of warfare, one that is safer for our troops, it still greatly affects the soldiers behind the “remote control.”

It’s a different struggle for a soldier to face when they are killing by simply hitting a button while sitting in a room full of computers. The story of Brandon Bryant is only what I would imagine one example of the mental toll these drone operators face after conducing their missions. Bryant was 27 years old and actually operated drones (with the Air Force) for 6 whole years. Bryant quit after he ended up killing a child but the mental distress began right after his first kill. As the article says, “the first time he fired a missile, he killed two men instantly and cried on his way home.” Bryant says that he felt “disconnected from humanity for almost a week.” I was surprised to learn that his immediate distress lasted only about a week, but his time as a drone operator took a toll on his life overall. I was especially interested to read that Bryant eventually went back to manning drones after he faced his own version of a breakdown. Although he is now out of the military, his role as a drone operator had almost the same PTSD effect of a soldier that had boots on the ground and faced the same tragedies but in person.

As Professor Shirk mentioned, only about 4% are diagnosed with PTSD but that is still not an ideal amount. Operating drones is an exhausting job both mentally and physically. As the NPR article mentions, the Pentagon has determined that about 30% of drone operators suffer a term called ‘burnout’ which just means they are burned out as well as facing high levels of fatigue. It is interesting that the Air Force does not consider this a “dangerous level of stress” as it can clearly lead to larger problems later on. The study does go on to mention that “17% of active duty drone pilots surveyed are thought to be ‘clinically distressed’… this means the pilots’ stress level has crossed a threshold where it’s now affecting pilots’ work and family.” The article mentions that many of these pilots say they are not receiving the proper help for this stress, which is extremely worrisome. It is a new kind of warfare and technology, so it would be assumed the proper help would be provided for a new type of military warfare. Although these soldiers are not “boots on the ground” they still need the counseling as well. There is absolutely no room for this stress to affect their work because so many lives are at stake as just the tips of their fingers. It is unsettling that the PTSD almost seems inevitable with the seemingly lack of mental support for these soldiers.

Joey Ippolito Post #3

Singer's article in the New York Times made several interesting points regarding the effects of drone warfare on the democratic process of War-making in the United States. In particular were the concerns that removing the risk to American personnel has removed congress from any influence in decisions that matter regarding violent international conflicts. In a way, this makes sense; congress is the embodiment of the American public, and since drone strikes don't result in American deaths, it's understandable that Congress wouldn't have much of an input in drone missions. Given this reality, the more important question is whether or not foreign military operations should ever be the responsibility of Congress when no American lives are threatened; in today's world, I don't believe they should.

Singer in their article argues that drone strikes are part of a trend, including tomahawk missile attacks, of fighting battles without Congressional input. If you view these operations as traditional wartime operations, Congressional input is key, serving as the voice of the people, the most important feature of a democracy. However, this view of any foreign operation as strictly a wartime operation is outdated. Today's technology allows for the executive branch to enact foreign military policy is ways never before possible. Drone strikes should be considered just another way for the executive branch to fulfill its mission of protecting the country, similar to covert international missions that have been carried out in countries the U.S. is at peace with.

Instead of questioning what drone strikes mean for the democratic process in the U.S., analysts such as Singer should focus their criticism on the processes by which targets are identified and killed by the President, CIA, and the rest of the decision makers at the top of the executive branch. Although this process has been analyzed by outsiders, how targets are identified and how the decision to strike is made still isn't clear to the public. The executive branch should maintain the control it currently has over the drone program, but the mechanisms by which they decide on targets should be more open.

Angella Ferrufino Post #2

     This week I will be using both the piece written by Rachel Martin as well as the one written by Helen Pow. Both these articles centered around the psychological drawbacks endured by the use of drones in war. I found this two articles to be particularly interesting as many do not consider the possibility that pilots of these drones could also suffer from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) considering that they are not physically in danger at any point. However, both these articles target and elaborate on pilots are having difficulty coping with these stressors.  
       Helen Pow's article focuses on the trials and tribulations suffered by airman Brandon Bryant, who worked as a U.S drone operator. Bryant was very young, only 20 years old when he flew his first drone and was eventually ordered to shoot and kill two men in Iraq, which caused him extreme emotional stress. Although at no point was Bryant in danger, he was still put in the position where he was able to take some one's life with the push of a button.  I believe that so many are having difficulty coping with this because of that exact reason. They are not in danger and therefore may have no justification to give to themselves for the murders. Military members who are deployed and put into life or death situations where they are forced to make these decisions are able to justify the killings in their own minds. However, as Bryant explains "I can't just switch and go back to normal life." It takes a large toll for a person to have so much control and yet no control over killing people at one moment and then being expected to live a normal life after they shifts are complete. Especially when events occur such as the one that happened with Bryant, where he was forced and accidentally took the life of a child. Bryant proceeded to experience sleep disorders, social isolation and begun having problems with his personal relationships. 
         Rachel Martin reports that the Air force defines clinically distressed as "pilot's stress crossing threshold that is now affecting the pilot's work and family." Drone pilots are put under intense stress in in conducting surveillance and attacking areas for extremely long hours each day and then are expected to go home where they have to deal with normal stressors such as friends or family. The immediate readjustments can take a physical and emotional toll on a person and the government has to take this into account and take preventative measures. Military members who return from deployment are forced to go decompression before they are able to see their families, in which they undergo psychiatric evaluations and are set up with the right help. However, drone pilots are not currently offered the same immediate options and end up feeling isolated. Colonel McDonald of the U.S air force explains that many of these pilots undergo "existential crisis" when they observe people's daily life for an extended period of time and then are forced to end their lives. 
     The real questions that pops into my head when evaluating both these articles are whether the advantages of drones outweigh the disadvantages and whether we are doing enough to protect the health of these drone pilots.  While it is indisputable that the drone technology has offered us a very advantageous standpoint during times of war it is also critical to analyze the costs.  Martin reports that the Air Force has put a limit on drone usage, keeping it at 57 current drones in use. This is said to be necessary in order to train more pilots to handle the high demand. I do not believe that training more pilots will fix the current problem. Government and military officials need to implement and fund a plan that will ensure that drone pilots have the necessary options and training needed to handle the stress of combat and normal life each day. Until a proper plan is implemented, airmen and other military members run the risk of developing PTSD.

     

Justin Stuart Post #3

The opinion piece that I read for this week was “Do Drones Undermine Democracy” by Peter Singer. I thought this was an interesting case to read near the beginning of the class as it really gives an objective point of view regarding drones. It also spearheads the overall issue of what in considered war especially in today’s technological advanced war. But most importantly, Singer brings up an important point on interpretation of age-old laws and if Congress and ourselves have become to self-interested to enforce them.

Since the initial writing of the constitution, the United States has always had a specific set of rules to follow in regards to war. This has always been an important and critical political platform as war had real and local consequences. Politicians who were elected to decide on behalf of their constitutions knew that those sacrificing where sons and daughters and that was real money being spent. But in the 21st Century theater of war, the main anchor in deciding as become blurred to the point where it is practically obsolete. 

Singer makes a hard line when explaining this idea. He says that “we now possess technology that removes the last political barrier to war.” The military and families can become disconnected by this, having little or no emotional attachment and therefore no risks to elected officials. But what troubles Singer the most is that with this and the new rising of a lawyer army, the Executive branch as turned war into a unilateral utility.

No longer are speeches made to the country in front of congress and what use to require a grand mobilization strategy now requires a few people in a room. The Executive branch has used this and the disappearance of repetitional risk to advance its own agenda. Congress is too busy with their own fights to come together and cry foul with operations the Executive branch is under their sole authority. But most importunely Congress, as Singer points out, is always almost full aware but likes it when they have the chance to be on both sides of the operation just in case anything does happen. Outside of this story, a recent example is the CIA interrogation program. It was debated for several years, mostly agreed upon but many in Congress have come out against it. 

But going back to how drones really accelerated this issue. Personally I mostly did agree with Singers’ take on drones and how they a promoting a less liberal environment. Indeed they are a technological marvel and are efficient depending on how you look at them but there is always a downside to everything. As mentioned above, drones and modern warfare have become a utility that can be based on polarized opinions. There is no handbook, or better yet a universally agreed upon handbook that tells what is legal warfare and what is not.

This graying has come over on the domestic side, away from the daily precision strike attacks on sovereign nations where it was immediately challenged. The use of around the clock drones by police forces were challenged in courts as violation of privacy and unreasonable search on innocent people, a huge violation of due process. I think that it is important to bring this up as what is happening away from us doe not seem to garner as much attention.

When there is no micro level attachment, drones and their missions are just a footnote is page 15 of the Washington Post. But in actuality, these unilateral movements and violations of the power set in the constitution is the beginning of an unraveling of what is legal and what should not. Unlike many other states, the US has large checks and balances. These priceless tools have allowed for democracy to flourish and for those who should be to be held accountable. But with the creation of new methods of attacking, no matter how small direct human interaction is, drones are a great example of how overall technology is creating issues for words written 300 years ago.

Singer brings up many great points that I mostly agree with. Although I also do agree that drones are good for the country and the world as a whole. But I do not necessarily like the way in which they are being used as a political tool than that of national defense. This has turned small conflicts into large ones that are now used to fight opponents in TV spots. It has time and again violated the founding principles of democracy and can lead to a further weakening across the board. 

Joey Ippolito Post #2

More than anything else, the emotional disconnect inherently part of any drone strike should be the primary focus of any discussions regarding their viability and morality. As described in the "Don't Fear the Reaper" article, the fact that operators aren't part of traditional military units that receive a debriefing, instead going home to their regular (possibly civilian lives) after a strike, complicates the already difficult situation. This is illustrated by the situation Ender finds himself in at the end of the film. Thinking his fight against the aliens was merely a simulation, or game, he became emotionally detached form the situation, making it easy for him to eradicate an entire planet's worth of the enemy aliens.
This sequence represents the issues faced by both drone operators and those who make the decisions on who to kill. Often separated by hundreds of miles, and knowing only basic information about terrorist targets, drone operators and decision makers don't have the same emotional investment in their mission that professional military members might. This detachment is not a new issue, as there are a myriad of ways to strike an enemy from a distance without having to face consequences.

Thus, the issue lies with how this emotional detachment regarding drone strikes combines with the fact that not all targets are necessarily immediate threats to the U.S. This conundrum was illustrated in the film as Ender points out how the aliens didn't mount a second attack on Earth for 50 years and seemed to be in a defensive position when the human forces attacked their planet. But, believing it was just a simulation, Ender attacked and eliminated the alien forces. This is similar to how the U.S. approaches terrorist threats in regard to drone strikes. Taking a preemptive strategy, drone strikes kill targets that might not have the capability to be an immediate threat. Instead these strikes are meant to eliminate the possibly of the targets becoming a future threat, much like the rational behind Enders attack.

Instead of focusing on the emotional distance that drones place between the decision makers/operators and the outcome of the drone strikes, and instead focusing on their legality, critics aren't discussing issues unique to drone strikes. Operations in foreign countries the U.S. has been at peace with have been going on for decades. Drone strikes in this regard are just a different way of carrying out a SEAL operation. The concern critics have with drone strikes should revolve around how easy they make it to kill from a moral perspective as opposed to the legality of their operation.

Justin Stuart Blog Post #2

The Case for Ethical Autonomy in Unmanned Systems by Ronald Arkin is an interesting and very thought provoking report. There has always been that idea that artificial intelligence will soon take over in wars leading to the saving of millions of human lives on both sides of the line. All over this idea of robotic warfare has captivated common people who have seen and books endless movies and books which have almost made this type of war as sexy and seem as if there is no real loss. But going deeper and looking at more real world mechanics and cases involving unmanned systems, there really seems to be a case against such artificial intelligence due to its limitations on itself and humans alike. 

At the beginning of his argument, Arkin talks about the the recent epidemic in ethical warfare or lack thereof. Especially in 21st Century battles he accuses soldiers of being unattached and willing to take out whomever. He believes that there is a disguise given to such combatants as heroes that the fact that they have killed innocent people is forgotten. Most importantly, he tries to prove this point but incorporating different research reports on soldier psychology.

In these reports from returning soldiers, doctors asked them a number of question regarding their feel on attacking those classified as noncombatants. To not much surprise, most soldiers in some way answered that they were willing to fire at noncombatants for a number of reasons. With this data, Arkin seems to make his case from the start that soldiers are naturally unethical as war is only capable if you had those that are such a mindset.

But what is interesting is how later in the report, Arkin introduces other data about past wars such as World War One and the Korean War. In the responses, combats were recorded saying that most did not either kill or either fire upon any type of person. Those that did only made up a some portion of the overall force. As wars went on, this type of pacifism died down once technology started to really become a part of modern warfare. Arvin point out that advances in weapons such as drones or laser guided missiles makes war  a forethought as humans become more and more distanced from it. 

Most importantly it shows that there is a strong correlation between technology and unethical behavior be it artificially or human controlled. I don’t think for one second that the inclusion of artificial intelligence on to the battlefield will immediately rid it of bad behavior as Arkin seems to almost suggest. To be honest, I think that it is the complete opposite. Yes robots can stand or walk without stopping but most importantly, robots cannot yet adapt and only work on data from the past. They do not have the ability to really find a solution as they have no conscious.

I believe that this is more dangerous. Everything to unmanned systems can become fair game. One object or person can look like a target. If a raid or plan goes wrong, robots really have no way to quickly readjust. Humans on the other hand are able to feel emotion, pain and fear that allow ourselves to really compromise to an efficient outcome. Arvin suggests that just is not the case but I think his ideas or dangerous.

Efficiency should be seen as being able to accomplish something without very little damage. It shouldn't be measured in technological systems or backward looking algorithms. We have seen such failure on the AI scale with computers playing chess, which have lost 90% of the time as the play on trends according to a recent Business Insider article and supercomputer in financial systems which have crashed global markets on a penny mistake. These reasons should show that in actuality Arkins assumptions of the inability for humans to react accordingly is wrong.

Humans possess the ability to do more than AI will ever do. For one AI is created by humans and not AI itself. If they can create it, they can defiantly do better than it. This goes also on the battlefield. When robots become to involved, humans are more likely to allow free reign and possible worse outcomes than what some say has happened in the current wars. Human interaction is critical is warfare, more so than robots, as we can put to work a range of resources to defeat an enemy that also thinks outside the box. With just robots, it would be a linear thought process against a web type one. In the end, Arkin seems to be pushing an idea that is based on few arbitrary reports. But in actuality be it intentional on accident, he also points out that with technology comes more unethical behavior.    

Angella Ferrufino Blog Post #1

Blog Post #1



      On September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush gave a very emotionally driven speech to a joint session of Congress. In this speech, he focused on the unity that the attacks from 9/11 brought forward, while also setting a very aggressive response to Al Qaeda. The message was bright and clear, America was stronger than ever and this attack would not go without a response. The attack brought worldwide support for the U.S, complete strangers risked their lives for one another, prayers were sent from around the world. This topic is what seemed most interesting to me, sparking a strong sense of patriotism within myself. A sense of patriotism that was sparked within millions of Americans. America has a history of being resilient and stepping up when a threat to liberty has presented itself and I think President Bush did a marvelous job at portraying this in his speech. This is essential in what I believe helps to make America, America and why I believe that the intended effect Al Qaeda was unsuccessful.

       President Bush states that they believe that Al Qaeda's purpose was not monetary gain, but to threaten and overthrow all democratic governments. It was a direct attack on liberty. Al Qaeda and similar groups such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad have been attempting to attack institutions of democracy for decades through acts of terrorism. While there is no one definition for terrorism, the majority surround themselves around one common concept which is the use of violence to intimidate or coerce a population and/or government.

       President Bush established what we would later call the "War on Terror", through setting our sights on the Afghanistan branch of Al Qaeda. I do not believe that President Bush ever truly thought that this war would completely eradicate terrorist groups, or even that they would make a dent in them. I believe the intended message and subsequent attacks were meant as a message and as a deterrent. Terrorist groups function mostly in the dark and are much too spread out to completely eradicate them. Personally, I believe that the U.S and allies would have been far more effective at hindering terrorist groups if they had targeted countries that fund them, such as Iraq. However, for multiple political reasons, that is simply not possible.

      Again, I return to my initial point. At times of war and terror, the people look towards their leader for support and a path of direction. When the attacks occurred, I remember thinking "Where do we go from here? Will we ever be able to be the same?". President Bush provided that in his speech, and began the healing process in many. He stated "We will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail." The recent attacks in Paris at the Charlie Hebdo satirical newspaper magazine show exactly why it is so important that these words ring true as countless innocent victims continue to die. President Bush also made a very important point in stating that this was not about religion. While the terrorist groups hide behind their faith and use Allah as justification for their actions, the religious group as a whole cannot be judged for the actions of a few. 

        Overall, President Bush's speech at the joint session of Congress was extremely well written and established the response that would eventually bring the capture of Osama Bin Laden. President Bush effectively helped to bring a damaged country together, to unite with our allies and to let the world know that it had not broken our government. Although many may say that the aggressive response should not have been taken, that perhaps there could have been a more peaceful and political approach to solving this issue. I do not believe that you can negotiate with groups and people who do not wish to negotiate. These same attempts can be seen between the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Israel. Israel has been backed into a corner and been forced to protect itself after multiple failed attempts to negotiate with the PIJ. A lack of response and organization could have lead to other terrorist attacks within our country, which would have lead to even more tragedies.

Joey Ippolito's First Post

President George W. Bush in his speech on September 20, 2001 to a Joint Session of Congress frames the threat of Al-qaeda as a threat to the ontological security of the United States. In this speech, President Bush references the abstract American values and way of life that Al-qaeda is a threat to. He specifically notes the political freedoms that Americans enjoy and the economic security and prosperity that the U.S. provides as reasons for the September 11 attacks. In framing the attacks as ideological in this way, President Bush is making only response possible: a full-scale political, economic and military retaliation against the very idea of terrorism.

Regardless of the motives behind Al-qaeda's attacks and the American response, it is clear that the American response lived up to President Bush’s promise that “every resource” would be directed in his proclaimed “war on terror.” This war wasn’t just limited to terrorist organizations, because by framing the attack as an ideological one against American Values, President Bush also opened the possibility of targeting governments that harbor or support organizations such as Al-qaeda. Such was the reasoning in calling out the Taliban in this speech; by comparing the oppression suffered by Afghans under the Taliban to American liberties and then noting how the same government harbored Al-qaeda, Bush expanded the frame of of the threat of Al-qaeda to more than just the organization.

            Whether or not framing the attack and the threat posed by Al-qaeda as an ideological one as opposed to an economic or military one, or simply an irrational act of terrorism is up for debate. However, by framing the threat in this way, President Bush expanded the scope of potential American responses to essentially anything that could gather enough political support. In the aftermath of such an emotional event, this support was easy to gather. Therefore, President Bush was able to effectively escalate the conflict to levels that they likely would not have reached without this framing.