Brian Conley's News & Notes

With the release of Buzz, and the much hyped privacy disaster coming so soon after rumors that Google was talking with the NSA< one has to ask whether or not Google really is trying to kill privacy.

An unfortunate thing about privacy, in the online space, is that privacy there is directly connected with access to anonymity. There is essentially no anonymity online, without taking active measures yourself to ensure anonymity. As there is no anonymity, there is little or no true privacy.

It’s probably important to understand why there is no anonymity. A brief explanation, when you are surfing the web you have a unique IP address, whether it is one address distributed to many sub addresses connected to a home or office router, or your computer connected directly. This IP address is noticed by the website you arrive at, which can now also gather the url you arrived from and the url you depart to. Utilizing “cookies” which are small pieces of text your web browser stores locally, websites can gather more information about you and your browsing habits. When you connect these with personally identifiable data like Amazon.com or Facebook, or even iGoogle accounts, you start to see how your anonymity dissipates.

It is precisely because of the need to move from more anonymous data to less anonymous data that companies like Facebook are doing so well, and companies like Google are exploring how to get into the social media game. Unfortunately for Google, they underestimated the importance of “privacy in context.”

I’m not sure I agree with Helen Nissbaum’s thesis in overall, but I do agree with this:

The nuts-and-bolts of my theory says that privacy depends on the social context of information being shared and what’s appropriate for those contexts.

What Google forgot is that, even though any n00b privacy activist will tell you that email is not private without encryption, people feel anonymous and feel private with their email. Just as an individual might be empowered by wearing a mask, that same individual can be empowered by email to engage in activities they wouldn’t otherwise.

The question of anonymity online, full anonymity, is rarely considered by many outside of threatened human rights activists and privacyphiles. The feeling of anonymity or privacy however is taken for granted.

When first Facebook, and then Google Buzz suddenly began broadcasting information about users to the world, in Facebook’s case to everyone and in Google’s case “following” everyone you email or chat with regularly based on some unknown algorithm known only to them, these users came face to face with the latter-day Panopticon.

Some readers may think I’m at risk of drifting into histrionics here about the rise of a security state or the NSA tracking your computers location via internet latency measurements, or the FBI wanting access to your browser history. This is not what I am attempting to suggest. I see the Google Buzz accident as an event that demonstrates the desire of Google to eliminate the idea of privacy, so that we become not just happy existing in a digital panopticon, but so that we recognize its there, and then forget.

Under such a lens it makes sense that Google would ask the NSA for help, or that they would so greatly underestimate the potential backlash from Google Buzz.

According to NYT, Sergey Brin of Google said that by offering social communications, Buzz would help bridge the gap between work and leisure.

In the same article, something perhaps more blatantly reminiscent of a Panopticon comes from Facebook:

“We don’t aspire to be just a Web site where people connect and share with friends,” said Ethan Beard, director of the Facebook developer network and a former Google executive. “We want to be the underlying technology people use to connect with friends wherever they are on the Web.”

Google wants to kill anonymity. So does Facebook. Their business models depend on it. They want to kill anonymity more than privacy, but if they continue to kill privacy context, people will continue to be up in arms.

Unfortunately, you should be more worried about access to anonymity and the increasing interconnection of your everyday actions with a searchable, aggregatable, quantifiable database that is the Internet.

Jeremy Bentham could perhaps not have imagined a world where closed circuit cameras turned “public space” into its own panopticon, where shoppers and citizens alike could never know who was watching them, monitoring their movements, keeping an eye whether they were acting for good or ill. Such power could surely only be reserved for an omniscient/omnipresent being the threat of whose observations, lets be honest, were the actual precursor to the Panopticon.

The increase in sociality some have begun talking about also tends toward the potential for increasing the reach and capabilities of the State. It’s yet another reason that we should continue to push for access to anonymity online. If privacy is effectively killed, and your every online habit can be broadcast to an infinite number of “guards” sitting at their own little “observation posts” ie web browsers, it won’t be long until most of us begin to ignore the internet Panopticon as much as we do the one at Walmart, our office job, or the local shopping mall.

That’s not a future I’m anxious to see. What are your thoughts? Please comment!

Last week it was announced that Google might be enlisting the help of the NSA to review data gained about cyber attacks, believed to have been instigated by China. Although some critics raised the issue of privacy, it seems a far more interesting question might be “what does a Google-NSA partnership tell us about Obama and Clinton’s new plans for the internet?” In order to answer that, we should look at Clinton’s recent speech on internet freedom, and what that tells us about the administrations’ stance on internet privacy as an element of internet freedom.

A few weeks ago Secretary of State Clinton gave a much publicized address on internet freedom. Unfortunately, selecting from choice quotes, it becomes clear that she is primarily talking about “Freedom” of economic gain and beyond that extending the idea of “Freedom” only in so much as it does not interfere with the interest of the United States government, and our allies. Outlining her speech she mentioned Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms speech:

Franklin Roosevelt built on these ideas when he delivered his Four Freedoms speech in 1941. Now, at the time, Americans faced a cavalcade of crises and a crisis of confidence. But the vision of a world in which all people enjoyed freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear transcended the troubles of his day. And years later, one of my heroes, Eleanor Roosevelt, worked to have these principles adopted as a cornerstone of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They have provided a lodestar to every succeeding generation, guiding us, galvanizing us, and enabling us to move forward in the face of uncertainty.

These “Freedoms” miss a very key point, all of these freedoms stem from one key freedom, the freedom of privacy. The degree to which an individual, any individual, has privacy is perhaps the greatest single indicator of the degree to which that individual is free. Without privacy an individual cannot partake of the freedoms guaranteed to him or her. Without privacy it is impossible to engage in religious freedom within your community. Without privacy it is impossible for an interracial or same sex couple to engage in freedom of expression. The ability to partake fully of your rights is the very definition of being free, without privacy, the full extent of one’s rights cannot be realized.

The necessity of access to privacy extends across all people and all economic groups. A woman’s ability to be free is directly related to the degree to which she has private space in her home, or in public. A Chinese activist’s ability to be free is directly related to his access to private space to organize peaceful demonstrations against his government. Although privacy is not directly and individually outlined in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights, without privacy we cannot truly access the various rights which are outlined.

The freedom of religion, the freedom against self-incrimination, freedom against unreasonable search, can all be seen as elements of freedom based on a right to privacy. Privacy has, thus far, primarily been protected under a wide interpretation of the 9th amendment. The failure to define an amendment specifically guaranteeing a right to privacy for Americans also hinders our ability to engage in fair and even-handed foreign policy abroad.

Although Secretary Clinton very actively sets up strawmen in the form of nameless terrorists and states limiting freedom of speech and/or communicating messages of hate. If we can all agree that terrorism and violence should not be tolerated, nor should the peddling of anything which exploits another individual without his/her consent, or an individual such as a child who does not have the legal right to consent, why should we not ratify a freedom of privacy for consenting adults to do as they please in private?

Unfortunately our allies in South Korea and India are not being pressed by the United States to permit internet freedom. Although South Korea’s ban appears to be of a primarily social nature, India’s has been more focused on terrorism/hate speech, and more recently looking issues of cyber piracy to the degree of even suggesting a ban on uploading or downloading video via web or mobiles anywhere in India.

Despite strawmen suggesting anonymity is only for criminal elements, anonymity has many faces and many uses. In 2008 I was in China for the Beijing Olympics, where I was working as an “embedded reporter” of sorts, helping ensure that video and photo images of protest actions committed by Students for a Free Tibet evaded Chinese censorship and reached the world. Without technology such as email encryption and encrypted mobiles, it would have been impossible for us broadcast the content that showed the world another face of the Olympics.

Nathan Freitas, who helped organize the global communications network for SFT during the Olympics is now developing an anonymous, secure, and private mobile phone based on Android. Such a device will greatly increase the capabilities of movements for human rights and social justice all over the world.

Given comments from the Secretary of State such as this:

Now, all societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence, such as the agents of al-Qaida who are, at this moment, using the internet to promote the mass murder of innocent people across the world. And hate speech that targets individuals on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is reprehensible. It is an unfortunate fact that these issues are both growing challenges that the international community must confront together. And we must also grapple with the issue of anonymous speech. Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property cannot divorce their online actions from their real world identities. But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes.

It’s difficult to see how Nathan’s project might gain funding under these new State Department initiatives. On the other hand, its equally difficult to see how East German activists praised by Clinton would have been successful with their samizdat had the Stasi and others been successful at entirely limiting their access to privacy and private space.

In the repressive environment of East Germany in the 80s, samizdat pamphlets provided a portal to private space from underneath the curtain placed over public space. Today the guarantee of anonymity online, the guarantee of privacy, is the only way we can protect the internet as a truly free, truly open space for all to gather.

There will be some who raise strawman arguments to criticize my points here, so let me be clear, guaranteeing privacy, or declaring privacy as a human right, does not mean privacy to organize terror, hate speech, or exploitation. Clearly those things are wrong and cannot be protected under the veil of human rights. On the other hand, sometimes legality is relative, it was certainly illegal for me to be in China helping to produce images of activities prohibited by the Chinese State.

The difficulty then is to ask how we might pioneer a future for the internet that guarantees access to the space as well as the right to be anonymous, to obtain privacy, if desired, and how to keep this a safe space for all, safe from the hegemony of one or more States, as well as the interference of terrorists, violent criminals, and others who might wish ill on human society.

The burgeoning accessibility and connectivity of the internet can be a testing ground for a new dedication toward privacy as a human right. Once we make it work online, it only makes sense that we should endeavor to pioneer a guaranteed right to privacy IRL. (In Real Life)