| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
The Campaign Against Privacy:
Propaganda's Role in Government and Corporate Circumvention of Encryption and Anonymity |
| |
Introduction |
|
<
< | Encryption, and to some degree anonymity, are easy to obtain to a reasonable degree of protection. Although some countries have implemented some sort of mandatory key disclosure program, it is politically and practically infeasible to outright ban privacy-aiding software. Encryption software is easy to implement, programs such as Tor are widely distributed, and many such applications are open source. States and corporations that wish to keep its eyes and ears connected to channels of communication, thus retaining their invasive observation and subtle influence over human behavior, would thus benefit most by driving people away from the desire to keep their affairs private in the first place. A campaign of propaganda against privacy — anonymity and encryption in particular — would thus further the goal of behavioral manipulation by convincing people in the first place that they need not and should not pursue privacy.
Notes
:
|
>
> | Encryption, and to some degree anonymity, are easy to obtain to a reasonable degree of protection. Although some countries have implemented some sort of mandatory key disclosure program, it is politically and practically infeasible to outright ban privacy-aiding software. Encryption software is easy to implement, programs such as Tor are widely distributed, and many such applications are open source. States and corporations that wish to keep its eyes and ears connected to channels of communication, thus retaining their invasive observation and subtle influence over human behavior, would thus benefit most by driving people away from the desire to keep their affairs private in the first place. A campaign of propaganda against privacy -- anonymity and encryption in particular -- would thus further the goal of behavioral manipulation by convincing people in the first place that they need not and should not pursue privacy. |
| | I. The Growing Need for Anonymity and Privacy
A. The Demand for Protected Communication Is Legitimate |
|
<
< | Modern communication and information storage is difficult to analyze through founding-era views of privacy. In a world where communication channels were limited and means of snooping were rather blunt (e.g., intercepting parcels and searching physical places), boundaries were simple to draw and it was much easier to expect privacy absent these clear methods of intrusion. Situations calling for a mechanism of storage impossible for anyone in the world to open unless they had an intangible key are hard to imagine. |
>
> | Modern communication and information storage is difficult to analyze through founding-era views of privacy. In a world where communication channels were limited and means of snooping were rather blunt (e.g., intercepting parcels and searching physical places), boundaries were simple to draw and it was much easier to expect privacy absent these clear methods of intrusion. Situations calling for virtually unbreakable storage and intangible keye are difficult to imagine. |
| | |
|
<
< | Now, however, covert observation is widespread. The effort required to tap into years of extremely intimate information about a person is minimal. The government can and does conduct wide-scale dragnet surveillance. The public has a stronger need than ever for tools that protect information from unauthorized viewing and mining, both by the government and private actors.
Notes
:
|
>
> | Now, however, covert observation is widespread by techniques unfathomable to the ratifying generation. The effort required to tap into years of extremely intimate information about a person is minimal. The government can and does conduct wide-scale dragnet surveillance. The public has a stronger need than ever for tools that protect information from unauthorized viewing and mining, both by the government and private actors. |
| | Individual autonomy is drastically undercut when the threat of monitoring always lurks in the background. "Autonomy is vitiated by the wholesale invasion of secrecy and privacy. Free decision-making is impossible in a society where every move is monitored . . . ." The ability to communicate anonymously or free from this fear of eavesdropping is central not only to personhood, but to a functional democracy as well.
Notes
:
:
|
| | B. The Need for Protected Communication Is Stronger Than Ever
Even with relatively secure means of communication, government access is a serious concern. Last year, the FBI sought information about users of the encrypted-messaging app Signal. This request involved account-holder information, but other requests have sought to reach the contents of encrypted messaging -- most notably, encrypted email service Lavabit was required by a court order to turn over its private keys, which would have given the government the ability to break through the encryption of _all Lavabit email accounts. The service opted to shut down rather than compromise user data, but because it was subject to a gag order, it is uncertain how many such services have received and complied with similar requests. The regular use of national security letters in this context amplifies these concerns, because there is little to no judicial oversight.
Notes
:
:
:
|
|
<
< | Users will often never know who is seeing their private correspondence, when it is being monitored, and for what purpose the data is used. Thus the need encryption and reliable anonymity that can provide reasonable assurance against such intrusions is significant if the threat of constant observation is to be curtailed at all. |
>
> | Many times, targets of surveillance will never know who is seeing their private correspondence, whether or when it is being monitored, and for what purpose the data is used. Thus the need encryption and reliable anonymity that can provide reasonable assurance against such intrusions is significant if the threat of constant observation is to be curtailed at all. |
| | |
|
<
< | II. The Campaign of Vilification Against Encryption
The government has taken a strong stance against secure means of communication, and encryption in particular, by highlighting instances where criminals or terrorists use these tools, perpetuating the "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" narrative, and insisting that privacy is compatible with uninhibited government access to records and communications. These tactics and the overall message against encryption ignore legitimate need for the technology, and they reveal troubling motives to the government's approach to technology, privacy, and free speech.
Notes
:
|
>
> | II. State and Corporate Vilification of Encryption
The U.S. government and corporate entities that benefit from commonplace surveillance have taken a strong stance against secure means of communication, and encryption in particular, by highlighting instances where criminals or terrorists use these tools, perpetuating the "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" narrative, and insisting that privacy is compatible with uninhibited access to records and communications. These tactics and the overall message against encryption ignore legitimate need for the technology, and they reveal troubling motives to the government's approach to technology, privacy, and free speech. |
| | A. Association with Criminality and Delegitimization |
|
<
< | One tactic that has recently gained favor is to associate secure or anonymous communication with terrorism. To be sure, the association of tools the government dislikes with criminal behavior is not a new phenomenon. The current narrative, however, creates a strong tie between criminality and the use of certain technologies that aims to stigmatize their use. |
>
> | One tactic that has recently gained favor is to associate secure or anonymous communication with terrorism. The current narrative asserts a particularly strong tie between criminality and the use of certain technologies that aims to stigmatize their use. |
| | In one report (by a private firm), Tor, VPN services, and several messaging applications are identified as "Tech for Jihad." Tor in particular has gained a reputation as "the web browser for criminals," merely because it helps to anonymize users. Telegraph, an app which can send encrypted and self-deleting messages, has been identified as "the app of choice for jihadists."
Notes
:
:
:
|
|
<
< | The government has itself played a role in associating privacy-protecting or anonymizing tools with criminality. The standoff between Apple and the FBI over the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone brought to the forefront the government's discomfort with encryption. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office argues that "[t]here is an urgent need for federal legislation that would compel software and hardware companies that design or build mobile devices or operating systems to make such devices amenable to appropriate searches.".
Notes
:
:
|
>
> | The government has itself played a significant role in associating privacy-protecting or anonymizing tools with criminality. The standoff between Apple and the FBI over the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone brought to the forefront the government's discomfort with encryption. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office argues that "[t]here is an urgent need for federal legislation that would compel software and hardware companies that design or build mobile devices or operating systems to make such devices amenable to appropriate searches.". |
| | B. Flaws, Motives, and Dangers of This Campaign
This treatment of encryption and anonymity is essentially propaganda. Such a campaign makes sense: encryption is easy to implement and access, so the best way to keep people from it is to treat it as if it were dangerous or presumptively criminal. In other words, the goal is to change behavior through misinformation and fear, rather than through direct enforcement. This is at its core self-censorship and self-regulation, gradually imposed on the citizenry.
Notes
:
:
|
|
<
< | While anonymity and secrecy are directly offended by a war on encryption, autonomy is also a victim. As discussed above, the persistent threat of monitoring and censorship severely limits the ability to express, act, and ultimately think on one's own. The notion that people who seek to act autonomously by guaranteeing freedom from these intrusions are dangerous (or even criminal) demonstrates a troubling lack of respect for these principles of autonomy from those in power, but also threatens to suppress expression and uninhibited behavior by making individuals and communities police themselves. If people are told that they have nothing to hide if they have done nothing wrong, and companies adopt this narrative (for their own purposes or by prohibiting customers from using anonymizing tools), then suppression of ideas and identity could become the norm. Simply put, the best way to ensure that behavior can be comprehensively monitored is to normalize snooping (by both the government and private parties) and to stigmatize evasion of such intrusions.
Notes
:
|
>
> | In addition to anonymity and secrecy, autonomy is also an ultimate victim of the war on encryption. As discussed above, the persistent threat of monitoring and censorship severely limits the ability to express, act, and ultimately think on one's own. The notion that people who seek to act autonomously by guaranteeing freedom from these intrusions are dangerous (or even criminal) demonstrates a troubling lack of respect for these principles of autonomy from those in power, but also threatens to suppress expression and uninhibited behavior by making individuals and communities police themselves. If people are told that they have nothing to hide if they have done nothing wrong, and companies adopt this narrative (for their own purposes or by prohibiting customers from using anonymizing tools), then suppression of ideas and identity could become the norm. Simply put, the best way to ensure that behavior can be comprehensively monitored is to normalize snooping (by both the government and private parties) and to stigmatize evasion of such intrusions. |
| | III. Moving Forward and Embracing Technology as a Defender of Autonomy |
|
<
< | The views of the government -- and increasingly, the view of corporations and society -- toward encryption, anonymity, and secrecy are contrary to principles of a free society. They stigmatize true expression and a desire to behave unscrutinized. Privacy is paramount to individual autonomy and functioning democracy. It is not enough to make promises of these rights; the people must have access to tools that guarantee them. Instead of vilifying use of these tools, the government could acknowledge them as central to the guarantees of American freedom and democracy. The public must demand this change of position. |
>
> | The views of the government and corporations -- and increasingly, the general public -- toward encryption, anonymity, and secrecy are contrary to principles of a free society. They passively dismiss the importance of individual personhood while actively stigmatizing true expression and a desire to behave unscrutinized. Privacy is paramount to individual autonomy and functioning democracy. It is not enough to make promises of these rights; the people must have access to tools that guarantee them. Instead of vilifying use of these tools, the government could acknowledge them as central to the guarantees of American freedom and democracy. The public must demand this change of position.
Note: this intermediate draft contains over 1000 words, as new content has been added but I have not edited down the length yet. Please see the previous revision for a version within the word limit. |
| |
\ No newline at end of file |