| |
| 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
:
| >
> | Propaganda and Power Through Subtle Influence
The American public's deep reliance on the internet and cloud services has given rise to a problem that is not unique in nature, but has changed in type. Governments hunger for power, and surveillance is a time-tested way for governments to ascertain knowledge and control in subtle ways. Influencing behavior not by heavy-handed force, but by understanding and manipulating people's own preferences, is a particularly desirable method for democratic governments that must keep the people content that they are making their own decisions. In other words, allowing people to make their own decisions but surreptitiously influencing those choices has proven an excellent means of control for the American government. | | | | |
<
< | I. The Growing Need for Anonymity and Privacy | >
> | This strategy is by no means new, but the battle has assumed a different form, as reliable means for encryption and anonymity have become easily accessible. The most powerful surveillance network ever to exist has risen simultaneously with the most effective means of widespread yet anonymous communication. Some governments have tried to respond with traditional means of control, such as mandatory key disclosure programs, or outright bans of privacy-protecting software. But the American government chooses to fight this threat to its growing power in its traditionally subtle way: do not exert direct force, but persuade people that there is something dangerous or taboo about circumventing the surveillance and control networks. This is accomplished through a campaign of propaganda against effective, widely available, and largely open-source programs that protect secrecy and anonymity.
Notes
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | 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 virtually unbreakable storage and intangible keye are difficult to imagine. | >
> | The Importance of Anonymity and Protected Communication
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 and free from this fear of eavesdropping is central not only to personhood, but to a functional democracy as well.
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.
Notes
:
| >
> | 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. Notoriously, 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 regular use of national security letters in this context amplifies these concerns, because there is a severe lack of transparency and judicial oversight.
Notes
:
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | Many times, targets of surveillance will never know who is seeing their private correspondence, when, or why; thus, without reliable encryption and anonymization, any individual is constantly at risk that they are being monitored or profiled. | | | | |
>
> | The Tactics of Anti-Privacy Propaganda
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 and perpetuating the "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" narrative. These tactics and the overall message against encryption ignore legitimate needs for the technology, and they reveal troubling motives to the government's approach to technology, privacy, and free speech.
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
:
| >
> | A prevalent tactic is to associate secure or anonymous communication with criminality or terrorism. 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 serves 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
:
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | 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."
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.
Notes
:
| >
> | This treatment of encryption and anonymity is classic propaganda. adapted to a new world. Where information spreads more easily and the public is skeptical of obvious exercises of power, propaganda takes the form of subtle suggestion. The government can easily enlist corporations that also benefit from naked communication and total information gathering. 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. 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. 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
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | A. Association with Criminality and Delegitimization
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."
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.
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 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.
Notes
:
:
:
| >
> | More Speech is the Appropriate Counterpropaganda
Privacy threatens government power and corporate profitability. This campaign thrives on ignorance, misinformation, and ultimately restriction of true expression. The best way to combat it is perhaps through the opposite: vigilance, more information, and increased uninhibited speech. If the public is more aware of the use to which their information is put, as well as the legitimate uses for privacy-enhancing tools, misinformation designed to skew the need for privacy and suggest that people have ";nothing to hide" would quickly lose legitimacy. Of course, that information is and has been available, and some portion of the population will continue to opt for convenience over privacy. For those who do not, however, it remains paramount to recognize patterns of despotism as they develop and to intervene with information or litigation. Continuing to speak freely and access information uninhibited, while ensuring that channels remain open and accessible for others to do the same, will be the challenge of the near future, but that task is central to preserving the right to exist free from the comprehensive collection and direction of behavior that the government desires to implement on a systematic level. | | |
| |
<
< | 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.
It's not my responsibility to read within the word limit: it's your responsibility to write within it. The revised draft has to be under 1,001 words or else.
The best way to make the essay more terse, in my view, is to make
the windup shorter and the follow-through longer. Yes, there's an
effort to shape public opinion against encryption as the tool of
criminals and terrorists. That's been there since the first round
of the crypto wars. You don't need hundreds of words to establish
that point. Nor can you get away with one paragraph of "moving
forward" based on the "public must demand" strategy for rhetorical
seeming efficiency in face of nothing to recommend. You need
something to recommend, and one would have though that this would be
on the level of "more speech," that is, communicative strategies for
countering the propaganda. The evolution, or at least the
hypothesis, of such strategies is what would make a fine essay.
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|