Tech Musing 3
Jacob Matenaer
MIS 441
4/18/2016
Topic Choice: Response
to Frontline’s United States of Secrets
After watching the Frontline Report, The United States of
Secrets, many thoughts and comments came to mind. The first of which
was that following the attacks of 9/11 I understand the urgency of our
government to take matters to the limit. With so many lives lost, I can
sympathize with the government officials like Michael Hayden who expanded
boundaries of the constitution by allowing “Thinthread” to start monitoring
internal U.S. communications and not just U.S. to foreign communications. Like
they referenced in the report, the NSA was created after Pearl Harbor to never
let a surprise attack of that magnitude happen on U.S. soil again, and the NSA
had just failed at its most important priority and needed to find a new
alternative to protect the United States. Where the government went wrong I
believe, is that they tried to keep it secret. I feel had they been open and
honest about it immediately following the attacks, people’s perceptions may
have been completely different as they were still filled with fear and rage.
Citizens would have been more willing to accept “The Program” for the sake of
safety. Instead, the government attempted to hide it which is what I feel
citizens were upset about.
This leads to my second thought, and while I’m sure many will
disagree with me, personally I do not mind having my communications monitored
as I have nothing to hide. I am of the opinion that much of society today has
become too sensitive to many things. Why should it matter if the government can
see your communications with grandma for example, if you have nothing to hide.
I am willing to let them see my happy birthday wishes, Sunday call with her
etc. if that is what is needed for the protection of the whole country. What I
would be more concerned about, is how they are protecting that information and
that hackers or different countries don’t obtain it. We already entrust the government
to protect our lives in times of war, violence, and terrorism so why should we
not entrust them with our data/information to serve a greater good.
My third thought was that I did have a major problem with
how the government reacted to the first round of whistleblowers. What they did
to officials like Thomas Drake was unacceptable and barging into their homes at
early morning hours and threatening life in prison was far too extreme for
releasing documents bearing unclassified status that were only later made
classified. Seeing how they treated officials like Drake makes me understand
why someone like Snowden was so cautious when he released his information. That
being said, I feel no one, Snowden included, should have the right to release
secret government information. Again, many may disagree with me, but I am of
the belief that is an act of treason against the government and that anyone who
commits treason should be held accountable.
My final thought, was that after learning what Snowden did (back when he originally released the information) was that I became more cautious about what I was saying through electronic communication. While I have no problem with the government watching that communication, it still felt slightly awkward that someone could be watching me at all times and I definitely noticed a change in how open I was in my electronic communications. Changes such as, rather than having all my communication through electronics, I started having many more conversations in person again by getting in touch with them through electronics but then setting a time/place to meet and speak in person. I feel this actually benefited me in the long run by making me more personable and develop a better appreciation for old fashioned face to face communication.
My final thought, was that after learning what Snowden did (back when he originally released the information) was that I became more cautious about what I was saying through electronic communication. While I have no problem with the government watching that communication, it still felt slightly awkward that someone could be watching me at all times and I definitely noticed a change in how open I was in my electronic communications. Changes such as, rather than having all my communication through electronics, I started having many more conversations in person again by getting in touch with them through electronics but then setting a time/place to meet and speak in person. I feel this actually benefited me in the long run by making me more personable and develop a better appreciation for old fashioned face to face communication.
A secondary thought thought that I have now had after posting this musing, is that while I understand people like Greenspan have given reasons to argue the "I have nothing to hide comment", I still stand by my point. Where the difference lies I believe, is that in the case of the government, your data and information is more secure in that while they are collecting and monitoring it, there is more assurance of what will happen with that data. I.e. they won't commit crimes, falsify anything posing as you, and only monitor it. Where as if the public had access to it, there is no telling what someone might do with your information (i.e. someone taking your pictures and posing as you on the internet). This leads me to the point of that I feel a more correct way to state my view is that "I have nothing to hide from the government, but I do have things to hide from society". I believe the government will not knowingly commit crimes against you, where as there is no telling and it is much harder to account for if a member of society will.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your point of view - and it's Greenwald, not Greenspan - but the real issue is not whether you think it's ok or not to monitor US citizens not accused of any crime, but (1) whether doing so reveals anything about terrorist activity (answer: no), and (2) whether people are not free to say what they want for fear of being tracked. That is not about your communication, but who you hang out with, where you go, and who else is going with you. Stuff like that has less to do about whether you have something to hide, but about how it affects your behavior when you know this. One more point. How can you say the government will not commit crimes against you when the Program was a crime against you. They hid it from the public for that reason. Very little is transparent in law enforcement. Sorry for the minor rant. I still appreciate what you wrote.
ReplyDelete