(Lim Jun Hao) G8 Individual Essay for BGS

(Lim Jun Hao) G8 Individual Essay for BGS

• 1.
  "What is atthe crux of the Snowden affair? Who are the key stakeholders and should we, citizens, be concerned? Why?" 1 George Orwell’s classic novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, illustrates a dystopian state where ‘Big Brother’, the supposed leader of the state, has an omnipresent surveillance system. This system was used to crack down on potential dissidents. The popularized phrase ‘Big Brother is watching you’ sums up such fear of government surveillance. Luckily, we are still a long way from the materialization of this reality. However the recent Snowden affair has set alarm bells ringing, on the direction that surveillance by governments is taking. Edward Snowden, an ex-NSA (National Surveillance Agency) contractor released several papers that confirmed the existence of several governmental surveillance programmes such as PRISM which have been stealthily collecting information on American citizens. While trying to fish for a few selected terrorism suspects, NSA employed a dragnet approach to data collection, assuming to use the seine instead of a fishing rod. Data were collected from all possible sources: wiretaps, online social media information, web history, location updates etc. These large untreated raw data are then stored in huge servers marked for future use. Many have deemed NSA’s actions as unconstitutional as it conflicts with USA’s Fourth Amendment, which prevents authorities from conducting searches without probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. The unwarranted probe into the average citizen’s life did not come with any reason to believe that a crime has been committed. This whole debacle opened up the can of worms that is ubiquitous government surveillance, the true crux of the entire Snowden affair. On one hand government surveillance is seen as a necessary evil, on the other, government surveillance represents a threat to democracy and the ideals of freedom. The question that we as citizens need to consider is whether there is enough reason to warrant ubiquitous government surveillance, especially when the targets are ourselves and if not, what is an acceptable alternative? Also, should we have a say or should we blindly believe in the system to keep us safe.
• 2.
  2 Before we answerthese questions, there is a need to identify the key stakeholders at play. They are namely the government, citizens and large corporations, which aid the governments in collecting data. Each of these three stakeholders has a unique stand on the issue of government surveillance. From a global perspective, the total spending on security by governments worldwide skyrocketed following the events of 9/11. It increased by six fold to around USD$59 billion in year 2006 from year 20001 while the US intelligence budget doubled2. The increase in spending was justified by the threat of terrorism; there was a dire need to protect key national resources and interests from potential attacks. Large corporations were roped in to satisfy this increase in demand. In the US, Snowden’s employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, was a huge beneficiary of this flow of event. This privatization of national security helped to fill up the gaps but made national security more brittle than ever, as contractual workers like Snowden are exposed to a wealth of information that they would normally not have access to. Detractors of NSA’s surveillance programmes argue that the sheer scope and size of surveillance programmes, which NSA employs, ensures a far greater amount of false positives than actual sinister plots of terrorism. Innocent law-abiding citizens may have their day-to-day lives disrupted because of a few choice words that set off the algorithms used by NSA to identify potential suspects. Analogically, the NSA are wiretapping everyone to find evidence for terrorism, when they should be wiretapping only when there is evidence for terrorism. However, this ignores the fact that there are simply no viable alternatives for governments to prevent terrorist attacks. Terrorists operate covertly and the war against terror does not share the same mechanism of conventional warfare. Hence, conventional warfare 1 Gary, S. (2006, October 09). Homelandsecurity generates multibillion dollarbusiness. Retrievedfrom http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/2006-09-10-security-industry_x.htm 2 Ewen, M., & Johnathan, W.(2013, August 29). Us intelligence spendinghas doubledsince 9/11, topsecret budget reveals. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/us-intelligence-spending-double-9-11-secret-budget
• 3.
  "What is atthe crux of the Snowden affair? Who are the key stakeholders and should we, citizens, be concerned? Why?" 3 methods of data collection, such as tapping on radio signals, simply are not viable options. Moreover, the increase in penetration rate of the Internet has extended the sphere of influence exerted by extreme ideologies. The threat of terrorism has shifted from foreign shores to our backyards. This has made it increasingly hard for authorities to keep track of terrorist suspects, as they often do not fit into the typical mold that we have come to expect. Therein underlines the need for such surveillance programs, which theoretically would be able to identify such homegrown threats to national security. Governments are charged with the duty to protect their citizens from harm, thus there is a need for them to be always one step ahead in this cat and mouse game. However, even though there is a reason for government surveillance, it does not mean that the methods employed are effective in safeguarding the people. The recent Boston marathon bombings were a painful reminder of one that got away. Dzhokhar, the younger brother revealed that they had downloaded the plan for bomb making off the Internet3. How did such a big red flag get past the multi-million dollar analytics system of NSA? This failing has rendered the many supposedly foiled terrorist attack, trumpeted proudly by NSA, hollow and irrelevant. They had failed in their core mission identifying threats before they become reality. Therefore, government surveillance is not the panacea to terrorist threats. Moreover, the sheer scope of the ubiquitous surveillance methods employed represents a real cause for concern to citizens. As our social media presence increases in size, the wealth of knowledge to be mined by and utilized also increases. This coupled with advances in analytical technologies allows anyone who holds these data to create a scarily accurate profile of the user. It is precisely from analyzing such information that large tech companies like Google and Facebook are able to generate obscene amounts of advertisement money. At the hands of these profit driven private companies, what we would encounter are 3 Pete, W., Michael,I., & Eric, M. (2013, April 23). Search oftsarnaevs. Retrievedfrom http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/23/17877288-search-of-tsarnaevs-phones-computers-finds-no-indication-of-accomplice-source- says?lite
• 4.
  4 only targeted advertisements,hardly an infringement upon our freedom. However, documents leaked by Snowden revealed the deep connections that large IT companies such as Google and Yahoo! have with governments. They were revealed to have sold user data to the US government on request4. In the hands of the government, the same information used for targeted advertising can potentially become tools to identify potential dissidents and subsequently become weapons to bring down these dissidents. The culmination of business and state on the matter of government surveillance heavily threatens the stand of citizens. A surreal democratic state is but one step away from becoming a totalitarian police state. Citizens were also not given any say on the matter by the other two stakeholders. The deliberate concealment of NSA’s surveillance ensures that the US public has had no say on the matter whatsoever. This ‘blind consent’ was justified on the grounds of the need to conceal surveillance methods from terrorists, a threat to the state. However, this irony is evidently lost on the decision makers. While trying to counter threats to their democratic state, they themselves are trampling upon the ideals of democracy. Terrorists would normally always operate under the assumption of constant surveillance, rendering the justification that revelation would undermine counter terrorist efforts null. Public consent does not equate to public knowledge of surveillance methods, which would otherwise truly undermine the authorities’ efforts. In a democratic state, citizens should have a say in decision matters with regards to government surveillance. The debate on government surveillance does not only apply to the US as most if not all countries partake in some form of governmental surveillance on their own citizens. Government surveillance is a precursor to censorship as without constant surveillance, it would be hard to maintain effective censorship. Singapore is no exception to the rule. The Media Development Authority (MDA) of Singapore recently announced a new ruling which 4 Edward, M. (2013, August 23). Nsa paidtechfirms over prism,says latest snowdenleak.Retrievedfrom http://news.cnet.com/8301- 13578_3-57599952-38/nsa-paid-tech-firms-over-prism-says-latest-snowden-leak/
• 5.
  "What is atthe crux of the Snowden affair? Who are the key stakeholders and should we, citizens, be concerned? Why?" 5 require news sites that post more than one story related to Singapore per week or attract more than 50,000 unique views from Singapore IP addresses to apply for a license5. This can act as a form of surveillance on sites that post opinions that are politically charged and against the governmental point of view. In 2013, 58.66 percent of all Singaporeans have a Facebook account6. This means that if our government were to choose to (most likely they already do), they would be able to gather data from half the population’s profiles, everything from the innocuous hobby to the more politically charged, such as views on politics. This has far reaching consequences considering the incumbent party’s checkered history in dealing with dissidents. This coupled with the Internal Security Act (ISA), which grants the Internal Security Department power to detain anybody suspected of disruption to national security without trial, presents great potential for abuse. Citizens who voice out opinions against the ruling party on social media sites could potentially be hauled into jail on grounds of disruption to national harmony without the need for trial. This is a dangerous tool for any government to have over their citizens, as there is very little check and balance mechanism in place. In conclusion, there is a need for citizens to be concerned about the direction which government surveillance is taking. Democratic governments cannot assume ‘blind consent’ of their citizens on the matter of surveillance, which infringes upon their rights, and should at least keep them informed. Hence, there is a need for a system of check and balance with regards to government surveillance. Governments and businesses have to be open about what information they are collecting and how these information are being used. Only with increased transparency on government surveillance would the citizens be able to monitor and evaluate the doings of the government, keeping in faith with the true spirit of democracy. 5 Tessa, W. (2013, May28).Mda rolls out licencescheme fornews websites. Retrievedfromhttp://www.straitstimes.com/breaking- news/singapore/story/new-licensing-scheme-news-websites-reach-50000-people-month-20130528 6 Singapore facebookstatistics. (2013). Retrievedfromhttp://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/singapore