June 17, 2013
The only surprise in the story that United States intelligence agencies access servers to eavesdrop is that it has come as a surprise.
Obviously, fancy communication media such as Facebook and Twitter constitute a treasure trove of information about people, their behaviours, what interests them, what occupies their minds and what they want to tell other people – in short, a gateway to form a picture of how people can and will act in the future.
The suspicion has always been there that these media were set up in one way or another with the consent or even encouragement of intelligence agencies. It is not the same as saying that the founders behind them were puppets steered by intelligence, but it does mean that intelligence agencies jumped at the opportunity when they spotted it. Even in the business friendly US environment, the fast rise of these media companies attracts attention.
It is not relevant whether they were used with or without consent or knowledge of their management. What matters are that they were penetrated. A fairly large number of people must have known about it, but nobody either within or outside the companies stepped in to stop it.
The scandal puts four questions squarely on the agenda: How dangerous is it for the 'ordinary citizen'? What does the intelligence abuse of 'American companies' mean for geopolitics? What is the significance for the power struggle between multinational companies (MNCs) and nation-states? And how shall we now judge the Janus-faced Web – booster for freedom of expression or vehicle for suppression?
HOW DANGEROUS TO CITIZENS?
The Web and its offsprings mean inevitably that true privacy does not exist anymore. Intelligence agencies intercept our activities via the Web, stores register our purchases, and financial institutions look at our money flows. They know more about us than we do!
They use it to draw a profile of almost every individual. In the large majority of cases it is a 'sleeping' profile only to be activated in case we draw attention to ourselves. We can minimise the storage of data by sparing use of the Web and choosing other ways of communication, buying, and paying– but we cannot avoid it altogether.
It is not yet big brother, because there are limits to what the data storage can do and the human factor in analysing our profile is very costly and only triggered if judged necessary.
The worry is that, in the US at least, we have started the voyage toward a Big Brother society without putting in place a legal framework stating the boundaries of what can be done. Since September 11, 2001 the US has passed laws containing provisions opening the door for giving the 'surveillance' screw another turn. We still feel relatively safe assuming that the institutions can be relied on, but the fear lurks that one day that could change.
Therefore it is high time to let US citizens know how much is catalogued about them, how far these activities can go within current legislation, and what kind of control exists. As of now all this is in the dark.
US COMPANIES AND GEOPOLITICS
American IT companies have conquered the world offering a fantastic leap in communication. Suddenly the world discovers that these companies have also served as a platform for the US spying activities. Yes, such activities are rationalised as defending the US against terrorism, but who knows and where are the boundaries for what is deemed terrorism?
There is, however, little doubt that American companies will pay in one way or another. Some countries will take steps to monitor what American companies are doing and ask for safeguards, which invariably will make global business more costly and more cumbersome.
Other countries will look at the possibility of building their own network to avoid this kind of espionage. Beside this revelation, the American worry about equipment bought from Lenovo and Huawei pales in comparison.
MULTINATIONALS VS NATION-STATES
The big MNCs have revenues much larger than small and even medium sized nation-states. They are already political powers on the global scene pursuing their own objectives, in many cases without any kind of anchoring in a particular nation-state. In recent years, American MNCs have seen an increasing and now comparatively important share of profits from activities outside the US.
Now they have to consider whether it is still in their interest to be seen as American MNCs operating abroad or transform into genuine MNCs – let us call them supranational companies – not feeling more attached to any one nation-state than to another.
Analyses point to the US as the most business friendly environment in the world, but will that continue to be the case if the American government uses the domicile of MNCs to spy on other nations and their citizens? Does US intelligence see other companies as similar tools to be used in the interests of the US?
WEB: FOR FREEDOM OR SUPPRESSION?
The most crucial question may be whether the Web will boost fundamental rights of freedom or be a vehicle for spying on and controlling individual citizens. Over the years this has been a burning question with the pendulum swinging from one side to another.
When the so-called Arab Spring erupted, many pointed to the role of the Web and heralded it as the technology that made such a political event possible. On the opposite end of the spectrum has been the discussion about Web controls in a number of countries limiting freedom of expression. The current case provides ammunition for those who fear the the Web as an instrument to control citizens and curb their freedom.
For the US government to flex its muscles after the 911 attacks was necessary, but this was done in a way that put the US' moral standing at risk. The US fight against terrorism was ostensibly about defending a way of life and society of individual liberties; this is now in doubt. By confirming an absence of safeguards to guarantee individual freedom and privacy, the US may be winning battles, but is firmly on the road to losing the war.
Terrorists will achieve what they initially wanted: A deadly blow to societies built on the fundamental rights of freedom and enlightenment.
From the point of view of an ordinary citizen, it is deeply worrying that Mr Obama, a political leader elected on the pledges of openness and transparency, has not only sanctioned this policy but also defended it. In a general sense it strengthens the distrust about the political system – politicians doing the opposite of their campaign promises.
In a more specific sense, it adds fuel to the concern that if this President and his administration could do this, what else could a future President and administration do? Can we really trust our politicians? The frightening answer is, apparently, that we cannot be sure. - Today.
The Malaysian Insider :: Food