‘Dragnet Nation’

Bill Moyers interviews Julia Angwin about her book, Dragnet Nation: A Quest for Privacy, Security and Freedom in a World of Relentless Surveillance. Angwin, less for personal reasons than for protection of her sources as a journalist, made an attempt to, so to speak, drop out of her exposure to the constant government and private sector data mining to which every American (yes, overwhelmingly, such exposure is an American phenomenon, because other major democracies offer their citizens legal protection) is subjected.

The short version of her conclusion of how you can come closest to dodging the data miners (acknowledging there is no way to avoid them altogether): CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS, frequently and relentlessly, and I might add, not according to any system or fixed schedule. I know exactly one person among my friends IRL and OL who actually does this with real commitment, and I suspect s/he comes as close as any living American to being beyond the reach of the data miners. I am not that person. My commitment varies with what I perceive is my actual liability if I am hacked; that's the basis on which I decide how often to change any given password. And I am committed to choosing good passwords in the first place. But I am certain I am in hundreds if not thousands of commercial databases, if for no other reason than that a disabled person can't afford not to avail him- or herself of the sheer physical convenience of, say, shopping on Amazon. It's a trade-off I make, somewhat reluctantly but premeditatedly. Be sure you make similar decisions about your own exposure. The realities of both law and connectivity are against you, but you may as well minimize your liability as best you can.

The Cold (Cyber) War

Alexander

According to NSA's Gen. Keith Alexander, the NSA sees massive data acquisition, even on American citizens, as analogous to the arms race in the Cold War. Yes, that Cold War. Remember how, if the Commies were reported to have a specific kind of weapon, something dread and terrible, even something capable of wiping out all of humankind, it was absolutely essential that the US have the same weapon, only better? Remember the arms race? Remember how secure it made us feel when our bombs were bigger than Soviet bombs? (Don't worry... I don't remember that last one either. The whole Cold War thing scared me shitless. YMMV.)

Well, that's how Alexander, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, described the massive warrantless data collection on American citizens: other nations' security agencies do it, so America has to do it to compete. And some senators... indeed, some Democratic senators... agreed with him.

As one commenter remarked (more or less), didn't Alexander's mother ever ask little Keithie if he would jump over a cliff just because one of his buddies jumped over a cliff? Are we in this helluva fix because the good General failed to absorb that one tiny bit of maternal wisdom?

Caution: small representation
appears much clearer than
data actually retrieved

This is fucking nuts. It would be nuts even if its implementation didn't cost a fortune. It would be nuts even if it didn't compromise the privacy of every American and most every other human being who has a phone or an internet connection. It would be nuts even if it didn't give even America's allies good reason to mistrust the United States. It would be nuts even if it didn't drive America's adversaries to prepare for an otherwise wholly needless war against the United States.

But it does. And it does. And it does. And it does.

I remember, decades ago, chatting during a rehearsal break with the very conservative husband of one of my musical colleagues. How we got off on the subject of nuclear disarmament I do not remember; I generally avoid such no-win debates. But I remember his stating as a premise... a fact already in evidence, to be assumed, something not necessary to demonstrate... that any weapon the Soviet Union had, the US must develop and deploy in more than equal quantities. That was his starting point. I didn't bother challenging him further: someone who believes that is unlikely to understand why that approach is a terrible idea.

And now we are repeating the whole cycle, this time with online weapons. I won't say it is more dangerous to our physical existence than the nuclear arms race was (and is). But it is every bit as hazardous to our fundamental rights and liberties. It is not an exaggeration to say that we've already lost them and must struggle to regain them. In this "era of Big Data," God help America, because Americans like Alexander sure as hell won't.

Schneier Scores Six In A Row

Not counting his routine functional posts and his fascination with squid, Bruce Schneier has put up at least six posts in a row that are well worth reading. Listing them blog-fashion (newest first), they are

• The TSA Is Legally Allowed to Lie to Us 
• Government Secrecy and the Generation Gap 
• Excess Automobile Deaths as a Result of 9/11 
• Conspiracy Theories and the NSA 
• The NSA's Cryptographic Capabilities 
• The NSA Is Breaking Most Encryption on the Internet

Clearly, this is Schneier's time to shine. Most of us are not qualified to judge him as a cryptanalyst, but I may judge him as a writer, and as a writer he is superb. These posts are both long and full of concentrated information... a rare combination, I think you'll agree. If the whole NSA scandal means anything to you, please read Schneier's blog, and keep reading it. You won't be disappointed... squid notwithstanding.

'The NSA Doesn't Care About You Or Your Customers' - Bruce Schneier To ISPs

Well-known security consultant Bruce Schneier has advice to ISPs faced with the choice of simply acceding to the demands of the NSA for their customer data, or fighting and (inevitably) losing battles for their customers' data security. Schneier's advice: fight them. But what of your company's relationship with the NSA? You have no such relationship, Schneier reminds you; the NSA will burn you... or any of your customers... as soon as it is convenient, and your history of cooperation with the NSA will not change that fact. Here's a short segment of the beginning of Schneier's article linked above:

The NSA is Commandeering the Internet

It turns out that the NSA's domestic and world-wide surveillance apparatus is even more extensive than we thought. Bluntly: The government has commandeered the Internet. Most of the largest Internet companies provide information to the NSA, betraying their users. Some, as we've learned, fight and lose. Others cooperate, either out of patriotism or because they believe it's easier that way.

I have one message to the executives of those companies: fight.

Do you remember those old spy movies, when the higher ups in government decide that the mission is more important than the spy's life? It's going to be the same way with you. You might think that your friendly relationship with the government means that they're going to protect you, but they won't. The NSA doesn't care about you or your customers, and will burn you the moment it's convenient to do so.

We're already starting to see that. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and others are pleading with the government to allow them to explain details of what information they provided in response to National Security Letters and other government demands. They've lost the trust of their customers, and explaining what they do -- and don't do -- is how to get it back. The government has refused; they don't care.

It will be the same with you. There are lots more high-tech companies who have cooperated with the government. Most of those company names are somewhere in the thousands of documents that Edward Snowden took with him, and sooner or later they'll be released to the public. The NSA probably told you that your cooperation would forever remain secret, but they're sloppy. They'll put your company name on presentations delivered to thousands of people: government employees, contractors, probably even foreign nationals. If Snowden doesn't have a copy, the next whistleblower will.

...

They say a word to the wise is sufficient. I haven't found that to be true. Remember how you (well, many of you, including me) really thought Obama the candidate was the best thing since sliced bread, and really wanted to believe him? How's that working out for you? And the NSA has even less reason... like, ZERO accountability... not to put a sharp stick in your eye when it's convenient.

ISPs: for your own sake and for ours, please fight them. If nothing else, you will at least establish a trail of actions in court against the process of wanton, needless privacy violation AGAINST EVERYONE by the various security agencies. Perhaps that trail can be used in saner times, say, 20 or 30 years from now. Corporations live that long, and therefore have even more good reason to fight the agencies' most drastic actions than individuals. Yes, you'll lose... but the battle lines will at least be drawn.