Smile! You're being recorded.
Recognizing and contending with the nature of systemic surveillance.
Omnipresent surveillance isn’t merely normalized, but expected. It’s a sad state of affairs when the extreme consolidation and misuse of sensitive personal information is merely yet another risk placed on individuals without a care. Worse still, people are quick to blame consumers for particular technology choices without considering structural factors. While it is worth our time to try to find ways to minimize digital intrusions, at some point the bigger picture has to be drawn and confronted. We are well past the time where being careful about what you post online was sufficient to protect your data. In our time, almost every institution you interact with creates a larger and larger digital footprint that is almost entirely outside of your own control.
While this can be mitigated by refusing to interact with any large public or private institution, it is unreasonable to expect the general public to make the same sacrifice consistently. Instead of playing the blame game, it can be useful to take stock of the information that is unnecessarily collected by institutions we choose to interact with, and those people are forced to contend with. Even when information collection is necessary, we should ask if data retention truly necessary? Even if it is, how long? Regardless of how long the information is kept, what practices are acceptable with that particular information? By recognizing the new threats created by mass data collection we should reassess how we allow people’s information to be collected and used.
Many of these issues are currently coming to a head with the sale of 23andMe’s treasure trove of sensitive data ranging from personal details to DNA. In many ways this is but the tip of a massive and jagged iceberg, given that the potential uses (and misuses) for intimate personal and medical details multiply by the day. While institutions both public and private promise to protect the information they collect with the latest and greatest standards and practices, these guarantees aren’t worth very much. Data breaches are so common to be background noise to many. Once information is shared, sold, or stolen, there is hardly any recourse for those who are harmed by its misuse.
The only way to ensure information is protected across time is to never record it in the first place. Consequences of breaches both large and small are severe for individuals. Information divulged in breaches is often weaponized against individuals, resulting in a wide array of terrible consequences. The tragedy is that your digital footprint is already far outside your control. While it is advisable to avoid proactively enlarging it, the sad fact is that almost every institution and service has an incentive to work against you.
The latest stock-market hype cycle, "AI Mania" is the fuel for this particular bonfire of civil liberties. The clear desire to integrate ‘intelligent’ tools into all levels of society is based on the assumption that the mass collection, retention, and use of sensitive personal information is not only harmless, but desirable. This is a direct assault on the ability for individuals to have, much less choose their own boundaries with particular entities. It’s a lot harder to ‘opt-out’ of particular features when your phone plan is linked to your healthcare or entities are able to leverage information collected on you from everywhere and anywhere.
The problem is not contained to a single institution or sector. This is a classic negative exernality feedback loop. The privacy and security of individuals is being traded for risk management by institutions both public and private. This trade is anything but voluntary and immensely one-sided. Powerful automation and robotics systems are being developed with the express purpose of making our physical reality as controlled as our digital one. If one is concerned about the information dark age online, they should be a great deal more concerned with what is coming to our actual lives if this trend continues.
It can be hard for people to see why anyone would cooperate with all this, but there are many strong incentives to go play pong with the machine. The gold rush surrounding artificial intelligence tools means that many are going to experiment with ‘AI agents’, even at their own peril. The more interwoven these tools become with our lives, the more serious abuses can come from the misuse of personal information. It’s one thing when a person chooses to use these tools, but a whole other scenario when institutions are making use of them and individuals are left with the consequences.
While private entities are massively responsible for expanding surveillance, Governments are escalating their own measures. Every level of society, including corporate data collection can be leveraged for real-time social control. The militarization of everyday technical tools has profound implications for governments capacity and willingness to suppress even the most minor signs of dissent.
This depressing dystopia is far from the inevitable path that its beneficiaries and sci-fi would have you believe. The biggest barrier to a better digital future is not the systems we have to contend with but our own imagination and will. Devices can be repurposed, systems can be replaced, and tools can be rebuilt or refined. In the worst case scenario, we’ll have a great deal of recycling to do. It is difficult to draw the line that the problem is not the devices themselves, necessarily. ‘Wearables’, touch-screen devices, robots, and automation are all things that get a lot of well-intentioned ire, but are hardly the actual basis for the feared top-down technological terror. The actual problems are caused by these tools being built for a terrifyingly consolidated power structure to manage any resistance, internal or external. As political corruption consolidates actual power, the digital landscape morphs to suit this state of affairs. It is unavoidable that those who want a better digital experience must be engaged citizens supporting initiatives for transparency, accountability and justice.
The good news is that non-technical people are very much needed in this fight. None of this is an engineering problem. This is a reflection that our digital experience is a direct consequence of the powers at play in society. It is understandably overwhelming to consider the greater scope at hand. To make matters worse, it is entirely unlikely that these problems will be properly addressed. One can bet on more invasive (both voluntary and coerced) data collection on even the smallest details one can imagine in their life. The problem with privacy is that its harms are largely abstract to many people. The solutions are even more opaque as it’s genuinely difficult to understand what moves are genuinely worth the effort. It’s a challenging problem to solve because the harms are effectively diffused throughout society, like pollution, harming people in subtle to severe situations over longer periods of time. Odds are, there will likely be no single moment where people decide to take these issues head-on, especially when there are more pressing matters at hand. Unfortunately, this does nothing to stop privacy issues from impacting various other areas of life. This leads to scenarios where people are distraught by our modern digital landscape, but feel it’s not only inescapable but also impossible to change.
There is a case for apathy. Those of us who want to see a better digital future may not want to admit it, but many people are up against more acute and practical concerns than data privacy. This is incredibly frustrating as we see the consolidation and weaponization of information used to create new and concerning dangers. Instead of blaming those who are unable to prioritize privacy, we have to ask ourselves what we need to do to structurally change the game. It is not reasonable to expect those shackled by information control and invasive surveillance to pay the entire cost of overcoming it themselves. Such an expectation is an inevitable descent into disappointment and despair.
But what can we do?
I would encourage you to face the problems as they are, and with some faith and creativity seek out smaller wins. Given that we have finite lifetimes, our goal shouldn’t be to unilaterally solve everything. Instead, a cooperative long-term approach of building momentum in the right direction can absolutely yield meaningful results. There are notable examples from history in both the Free Software Foundation and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, but know that you need not be constrained by these particular efforts. Don’t be afraid of drawing your own lines in different places than others. If anything it can be a unique advantage to recognize particular problems and share insights.
Those who can unplug their minds from algorithmic control should, those who can protect their information absolutely need to, but that’s not the entire picture. The best we can expect from the vast majority of people is for them to play the cards they’re dealt. It is our job as those who want to work towards a better digital future to give the public better cards to play. In hindsight the cypherpunks most important point was recognizing it was the role of privacy advocates to create things that make digital autonomy possible and convenient. It is absolutely a high bar. Every year commercial trends raise the expectations the public has for technology. This is a daunting challenge, but more importantly an awesome opportunity.
It is fundamentally crucial that we recognize that our digital experience is downstream of our cultural understanding of the tools and systems we use. Without judicious and careful understanding of the world as it is, we will never see the future as we would like it to be. The dreamers must come to understand the doomers, and the doomers in turn must learn to appreciate the dreams. With this common understanding then we can wrestle with the fundamental social foundations of our technological landscape. This is far from philosophical navel-gazing, but is a necessary prerequisite for making the change necessary to avoid digital totalitarianism.
Now more than ever, it is vital to build a vision for a better digital experience. Simply decrying the egregious abuses of our existing one will only help us find opportunities to cope. By bringing people together to envision a truly radical and ambitious transformation of cyberspace, we have the opportunity to build lasting and holistic solutions. We have only begun to grapple with the consequences of our experience as it is. There is so much work to define what a better future looks like. Those of us with technical ability have two immense responsibilities: to be stewards for technology as it is, and to be fierce advocates for technological change that is used for people rather than against them.
If we are willing to take on these responsibilities, it is outright shocking how quickly things can improve. By responding to present-day realities we can properly inform long-term approaches. There is a real chance to make the tyrants of the world regret leaving so many bright technical minds without work. Fighting for freedom in the real world is increasingly dependent on recognizing and addressing the realities in cyberspace, and we would ignore this to our peril. Those interested in a better future in general would be wise to consider how we plan to make space for a much needed independent technical revolution.
Smile you are on candid camera.