On The Media- "Detecting Terrorism Online Raises Legal Questions"
This is the segment I decided to write about this week because I find it interesting the dynamics and varying points of view that play into this idea of online surveillance. The segment was hosted by Bob Garfield and the guest was Karen Greenberg.
The psychological contents of this story that I found dealt with how we form opinions and judgements on others, even if "all the pieces fall together" how can we ever be one hundred percent sure of their motives? I like that Karen mentioned the fact that there are some youth that seem to gravitate towards radical groups because they feel "understood" there and may express hatred or desires for terrorism but these youth need to be rehabilitated not tracked down and locked up because we "pre-determined" they are a terrorist. I completely agree with that.
Another context that came into play with this discussion is a social one. This segment reminded me of the Snowden incident and how big of a social debate that turned into. He justified his actions by expressing the need for Americans to demand their privacy back and that we shouldn't have to sacrifice our private lives and way of life to "be safe." Karen briefly talked about how finding these terrorists or radical people needs to rely on interpersonal communication and >human< analysis. People can be whoever they want on the internet and many individuals have no limits to what they can do online, so should we really rely on some algorithm code to "keep us safe?"
Cultural context plays a role in this as well in what it means to be an 'American.' I feel most Americans enjoy our privacy and the freedoms we have to do as we wish (for the most part) with our own lives. However, with the reoccurring terrorist attacks, we are becoming more fearful and paranoid. Understandable yes, yet why are we at the same time also willing to let that fear rule us? This is the ultimate goal of terrorists, to make you afraid so that everyday you are just wondering and worrying if something bad is going to happen again, you let it ruin your life.
I honestly think this is something that is not being taken as seriously as it needs to. Too many Americans (myself included) tend to think ignorance is bliss and we just don't want to think about it or deal with it. Why not have the NSA and other "officials" surveillance everyone? It's keeping us safe right? I don't like the mindset of "if you have nothing to hide, why are you worried about the government watching you?" Well I'm not worried but it bothers me because I am an American citizen, don't I have a basic right to be trusted and to live my life not being "monitored" every second?
Think about it, what if you posted to your facebook "I hate the President! I wish he were..." what if a few moments later, a bunch of feds showed up to your door wanting to question you? Think that's stretching it? I don't. Sure that was a mean thing to post but it's your right of free speech to do so! We all have a right to privacy and a right to innocence until proven guilty. More than anything online text gets misunderstood and taken out of context almost every time. Again, imagine a guy is sending a 'drunk' or fatigued email to a friend that says "I just want to kill all the girls at my school... " Sounds pretty suspicious, the feds should definitely go pick him up and make him the top story of the week essentially scarring his reputation. When in reality, he wasn't aware at the time of the terrible typo that occurred when he meant to type 'kiss.' He may be a creep but he's not a mass murderer. Sure things may not be this extreme right now but I fear if we keep loosening our grips on our rights to privacy that those things could very much be a reality.
So in conclusion, my response to the story is I'm a little torn surprisingly. This algorithm they are suggesting sounds interesting but also makes me wary, I think I would need a lot more information on what it is exactly and how it is going to "weed out the bad guys." I do know, that as far as mass, pure surveillance on everyone, I'm not okay with. Even if some say that by doing it we 'could' have prevented 9/11, I'm not sure if I believe that or if I think that is a cost we need to pay.
Holly,
ReplyDeleteI'm also torn on this subject. It's a little frightening to think that every move you make, every text, email, phone call, and letter is being searched and analyzed. But, then on the other side of the issue it might feel somewhat reassuring to know that our government is constantly monitoring everyone's activity, so that it might bring down the amount of pre-meditated crime. I believe that it is difficult because if we monitor one group of people we will have to monitor all groups of people. At the end of the discussion though, I think that I would opt to have surveillance of the citizens of our country. We live in a drastic time that calls for drastic measures. Even if the government surveillance stopped even just one terrorist attack, I think it would be worth it. I think of the 3,000 people on 9-11 who lost their lives to terrorism, and I wonder if more surveillance would have stopped it. I don't know the answer, but I'm in favor of suggesting that more surveillance might have stopped it.
Great post! I enjoyed reading your insights on the issue.
McKade,
DeleteThanks for commenting on my post, I appreciate your point of view on this! I agree that perhaps giving up our privacy is a small price to pay to prevent really bad things from happening and people dying. I guess I just need hard proof if they are in fact catching terrorists and preventing attacks, just to know it isn't all in vain. I realize in some cases, the attack is planned from the outside to someone who is living in the U.S and maybe has a "clean" record. Yet, in the times that it isn't an "inside job" I just wonder if we need to focus more efforts on protecting our borders and being more serious about screening individuals and making sure they come in the right way at the right time. And when attacks do happen, fight back immediately! We need to be recognized as the country that won't tolerate being "bullied" not a country that is going to live in fear. Thanks again for your comment!
Holly, I wanted to say quickly that I really enjoyed reading your blog post about this audio clip. I actually listened to the same clip and it was quite interesting to see the thoughts and ideas you had in comparison to how I felt about the topics discussed. I just wanted to address a couple key points that I found to be worthy of mention and discuss them between us. The first being a question I want to pose to you: do you think Edward Snowden was in the wrong to disclose the information he had collected in reference to the wire tapping? I ask this because I feel his story matches up and is in a parallel line to this issue that we listened to. In my post, I asked if I would be okay with the government meddling around in my personal life if they were doing it legally? I never answered the question, but I would have to say that I don't like the idea. This is a complex issue, but it goes back to our Constitutional rights and the freedom we are promised as citizens of this great country. By the government creating an algorithm, they are inserting themselves even deeper into our lives. They are meddling in our personal lives and I simply don't like it. I would oppose this option of an algorithm even though I can see some really good pros. Privacy is to important to me to give up. The second point I wanted to address was the solution that Kathy Greenberg mentioned. She stated that as long as members of society care about one another and the relationships they have, problems such as terrorist attacks can be limited/prevented. I think we as citizens don't realize the power we have. We can make an impact in this world and help to solve issues like this. People don't believe in the inner power they posses. Again, I just wanted to say thank you for your post and I hope my response made sense. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteBeaux,
DeleteThank you for commenting on my post! To answer your question, I don't know everything about the Snowden situation but from what I have gathered and watched from it, my opinion is no, I don't think he was wrong to release that information. He stands by the fact that he is an American citizen just like us and felt that in this case, the NSA had gone too far and we had a right to know! I don't call him a hero but I also definitely don't call him a terrorist or a traitor to the country. I can really see how many individuals would be okay with the surveillance "if it can save more lives." My concern and question is- why and how is this the only way to "catch" terrorists and "save" lives? And if it really was for the greater good, why are we not voting on it? That's the part that really bothers me, I feel like we are being treated like children and the NSA are our parents saying "don't worry about it, I'm the parent and know what's best for you." I feel as an American citizen, I have a right to know exactly what these "programs" consist of, how they work, how they will affect me and then make an educated vote on whether or not it should be implemented. Anyway, that's just how I see it! Thank you for engaging in my post, I appreciate it!