More reasons to explain why NSA bulk data collection is such a bad idea
The NSA’s bulk data gathering is such a bad idea, that it gives the impression to have been created by some redneck country hicks. Or, worse yet, to have been conceived by corporate leaders who can so easily ‘throw money at a problem’ without genuinely attempting to understand it. Certainly, we have to admit that there do exist legitimate scenarios for ‘information intrusion’. That being said, there are plenty of negative reasons which do not seem to have been fully considered, and which we will attempt to flesh them out in these brief notes.
One inherent presumption of NSA policy is the existence of a ‘lead’ by the United States currently has in digital technology; it has, for the moment, ‘digital superiority’ over its rivals. Computers, after all, are a uniquely North American Invention—-Charles Babbage and others notwithstanding. As a result of the unquestionable the technical sophistication of the NSA, it can hack any system to gain unprecedented access to foreign activities.
But, what happens if this technological capacity is ‘lost’ or ‘degraded’?
One has to point out the obvious: should the scientific and technological manpower of the United States decline, so will consequently its ability to ‘hack’ into other computer and telecommunication systems. Worse yet, it will become the subject of hacking by foreign actors without even being aware of its existence—thereby further degrading its ‘digital economy’ and ‘industrial trade secrets’. Anyone who has read anything about the history of science and technology knows that the ‘leading centres’ are unstable, constantly shifting about from one nation to the next. No single nation will eternally hold a leadership position; and from the looks of school science scores, it is clear that the United States has been declining for some time now.
However, let us assume for a second the very hypothetical scenario implicit in the SouthPark episode that all NSA employees are moral and are attempting to ‘do good’ in the world. Ah, but the dream of babes. Even if this unlikely scenario was the case as there will always exist rouge agents, it can certainly be said that the institutional culture of the NSA will inevitably change at some future date. Without any hardware barriers to control the abuse of powers implicit in such surveillance, as noted by Edward Snowden, the institution could easily fall into becoming one of the most oppressive police states in human history. Whether this is or not the case, it cannot be doubted that institutions change over time, and (as with all things) the future state of this change can never be predicted or fully anticipated.
Let us also assume, for a second, the very hypothetical scenario that ‘foreign actors’ have evil intents—in contrast to our angelic NSA agents. However, as fiscal dynamics also produce irrevocable change in the socioeconomic status of nations, it might be the case that the US economy will decline so much that it simply will not be able to afford such technologies. Computers, after all, are much more ‘organic’ that they are publicly characterized; they have to be constantly replaced as they break down and fall apart. In light of this weakened US status, other international actors will also try to recreate the NSA ‘eye in the sky’, after obtaining cognition of its existence, but which will be placed to much more negative uses than that which has been put to so far. (In a hypothetical world, our local state actors are ‘virtuous’ and foreign actors are characterized by vice. See prior essay on this in-group/out-group moral boundary.)
In order to support programs as the NSA’s bulk data collection, Jeremy Bentham’s “Panopticon” is often invoked. Bentham was a british philosopher during the 18th century who explored the implications of an ‘all seeing eye’: a circular prison whose jail cells all faced a central watch guard who looked over all but who could not be seen. Bentham argued that, unable to see the seer, everyone’s conduct would immediately improve given that they could not tell whether they would be ‘caught’ in an illicit act or whether they would be able to ‘get away’ with it. The eye of the state was implicitly ever present, but itself could not readily be detected.
It can certainly be said that human conduct can change in light of public scrutiny, and is an age-old phenomenon well studied. Politicians, the Federalists argued, would tend to behave with decor when in the public eye if just to maintain their reputations. Other studies have shown a marked difference in behavior between ‘catholic’ and ‘protestant’ youths traveling abroad. Because social norms in catholic countries tend to be established socially, individuals in new contexts suddenly have their ‘moral chains’ removed, only to do things they would not normally do in their home town. Protestant youths, having internalized a private morality, tend to be less inclined to these excesses when travelling abroad, although there are always their exceptions.
Nonetheless, it has to be pointed out that Bentham’s Panopticon occurs in the context of a prison and a jail cell—not within the real context of the social and the natural world. We all like to believe that we are free, that we can determine our own end, that we can have peace of mind in an unwatched state of being. The very notion of an ever present state does heed back to George Orwell’s 1984, scary for the absolute power of the state, both in terms of judicial and informational breadth. One cannot but help show the blatant contradiction that a conservative ‘laissez faire’ state which so opposed government intervention in economic affairs (George Bush and other Republican administrations) would paradoxically establish the exact opposite state of affair at the broader state level.
There are many more issues, but we will make one final concluding point by asking ‘who has access to all the acquired information?’. One curious phenomenon known in computing is the ‘hacking of the hacker” in an endless infinite loop. We can visualize this in the following scenario. A hacker established a botnet by hacking home computers, which then allows him to attack in concert other computers and/or servers (the most likely scenario). Now imagine this hacker being hacked, and in turn, the new hacker also being hacked. Five hack layers are known to exist, and have been wonderfully parodied in The Simpsons with older video-monitoring technology. (The watcher watching the watcher, who is watching the watcher, etc.)
In light of a degraded scientific and technological capability in the near future, how will the United States government/NSA know that IT itself is not being hacked by another external agent(s)? This is not an unlikely scenario, that is perhaps the best political case against NSA bulk data gathering.