11 May 2012
Privacy Commissioner says citizens must be aware of police surveillance tactics
Last week was Privacy Awareness Week, and my city Wellington hosted a pair of forums, one about identity, and another on privacy, bringing together world experts in privacy and New Zealand government leaders and academics. The media reported on one issue discussed: Powerful surveillance cameras read texts.
In the article, NZ's Privacy Commissioner points out that police can act based on text messages that you send (which they may read through CCTV cameras on streets and in stadiums), and that "education and awareness of surveillance tactics are crucial".
Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff said some overseas developments were amazing and she imagined there would be concern if and when that technology was implemented in New Zealand.
Civil liberties lawyer Michael Bott warned against becoming desensitised to digital surveillance.
"It's quite worrying when we, by default, move to some sort of Orwellian 1984 where the state or Big Brother watches your every move. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and we don't realise what we are giving up when we give the state the power to monitor our private lives."
The article is short and eye-opening, and ends with a list of some of the ways your actions are recorded on a daily basis.
Old news for those of us who are aware of privacy issues, but something the Commissioner said did concern me:
Ms Shroff said that, although reading someone's text messages in public could cause concern, the legitimacy of the action depended on what it was used for.
"We need to be aware of that – that potentially texting in a public place can be caught on a CCTV camera. If the text showed the person was plotting a riot or something, then it might well be legitimate for the police to use that under the coverage of exemption for law-enforcement activities.
"But if they were to use it simply out of nosiness, that might not be exempt," she said.
There are many problems with this. Firstly, it would be impossible to tell if police were using it "simply out of nosiness" - even if their surveillance were monitored by an independent agency, which it isn't. It could be always be simply out of nosiness, and then justified when the 20,000th text message they read turns out to lead to a conviction for something. Because a warrant isn't needed in public - anything you do or say is up for grabs.
Then there is the problem of the definition of "plotting a riot". What if you're plotting a peaceful protest, or a flash mob stunt? How different would that look to plotting a "riot"? What if you're just joking with a friend? We're used to this kind of self-censorship in airports - we know not to say words like "bomb" or "terrorist" in earshot of airport employees. Now we can get in trouble if we don't censor ourselves in public too - even if we're having a private conversation. Or if we're in the privacy of our own home, having a conversation with someone who is in public.
I wonder how many people are okay with the idea of police randomly listening to or reading private conversations in the hopes of finding something incriminating or dangerous. To be sure, police aren't doing that much now, but the only thing stopping them is resources and/or better technology to make the process more automated (and stored). This kind of thing is happening by default, without any public discussion, and the Privacy Commission, along with everyone else, is powerless to do anything about it except educate people about the issue. Only then might the trend towards a surveillance state be halted.
6 May 2012
I dare you
A few weeks ago I signed up to The Listserve, a simple but very powerful idea where 1 million people sign up to a mailing list and each day someone is picked at random to write a message to the group. So far the messages are varied and thoughtful. What's the one thing you would write to a million people?
I thought yesterday's message was really cool, so I'm sharing it with the rest of the world here. It's along similar lines to my previous post.
Subject: I Dare You
You are a unique, badass, and multi-faceted human being. There is no one else even remotely like you. Who are you to withhold your greatness from the world?
Why would you waste a second of your precious time pretending to be someone else? How dare you hide your gifts from us? Why would we want you to be like every other [insert category here] out there?We don't.We want you. The authentic you. The real, genuine, imperfect, weird, quirky, REAL you. Anything less than that is not enough.Just be you. It's the most amazing gift you can give to yourself, to me, to everyone in your world, and everyone in the world.It's easier for some people than it is for others. If it's hard for you, make it your life's work to search for and find your authentic self. There is nothing more urgent.Take full responsibility for your thoughts, behaviors, actions, the consequences of those actions, and the impact you have on people around you.Be grateful. Appreciate and love what you have and what's working.Seek clarity. Figure out what you like, what you want, and what's important to you.Make decisions based on what's aligned with your values and what you're passionate about.Learn to let go of the things/people/thoughts that don't serve you or steer you toward happiness and fulfillment.If you know what's important to you, it's easier to know why you are doing things and what things you should be doing. Don't waste time doing things that are not related to what's important to you.Dare to be emotionally accessible, vulnerable, and to expand your emotional range. Go for depth, richness, and honesty. It's raw, it's terrifying, and it's exhilarating.Whatever you are, whoever you are, and whatever it is that you're all about - OWN IT.Be unapologetically you. Know what you're about and pursue your dreams with an open heart and genuine passion. If someone doesn't like it, that's fine. But it's not your problem.Seek resonance. This is where the magic happens. Don't fear it. Embrace it.Be alive. Be real. Be you.I dare you.
Sandra Possing
sandrapossing@gmail.com
San Francisco, CA
Seriously, have a think about what you'd write. Share it here if you like, but better still - live your message! I can't think of any life more satisfying.
15 February 2012
Self-imposed limitations
I went to see Chronicle last night. The trailer left me very underwhelmed but like most reviewers I liked the movie. Deeper than most superhero movies, and practically all found-footage movies. The most important and encouraging part to me was the validation of the antagonist's pain. As in any flying superhero movie, it had the obligatory "casually sitting on the edge of a very tall building" scene - so of course I went straight out and emulated it ^_^
Here are some quotes about superheroes I came across today:
The only difference between a hero and an ordinary person is that heroes have learnt that fear is just a feeling, not a reflection of reality.
Me
Never tell me the sky is the limit when there are footprints on the moon.
Anonymous
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?
Actually, who are you not to be?
You are a child of God.
Your playing small does not serve the world.
There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.
We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us.
It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone.
And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.Marianne Williamson, Return to Love
13 December 2011
How the US censors the world's internet, and the imminent law change which would make it far worse
Last week they backed down over a single site, dajaz1.com, a popular hip hop blog. They had mistakenly shut it down for over a year, denied all due process, and hid all the details. Despite their obvious lie that none of their seizures were being challenged, they had refused to respond to requests for basic information from dajaz1's lawyer for the entire time. Now that the domain is released, the RIAA continues to threaten dajaz1 with legal action, despite no evidence of wrongdoing, for daring to compete with their business.
This isn't just problematic for reasons of fair competition, due process, and free speech, but also for privacy, as ICE's method is also a means of internet surveillance.
Today the popular sharing website Megaupload announced it is suing Universal for taking down its content from YouTube - content that Universal has no rights to whatsoever. It is this kind of thing which causes thousands of videos to be wrongfully removed every day - YouTube's takedown policy is "shoot first, ask questions never". Usually the rightful uploader can't afford the legal fees, so it's nice to see rare instances like this where the issue gets a chance in court.
These examples from the last week are excellent demonstrations of situations which will be made far worse if US laws like SOPA and PIPA are passed. I previously blogged about PIPA, under which US citizens could get 6 years jail for uploading a video of themselves singing a copyrighted song. SOPA, an even more draconian law, is being debated in the House of Representatives on Thursday. Here's an infographic summary of SOPA, and another summarizing the legal battle. SOPA could destroy the internet - and my language is not too strong.
The imminent passing of SOPA is highlighting the doublethink of the White House on internet issues that I blogged about in August, and mainstream media is beginning to catch on to the duplicity.
While Chinese users appreciate the irony of SOPA, MPAA boss Chris Dodd actually asked, "If the Chinese censor the internet without a problem, why can't the US?".
Update 14 December: Amendments have been introduced that water down SOPA a bit - the jist of it remains, but it's not quite as insane. It now targets only non-US sites (since US sites can already be dealt with legally) - although for the end-user it's not at all obvious whether a site is foreign or not, and US sites will still be required to self-censor references to those foreign sites. Breaking the internet's DNS system is no longer required, but optional. Also,
Under the amended plan, which was released late Monday, a judge would have to order ad networks to stop doing business with a site “dedicated” to infringing activities. Under the original proposal, a rights holder could make those demands on an ad network or payment processor and effectively kill off the site.
The amendment, however, still gives legal immunity to financial institutions and ad networks that choose to boycott "rogue" sites."
And there are other reasons it's still a very bad law.
Update 10 January 2012:
- The controversy over SOPA has been almost completely ignored by the US TV networks. Not surprising as they all enthusiastically support the bill, and more public attention is unlikely to help their cause. Since October 1, there has only been a single segment covering the issue, by CNN (which did not disclose its parent company Time Warner's support for the bill). Surely this will change as SOPA is becoming an election issue.
- Every member of congress has received more campaign money from supporters than from opposers, usually significantly more (10-70 times as much). So far, supporters have given $92m and opposers $7m. Despite the fact that the opposing internet companies make far more in profits than the big media companies driving the bill.
9 December 2011
Love exists
I've been enjoying popology, a great series of mini-sermons based on chart-topping pop music videos, from Christchurch's Steve Bell. I felt the need to spend half a day writing a reply to his most recent video (embedded below):
Your message seems confused - as you admit, even you don't know what you mean. It's tempting to forget the whole message as a wishy-washy muddle, but I'm a fan of your reviews and you state some wonderful truths in this one so I think it's worth trying to sort it out (even if it's taken me half the day).
Of course love doesn't exist in itself - it's a concept. "Love itself has no meaning, but rather it gives meaning to everything. It gives significance to those you love, they become important because you love them." This is great. But the following statement "Love does not exist as something that is itself significant" is confusing. Love is clearly a significant concept, since you're bothering to talk about it. I'd argue it is the most significant concept of all.
Together the two statements "Love doesn't exist" and "Love calls everything into existence" are a contradiction. Something that doesn't exist can't bring anything into existence. But this contradiction can be resolved, and I will do so below.
I think I understand something of what you're getting at. We find truth, meaning, and beauty, by loving each other. Truth is not to be found through academic belief in concepts, but in the active and messy genuine care of others. Any concept of "God" that gets in the way of that is wrong.
But love isn't just a feeling - how do we know we are loving, how do we measure the truth and goodness of love? Like you said in your last review ("We Found Love"): there is good love, and bad love (or alternatively, a spectrum of love from pure to flawed to fake). Pure love is purely giving. But by what basis can we assert this? And how can we believe that good love is possible, or that it really matters?
Because God has shown us good love. We cannot find truth, or love, without God. I'm not saying an athiest can't find truth and love, but I am saying that an athiest finds them because God does exist. God is love but love is not God: For some reason you don't make this distinction, and this probably more than anything is what muddles your message. God exists in himself, unlike love. God is other, a person not a concept, so he can love us, and he can "call everything into existence". And we can love him in return. In God we find not only an object of love, but a definition.
(Disclaimer: Nowadays there's a need to explain the use of the male pronoun "he" in reference to God. It doesn't mean I think God has a gender, it's that in English the gender neutral pronoun "it" is impersonal, and one of the most important things about God is that he is a person we can relate to. I could use "she", but in the Bible, God is much more often referred to as a father than a mother, I am following the Hebrew tradition of the male pronoun, and I'd needlessly offend more people by breaking that tradition.)
Without God, there is no definition of love - or indeed anything at all beyond our own subjective definitions. Without God, all our philosophy, all our talk of truth and love, is like a discussion about colour between the congenitally blind. God exists, so beauty is more than just a subjective feeling, it is a transcendent truth, with basis in the existing, objective world. God exists, so we can have confidence and persistence in believing that love matters, and that we matter, in a broken world which so often tells us to give up.
You do no one a service by falling for the split in our culture that puts objective truth (many would say "science") on one side and subjective love, beauty, and experience on the other. Each is essential for giving meaning to the other.
Love without truth has no definition and is meaningless. Truth without love is useless and meaningless. God is both, but much more than that, we can love him and therefore have a commitment to an ideal of love, and perfect loving actions, which do not exist in the world - apart from a sole example, Jesus.
Through the story of the Bible, God has shown us that he loves us - that we are meant to love and live in unity with the world - and that his love is so perfectly unselfish that he gave himself to die for us, so that we can ourselves aspire to, and ultimately attain, an attitude whereby we love like Jesus did.
The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is the most beautiful story of love I've ever heard. All other stories pale in comparison with the purity of the love God showed on the cross, the epic scale, and accessible focus on the raw humanity, questioning, and suffering of Jesus. It is that love which gives my life meaning and which has kept me from ending it all when I've been in very dark times, doubting the validity of my own existence, and giving in to the messages of meaninglessness pervasive in our world.
Don't water down your message, despite its inherent offence in rebuking our human arrogance and apathy. Don't pretend even for a second that you have a better definition of love than God. Without God, you have no message at all.
Now more than ever people need to find a love with substance and truth - a love like Jesus: "love with skin on", God with us.
* * *P. S. To those reading this who don't share my faith - this isn't a complete message of the good news of Jesus, it doesn't make sense by itself. If you're interested in hearing the whole thing, and addressing any objections you may have, I'd love to talk with you more about it - get in touch with me via email (chris at gracefool.com) or Facebook.
* * *Update 13/12: Steve explains himself in our Facebook discussion, reproduced below:
Steve (12:34 12/12/2011):
Christopher, what an excellent response. There is so much I like in what you've written on your blog post.
I like your disclaimer. And I like that your worldview leads to meaning and life in dark times.
I have trouble with your assumption that, because I don't understand, I must be confused. I don't necessarily equate the two. Do you?
What makes you think I've watered down my message?
Here's a song by a favourite artist of mine. I've just become aware, thanks to your post, that my review/comment may be doing to some just what this song does to the listener:
Sadly, no nice video to accompany it, but I find the lyrics compelling enough. It took me a long time to get this song. I'm sure the point of it will be more apparent to you.
Me (14:20 12/12/2011):
Thanks Steve :)
Looking at my post now, I disagree with a lot of it, the way I said it. It touched a sensitive spot in me, and I'm sorry for taking a more oppositional stance, and especially for my arrogance.
I don't know if you are confused - I just said your message was confused. I should have said "unclear". Your message was unclear on purpose, which means it's more likely that people will take your message the wrong way - which is probably what I did.
So what do you mean by "God does not exist"? I agree that, like love, God is in a different category of existence, because he "calls everything into existence". We cannot know God without embracing mystery, the fact that we cannot understand him, we cannot fit him in our head, let alone the way he exists. Nevertheless we can know him - we can relate to him - and this is where I took exception. God may be in a different category of existence - but he also makes himself available in our category of existence - we can know him as a real person, and be certain of his being there for us. Do you mean to say this isn't true?
I don't think you do, which is why I wondered if you were compromising your message. Taken by itself, your video seems to be that way. I think you're right - like "It's Better To Be Dead" (great music BTW, and funny how the protagonist is Christopher :p) it tears down our assumptions, our vain attempts to categorise and understand everything, and find meaning in what we do. Like Ecclesiastes, "It's Better To Be Dead" reminds us that everyone dies, whether foolish or wise... we should stop trying to judge everything, happiness is not to be found that way... a worthy message, but stopping there, as the song does, is quite depressing. Like that, your video leaves us hanging, without answers or meaning... so I guess I jumped in to fill it. We can't be happy without meaning, we can't move without at least the illusion of it, and we can't live with a belief vacuum - something will jump in to fill it, the only question is whether it is truth or lies. To be sure, I have spoken messages like yours, to create questions, to highlight meaninglessness, but I regret every message of mine which stopped there. We have been given such an awesome message of hope, why not tell it?
Steve (14:39 13/12/2011):
No worries, I totally appreciated that I would be shot at dawn for this review.
The point of "It's Better To Be Dead" is less about reminding us of our ultimate fate, and more about what it does to the listener in hearing it: No-one goes, "Yes. Yes it is better to be dead, for the dead feel nothing".
Instead, it's like placing a strawberry on the table, and telling my three-year old son that he must not touch it. Of course he'll rally against what he's been told - it's his nature - that strawberry has one destination - his grinning chewer.
To tell the living that life is not for them is to call the living to life in perhaps the most powerful way.
Though I acknowledge it was not my witting intention in this review, what then happens when the listener is told that God - or love - does not exist? Christopher devotes half a day to making a case that God is. You weren't really trying to convince me, were you?
Me (15:20 13/12/2011):
Hehe well then, nicely played ;) I'll happily spend more than half a day (my whole life) making a case that God is.
I wasn't sure. I haven't seen you come out and say your purpose, your main message, in any of your videos (although I've only seen about half of them).
Steve (16:21 13/12/2011):
Don't watch the other half - I probably would take issue with myself about what I said by now... ;)
1 page of 4 | Next >>
Subscribe via RSS
