Invasion of privacy: Is America a Soft Orwellian State?

Surveillance is a key aspect of the Orwellian State. Winston's flat is monitored through his television (which actually was an early fear - people used to place tablecloths and blankets over their TVs so others couldn't see them through the TV). He is constantly fearful that a hidden microphone is listening on him - even when he goes into the countryside. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the purpose of the surveillance is not just to ferret out opponents of the state. The threat of constant surveillance is s mechanism of control. Winston and others are so worried that they must constantly questions their own appearance, actions, and words. Even an unconscious uttering could be grounds for detention if the surveillance systems overheard. Worse still, people were encouraged to spy on each other. 

I've already tipped my hand a bit as to that final part - the Dpt. of Homeland Security does have a public awareness campaign which seem to encourage some snooping. Remember citizen, If you See Something, Say Something. The focus, however, is not on actions against the state. DHS is encouraging you to stay aware and report potential terrorist activities. 

Terrorism is the crux of many of  the changes we've seen in America. We live in constant fear of another attack and have to take precautions against it. Or so the argument goes. I find the security vs liberty choice to be a false dichotomy. Following the attacks, a number of powers were granted to the presidency which it did not previously have and systems of surveillance were stepped up.

However, complex systems of electronic intelligence gathering were in place long before the 9/11 attacks. A multi-national electronic eavesdropping initiative called ECHELON has been in place since the 1960s. It's original goal was gathering data on the Soviet Union by listening in on electronic communications. Prior to the advent of fiber optic cables, all long distance communications were over the electromagnetic frequencies (radio, microwave, etc.). If you had sensitive enough equipment, you could listen in on even the faintest signals from thousands of miles away or, from a few hundred yards, you could detect the electronic impluses made by a computer keyboard - that is, you could read what someone is typing while they typed. The US and her Allies set up listening posts in the UK, Canada, Japan, and Australia - the largest of which is located in Yorkshire. Next time you visit a pub in Harrogate, say hello to all the American contractors who are "consultants" but can't tell you anything more. They're the folks listening to your phone calls.

The downfall of the Soviet Union didn't see the end of these electronic surveillance programs. Indeed, the biggest threat to their continued existence came from the advent of fiber optic cabling. Fiber optics uses light to transmit a signal. Light produces no electromagnetic signature and can't be intercepted without having direct access to the cables themselves. This is exceedingly difficult - not that we haven't tired.

Not an entrance to Narnia.
The NSA's "secret room" in AT&T's San Fransisco network routing  office.
How do I know it's an official government installation?
It's wheelchair accessible, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

What our intelligence service realized was, the easiest way to gain access to these new fiber optic cables circling the globe was to require the companies who used them to provide access. Telephone companies had been a part of this loop since the 1950s but another innovation required more direct action: the internet. Since 1997, the FBI and NSA have had software and hardware installed at the routing stations of major telecommunications corporations. The purpose is twofold - 1. Data aggregation. The FBI (and later NSA) store a record of billions of phone calls made by people throughout the world, including those of US citizens. The NSA Call Database (misleading because it now records all forms of communication passing through telecommunication networks) is believed to be the largest database in the world. 2. Allow for direct surveillance when necessary. 

To put that in perspective, all the major internet service providers, telecommunications companies, and cellular carriers are required to give intelligence agencies unfettered access to your phone calls, texts, emails, blog posts, Skype, Facebook, and pretty much everything else you do electronically. A record has been kept. Profiles have been created. These surveillance methods have been brought before court for a violation of the 4th amendment. However, the case died in the US Circuit Court of appeals because Congress retroactively legalized domestic electronic surveillance.

Well, actually and amendment to the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

The degree of surveillance has increased along side the rapid growth of our communicative ability. Smartphones that record our location are used by police to track suspects. Facial recognition software is being used to identify people in crowds  (okay, okay, it's not perfect; yet). Many cities are broadening their surveillance programs. Atlanta, for example, is purchasing a mobile surveillance tower to monitor crowds and record their activities. 

Coming to a Woodruff Park near you.

Other activities are also becoming the subject to police surveillance. Use too much electricity? That's a SWAT Team'n. What other possibility could there be?

Sometimes, high electricity use doesn't lead investigators to drugs. A federal investigation in the Powell area turned into a surprise for detectives.

"We thought it was a major grow operation ... but this guy had some kind of business involving computers," Marotta said. "I don't know how many computer servers we found in his home."

As if I needed another reason to move toward energy efficiency - now my Minecraft Server is going to make the police think I run a grow house.

The surveillance apparatus has been in existence for a generation. As new technologies emerge, our intelligence agencies become deeply embedded in the infrastructure. They gain a clearer picture of who we are, what our habits are, and how (and, increasingly, where) we spend out time. While there's no major evidence of this power being turned against the average American citizen, there's also little transparency. The truth is, we don't know how these intelligence gathering powers are being used. We do know, however, that there are questions as to how effective these changes have really been.



I want to end with an analysis of this video as it makes a good segue for my next post.

First, kudos to Chertoff for pointing out that we can't be protected from the tide of history. We hear all too often that the attacks were the result of "crazy fundamentalists" who "hate us for our freedom". I think that mantra obscures America's role in creating the necessary preconditions for terrorism in the middle east.

Second, the video focuses initially on tighter Airport Security and men with machine guns who protect us on the subway. I am reminded of a 1998 film called The Siege.  It imagines a NYC held hostage by the threat of terrorist attacks. It's themes include surveillance, torture, and using the military domestically (including the intelligence services who are, like the military, supposed to be limited to foreign actions (CIA, NSA, etc.)). What was shocking in 1998 was the presence of armed soldiers in our cities. A mere 4 years prior to 9/11, such a thing was the stuff of movies. Now, it's ordinary life.

Third, we catch a glimpse of the tangled regulatory structure that guides our surveillance programs. Different committees and offices oversee the various intelligence agencies. Local and national law enforcement can't communicate. We're collecting so much data that we can't sift through it adequately. Yet, we're trying to streamline the process - we want the police to have real time access to our "iPhones and Blackberries" without any clear evidence that having such capabilities makes us any safer. Our officials say we're much safer with these measures in place but the only terror plots we seem to foil are ones that our own intelligence agencies create.

But is this all Orwellian? It's hard to say. Without knowing more about the kinds of information gathered and the way it's being used, we can't say one way or the other. Perhaps that's the ultimate answer, though. In Orwell's novel, the public knew exactly how and why the surveillance was being conducted. That knowledge was a supplemental form of social control. Fear and paranoia kept people from acting out and organizing against the state. Right now, those conditions do not exist. We have only a partial version of Big Brother watching us.

My next post will focus on whether or not the state is taking measures to control out daily lives. I hope you find a lot to think about as this series continues and, as usual, I welcome commentary and criticism.