Lean Back And Enjoy It

Last week I talked about the schizophrenic reaction that the American people have to the dissemination of information. I didn't use that term – it doesn't stem from a psychiatric disorder but from a love-affair with technology, inattention and denial – and it is, perhaps, misleading. It is, however, clear that the public protests raised by the disclosure of the NSA's collection of telephone records can't be taken at face value.

There's no stopping progress, and we all embrace it. Perhaps excessively. It didn't take long after the introduction of the social media for them to become the megaⁱphenomenon they are now. Building on Friendster, MySpace, and LinkedIn, among others, Facebook was initiated at Harvard as a service for students in 2004. “The rest,” as they say, “is history.” Facebook passed the one billion member mark in 2012 and now has over 1.1 billion users. And every one of them is looking for friends.ⁱⁱ

There are many different kinds of social media – for friendship, advertising, job hunting, photo sharing, searching for old friends, and lots of others. So it isn't surprising that the numerous users have accepted, and become accustomed to, the sharing of information electronically. Some of it, probably a small minority, serves an actual purpose other than show and tell. But most of it consists of the narcissistic display of unfiltered – and usually inane – thoughts and bragging; of photographs illustrating the poverty of the “sharer's” existence; of personal appeals for friendship or companionship; of “clever” comments on the submissions of others; of pornography, advertising, and, in all likelihood, disguised and coded messages of spies and terrorists; and similar self-destructive or dangerous material. We're happy to give away information,ⁱⁱⁱ but we don't always rejoice in the fact that others may be taking it.

So, with the impulse to share all that comes to mind, and the knowledge that we're not alone in that endeavor, it's hard to believe that people didn't realize that governments^iv would do the same thing.^v Only they would probably try to use them less for trivial gossiping and more for the gathering of information, including, but not limited to, that which we're so eager to share. But that sharing is more than we bargained for. According to De Beers, “Diamonds are forever.” So's the internet.^vi Postings may come back to haunt us after many years^vii and access is available to everyone, unless steps are taken to block it. There can be no presumption of privacy in anything we post. And we all know it. We just don't care. In fact we're flattered when someone takes notice of us. At least until we find out that it's the government.^viii

It's disingenuous, though, to express surprise and horror that others are doing the same things we do. And it's similarly hypocritical to demand that we be protected by our government at the same time we're taking away the tools they believe they need to provide that protection.^ix The NSA will certainly be changed because of the outcry resulting from the revelation of what most people already knew – that the government had access to records of all the telephone calls in which we participate. In so many of the crime shows we watch on television the police review the logs of all calls to and from the suspect. Someone has kept the records that makes this possible. Are those records always used? Not unless there is reason to do so.^x That's what the NSA does, only they do it better than the police. Some, admittedly a minority, of the information will be useful in providing security, though its value will decrease with every disclosure about its nature and with every limitation in its use. So changes will be made. The public demands them. But assuming the surveillance serves a purpose, some method will have to be found to achieve the same results under a different guise. And it will be found. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.                  

1984 arrived several years ago. It arrived because, though we deny it and fight it, we wanted the tools that make it possible. There were some who warned that this is where our love of technology would lead, but our desire for “progress” trumped any concerns we had that the availability of information would be a threat. Indeed, I suspect, if the American People were now offered the opportunity of ending government use of electronic technology by ending its use by individuals as well, they would reject such a plan. And, in the unlikely event that they accepted such a concept, we'd all be under the control of those elsewhere who weren't so inclined. The protection which we sought from society – the “common defence” [sic] – would be surrendered.

For better or worse, we've crossed the Rubicon. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. You certainly can't change 'em. Constitutional government in general, the Second Amendment in particular, representation in Congress, and the ACLU notwithstanding, you're not going to defeat the government, so you might as well accept the programs they impose on you. Lean back and enjoy it. Perhaps the worse it tastes, the better it is for you.

Perhaps not.

Next episode: “I Think I Missed Something” – The trouble with passion.

 

 

I       Originally it meant “million” in a combining form, but, especially in this computer age, it has come to mean BIG. Or, as Ed Sullivan would have put it, “Reeeally Big.” Huge, in fact.

ii      Often in the wrong places. Some of the “friends” we find have agendas different from ours.

iii     To confirm this, all you have to do is to listen to talk radio, or to read the endless comments and debates on line following some controversial article. People like to express their opinions (I know I do) no matter how silly they are. (Mine, as you know by now, are well-reasoned and incontrovertible.)

iv      Our own, and those of our friends and enemies.

v       They'd also do it far better than we.

vi      In the beginning, at least (according to Jewish tradition) since the Law was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, there was the “written” law (that which was recorded in the Bible) and the “oral” law, that which was passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth. Eventually, out of fear that it would be forgotten or corrupted, this too was written down. That was cutting edge technology in those days. Now we enter what we know in computers, and it will live forever. That includes telephone records.

vii     See “Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age” by Viktor Mayer-Schönberger

viii    We fear that “the government,” or, more accurately, government officials, will misuse the information. That's not an irrational concern but it must be balanced against the probabilities that the information will probably never be used at all and, if it is, that it will be used for our benefit.

ix      Requiring “transparency” makes it far easier, faster, and cheaper for our enemies to keep tabs on our defenses and it makes it far harder to negotiate plans and policies, to work out compromises, and to craft treaties.

x       Even if information has no immediate applicability, the possibility of a future need for it cannot be ignored. (That's why we have archives and libraries.) There is no such thing as “useless information,” only information that has no application at a particular time. The ability to respond to a threat quickly because data can be obtained rapidly is something that has obvious value. It may be argued that failure to do so – to prepare for potential future threats – is contrary to our country's interests.