What if I told you that digital privacy doesn’t exist? That every website we search, every keystroke we make, every text message we believe to be private is being monitored, or can easily be traced back to us? That these notions we hold of the protection of our privacy are completely pointless? That we are virtually helpless to protecting ourselves, and that our attempts have always been in vain?
Surveillance programs and government agencies across the globe have the power to track everything that we say and do online. They know virtually everything about us — they even have the power to predict our online movements before we make them. Our society cowers helplessly under the weight of digital technologies and the ghostly unseen who control them. What’s worse is that we’re barely aware of it, as I so dauntingly learned at the film screening of Terms and Conditions May Apply, during this year’s Media Democracy Days on Nov. 8–9.
The film reveals the truth of today’s digital communications by revealing what we really submit to when we click “I agree” to the terms and conditions for website services, such as Facebook and Twitter.
Our lack of critical thinking is what feeds Internet services and propels them to take advantage of us.
Terms and conditions are gateways for the world wide web to steal our Internet souls and use them to lurk in the shadows behind us, take advantage of the ways we think, and manipulate us. So, what do we agree to when we mindlessly click the “I agree” button? How exactly is our privacy being violated? Read on and you shall find out.
We allow Internet services to use our personal data.
If you’ve ever read Google’s terms of agreement — and I’m willing to bet you haven’t — you’ll know that Google’s terms allow the service to track user Internet cookies. Cookies are the bits of data we leave behind on every website we visit. Using these cookies, Google creates an algorithm that learns over time which websites we visit most frequently. This means that whenever we search for something on Google, the top results will always reflect websites the search engine believes we will be more inclined to enjoy than others.
Every time we use the Internet, we essentially leave a breadcrumb trail for Google to stalk us with! Feel free to test this for yourself: Grab a few of your friends, pull out your smart phones or laptops, and individually search the same topic. Most likely, your search results will be slightly different from the person next to you, reflecting the website content you, personally, favour.
How does this invade our privacy? Google employees, not to mention countless other website services, can track our movements online through our website histories and predict what we might search for next. They can research what we say, what we do, and, in a sense, what we think. It’s disturbing to think that a simple Internet search engine has the power to execute this, and downright terrifying to think of the billions of Internet users who are being taken advantage of by Google every single day.
We allow services to change terms and conditions at any time.
We as a society have adapted far too easily to the default settings on Internet services. If the default setting is set to public, most of us are unlikely to bat an eye. Our lack of critical thinking is what feeds Internet services and propels them to take advantage of us. In many cases, these websites are so confident in our online acquiescence that they decide to silently change their terms and conditions — from right under users’ noses.
Take Facebook, for example. In 2009, Facebook knowingly changed the fine print of their terms and conditions, without alerting any of its users. As a result, information that had been private suddenly became completely public — all except the user’s birthday and contact information. These changes sparked an angry outcry from Facebookers who felt their privacy had been violated without their consent.
But this wasn’t the first time Facebook had taken steps to make its users’ information more public — it’s only the most prominent. Since 2007, the site has gradually been altering its terms of service so that increasing amounts of information become public each year, violating the privacy of millions of users. For a social network that prides itself on connecting us with our “inner circle of friends,” it’s worth noting that Facebook seems intent on connecting us with pretty much everyone else, too.
We allow services to make our information “anonymous.”
Take note of the quotation marks on the word anonymous. Any terms that include the word anonymous, or claim that you are an anonymous user of their service, are outright lies. Nothing on the Internet is anonymous — it’s just not how the web works.
For example, in 2006, AOL spontaneously turned over a plethora of anonymized searched records from its users. Within only a few hours, reporters had decrypted exactly who many of these users were. They did so by matching user numbers with the different search terms the users had typed into the system. As a result, reporters were able to decode user names, ages, locations, and contact information. It seems like once we’ve made our contribution to the net, we’ve been carved into it forever.
Furthermore, it may make you more than a little uneasy to know that Facebook has a record of everything that has ever been posted on their network. Within seconds of deleting content, Facebook employees can check their archival data and pull up whatever you’ve attempted to trash. Your attempts to make yourself anonymous are futile, as all the underlying data is still there to be decoded.
We must shine the light on the issue, raise awareness of these surveillance programs and spark debate.
Those angry break-up messages you sent to your significant other, then promptly deleted? The ones you thought were gone forever? Just imagine Facebook employees huddled around a computer, laughing at them, while you’re sitting here reading this article!
We allow services to show our information to the government.
Let me begin by stating that there is no guarantee our information won’t be disclosed or accessed by the Canadian government. Popular social networking websites employ surveillance workers who search user profiles and private information, 24/7. If governments have reason to suspect any illegal activity, they can, and will, gain access to our private information.
Chances are, you’re aware of the National Security Agency (NSA) scandal that occurred in the United States this June. Edward Snowden, an ex-NSA employee cum political fugitive living in Russia, leaked classified information about the NSA that some have gone on to argue has been one of the most significant leaks in US history. Snowden revealed that the NSA had been secretly tapping into phone lines and intercepting online communications across the globe.
The leak sparked outrage with many digital technology users, whose eyes were opened to the fact that their privacy was being violated. At least now they know to say “hello” to the NSA whenever they answer the phone.
We allow the government to use our data to prevent private communication and protest.
Did you know that there is microscopic software in all of our phones called Carrier IQ? This software is designed to document every keystroke we make on our phones. It keeps a detailed record of our personal communication, and retains the ability to divulge every photo, video, audio, text message and password we have, or have ever had, to service providers and, if need be, to the authorities. Carrier IQ has recently been the cause of major controversy with regards to the data it gathers, and its lack of transparency in using this information.
In 2002, the American government began a surveillance program called Total Information Awareness (TIA), which was designed to track every single web transmission ever made. With enough data, TIA believed it could easily spot and track potential criminals. Many of these “criminals” weren’t actually criminals at all, and were only targeted because they had posted supposedly suspicious messages online.
Following public criticism, TIA was shut down permanently in 2003, but this has not deterred governments from acting against what they think is suspicious illegal activity.
The film Terms and Condition May Apply, which focuses on the touchy subject of Internet privacy, tells the story of a European man about to fly to America for a vacation. Before leaving for the airport, he posted a message on Twitter joking that he was ready to “destroy America”.
By this, he meant that he was ready to consume excessive amounts of alcohol while on his long-awaited vacation. To his surprise, once he arrived at airport security, he was taken aside by police and questioned about his online activity. After attempting to explain himself, he was handcuffed and taken to the police station for further questioning.
I don’t know how familiar you are with George Orwell’s classic Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which a dystopian society is constantly under surveillance due to government paranoia. But the case of the misinterpreted tweet, which calls to mind the “thoughtcrimes” of the novel, is downright Orwellian. Through our use of digital technology, we run the risk of being arrested on the grounds of tweeting. As a member of a proud and civilized society, you have to ask: how are government forces getting away with this?
Nothing on the Internet is anonymous — it’s just not how the web works.
There is no question as to whether privacy still exists in our society: it’s been dead for years. In fact, one may have trouble believing that any concrete form of privacy has ever existed in the digital world. The societal illusions that tell us to make sure we are protecting ourselves online are nothing more than smokescreens. Virtually every action that we make, no matter how subtle, has the potential to be tracked, and this notion is one that should truly terrify us.
But, as with every dystopian story, one might argue that the antidote to our current predicament is transparency. We must shine the light on the issue, raise awareness of these surveillance programs and spark some much needed debate. These are the beliefs that surround Media Democracy Days in Vancouver each year, as well as other media awareness campaigns. It has been suggested that a parliamentary debate should occur to promote transparency on privacy rights — and I, for one, am on board.
Ultimately, increased awareness of the pitfalls of our Internet privacy could be the primary step in breaking free from a world of power-hungry control-freaks, and ensuring our own independence.
