Privacy - 1984 in 2004 ? - Was Orwell Correct ?  

1984  in  2004 ?  - Was Orwell Correct?

by Russell Anderson, Cambridge University

 Both  American and British intelligence communities have developed impressive arsenals of surveillance.  In part this technology serves the average citizen by helping to combat international terrorism and crime.  Unfortunately, technology and bureaucratic zeal in re-defining post cold-war intelligence agency missions has placed both British and American societies in the midst of a very worrying development.
 With the absence of the "evil communist" threat, intelligence agencies have begun to help fight crime. In the ever increasingly dangerous world of unaccounted for nuclear material and the "scourge of readily available drugs,"  intelligence agencies  have happily filled the gap with their particular brand of expertise.
Blurred is the distinction between internal and external security and that of crime prevention and intelligence gathering.  In the battle against ever threatening criminal conspiracies and international crime syndicates  civil liberties are caught in the cross-fire as billion dollar bureaucracies fight for budget appropriations;  at stake are  privacy and  basic rights.

  Freedom  and  privacy  are  elusive.

                      As impressive amounts of data are gathered and stored in computer data-banks, and as these data-banks are inter-linked, government has at its disposal an awesome weapon against deviants.

With access to: "algorithmic surveillance" which allows police to use computers to scan crowds and identify individual faces (even when in disguise) via installation of surveillance cameras in public locations; telephone records and eavesdropping capabilities which demonstrate patterns of contact and actual communications; key word searching of virtually anyone's telephone or e-mail communication; medical records "pooled" by insurance companies; tax collector files for tracking reported revenue; banking records to compare with spending patterns and reported revenue; often inaccurate credit reports; license plate scanning which allow monitoring of the whereabouts of virtually any vehicle on national highways; passport control and airline records to track travel habits; and credit card statements for monitoring personal spending patterns, computers may soon be harnessed to monitor every intimate detail and move of its citizenry.

 Change has been incremental, and on its face, progressive. But in the words of  Hume, "it is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." Incremental change can blind us to our peril. Where data has previously been available but not computerised it is now certainly entered into a computer. Where individual data was not easily dis-aggregated from the mass of files, this process is increasingly done quicker and cheaper with the advent of more, and more powerful computers. Where tax collector files and bank records were kept on separate and non-inter-linkable computer systems, this too is changing (especially with the advent of electronic banking). With the impressive progress of computers it is increasingly easy to disaggregate individual details from one database and merge these with details from another computer to amass a staggering array of detail about any given individual. What you do, where you do it, and with whom you do it, are all within the grasp of anyone with access to a powerful computer and the databases on which this information is stored.  In some cases government databases are accessible to those willing to pay for access (as many states sell DMV and criminal records).  In other cases  hacking or illegal "incentive payments" to gate keepers  are all that is required.

 A frog  placed in a pot of cool water  which is slowly heated  is said to never notice the danger  until it is time for soup.

 If advances in computers and database management were only for the advancement of humanity through the prevention of crime and the delivery of more and better goods and services this might fine. But there is a sinister side to this process, and history demonstrates that surveillance power which is not properly checked and balanced  can and will be abused.

In the 1950's government did its best to rid itself of "communists" under McCarthyism. In the 1960's it was the civil rights leaders who were targeted by a much less sophisticated (than today), but equally frightening array of government snoopers.

In the late 1960's and early 1970's  it was anti-Vietnam protestors and targets of the now infamous FBI scandal "COINTELPRO."  In the mid-1970's the American intelligence community had to admit that it had illegally eavesdropped on thousands of domestic communications - effectively spying on its own citizens (as part of operations Shamrock and Minaret). In the 1980's American intelligence officials and law enforcement agencies targeted those protesting American involvement in Central America. In Britain, unions have been the favourite whipping boy of government "intelligence gathering."
In the US in the 1980's the Citizens in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES) proved in court that the FBI had harassed their members.

Imagine if the intelligence community and law enforcement agencies had access to today's technology back in the 1950's or 60's.

 What about safeguards ?

In the US  the NSA-National Security Agency (which is bigger than the CIA in budget and staff and has a budget in excess of $3 Billion)  has no charter and operates from term to term largely under the dictates of Executive Orders and at the whim of the President in power. History has demonstrated that this has resulted in the abuse of signals intelligence, sometimes for purely political purposes (Nixon used the NSA for drug interdiction and to monitor "dissidents," and the Reagan administration manipulated intercepted communications contributing to a Soviet paranoia that the US was preparing a first strike nuclear attack in the wake of the 1983 downing of KAL 007).

 If we as citizens do not begin to understand the implications of the technology  that is being developed, mostly with the best of intentions, and accelerate the process of public debate and proper oversight, we risk losing important freedoms.

If we as citizens can't offer-up our voices in outrage at the abuse of privacy and the encroachment on civil liberties being perpetrated by our own elected governments, how can we begin to hope that private multinational corporations, with their impressive budgets, limited public accountability, and increasing sojourns into the murky world of corporate counter-intelligence, can be controlled? We must remind ourselves that although today's targets for the law and order folks and the intelligence community may be the militia movement or "Middle Eastern terrorists," tomorrow's targets might be those of us crusading for the preservation of liberty. Some of the most historically important figures in 20th Century American history have been persecuted (such as Martin Luther King).

I am reminded of a famous quote attributed to Martin Niemoeller, a Protestant minister in Nazi Germany:
 "In Germany they came first  for the Communists, and  I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.  Then they came for the trade unionists, and  I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.  Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.  - Then they came for me, and by that time  no one was left to speak up."

       If we do not speak up soon, who will ?    -  We have choices  now.

We need to let our representatives know that  we are concerned about state government selling  our private data ;  or that we favour access to strong non-government controlled encryption; or that we think NSA should have a clear legal charter. We should encourage debate on issues involving privacy and control of data-base information. We should consider what safeguards make sense - assuming all the while that systems ultimately rely upon those that run them.

 It is too simple to blame the intelligence community or any branch of government. In many ways they are typical bureaucratics striving to "enhance and maintain" their budgets  and missions. They are run, for the most part, by well intentioned, hard-working,  "patriotic peoples". They serve a valuable purpose; - but they need interested and informed citizens to raise concerns.

 "The makers of our Constitution  undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's  spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the plain, pleasure and satisfaction of life are to found in material things.
  They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations.
 They conferred as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man. " [ Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, 1928 ] .

 Used with permission. The suggested citation for this essay is:
 Russell M. Anderson, Excerpt from ideas generated in:
  'Revelations toward Assumption: Historical Lessons From 20th Century Anglo-American Public Disclosure of Signals Intelligence'
 Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of History, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, 1999.

 You may contact Mr. Anderson at: privacy4you@zyworld.com