Like I said, if the above information is a surprise to you, then you may well already be under surveillance. Who knows? The idea of a human law enforcement agent panning the Internet social outlets does not really bother me, and here is why. If I put something on the social network such as Facebook (though I don’t necessarily want the police recording it) I have to assume that SOMEONE will see it. And, after all, I am posting the information so that it WILL be seen by someone. As a responsible person, I have to know (from common sense!) that what I post on a venue such as Facebook will be viewed by whom I intend it to be viewed, but also by anyone who can read my “friends’” posts. It follows that posts can probably be read by anyone else who can read THEIR friend’s posts, and so on. Also, in my limited knowledge of law enforcement tools and know-how, it is entirely possibly that “cyber cops” have the ability to access any person’s posts and profiles on Facebook. Obviously then, anyone who posts a comment or a video on the Internet that reveals illegal activities should not be too shocked when the police come to call a few hours later. This is akin to someone robbing a bank then walking outside and yelling, “Hey Police! I just robbed this bank! Oh yeah, here’s a video too!” Fail….
So again, it does not bother me when ordinary cops surf through Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter and find “probable cause” to suspect that a specific person committed a specific crime. What I have a problem with are the national police using software to find random bits of information, and then zero in on a person who used certain “catch words” that automatically activate an investigation of that person. Our computers of today, for all their brilliant semi-intelligence and superb engineering, alas, are still not able to discern the context in which words are used, whether puns are intended, or whether someone is “joking.” For instance, a human police officer reads the following statement: I could just KILL him! The officer, upon reading the entire content of the passage, could easily determine that the person making the statement was frustrated, but was not plotting a murder. A computer program, upon “hearing” the same statement, would automatically search and retrieve identifying data concerning the person who originated the comment and send this information to the appropriate federal police official. Even worse, the computer program could automatically trigger a response such as surveillance, background investigation, financial investigation, and so on. Only after a human agent intervened could the investigation be called off it were unwarranted.
It is not unlikely at all the FBI already has some programs of this nature in place, as the article quoted above addresses the fact that the FBI is seeking “better” software or computer programs. Thus, implicitly the FBI is admitting that some sort of Internet “crawling” or “trawling” program is already in place. This, again, should not come as a surprise. Another possibility, if not a likelihood, is that other, less innocuous federal agencies are also employing various types of Internet inspection programs. There are many agencies that have federal jurisdiction beside the FBI, and several of these agencies fall under far less scrutiny than does the FBI. One such agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, is not legally allowed to conduct operations within the United States. Of course since it operates in secret, we can presume that we would never know if the CIA was in fact conducting operations within the United States.
In the final analysis, it is not the fact that it may be legal for the various agencies to scrutinize the Internet to find out what I may be thinking or saying that makes me uncomfortable. It is the idea that I have to be careful simply because I may be wrongly accused of being some kind of outlaw or even merely “sympathizing” with some criminal or terrorist. And this suspicion would be based on the “hunch” of some computer software program. It all comes down to free speech in a free society. The idea of constant Internet surveillance is akin to having police agents spread throughout the community, as they were in New York, listening for people to “say the wrong thing.” It is the idea that, in the name of “national security” we (the people) are expected to surrender our God-given and inalienable right of free speech just to stay off “the radar,” so to speak. It is the same principle as the ever increasing use of surveillance cameras all over this nation. We just seem to accept more and more loss of privacy, becoming ever more uncomfortable and unhappy, but always allowing ourselves to suffer more surveillance and restrictions. I hope that many of you who read this blog will begin to think about these things, and maybe begin to voice your opinions to politicians, demanding your right to privacy, and your right to be free of unwarranted criminal surveillance. In essence, I wonder how long it will be until we all get fed up with it, and we all once again demand the freedom that our forefathers and our soldiers through the years, have fought for and died for, for all of us. And one more thing: It appears that our government believes that the First Amendment represents a danger to national security. Think about that.
No comments:
Post a Comment