Computers, Privacy & the Constitution
To say the the internet has changed how we communicate with one another would be an incredible understatement. The ability for anyone to easily communicate with anyone else in the world is now a reality. Networked communication, however, is not without its shortcomings. The ubiquity of the internet as a communications platform has given rise to a surveillance state. The goals of any particular state in surveilling our communication may differ, but the common thread is the accumulation and filtering of the vast amounts of information transmitted each day over the internet.

The goal of Freedom Box is a modest one: to enable private conversations online. However, as the surveillance state becomes more sophisticated and pervasive, this simple goal becomes all the more urgent. As the purported anonymity of the internet vanishes, the ability of people to communicate free of government surveillance becomes more and more precious.

The use of commercial intermediaries (i.e. Twitter, Facebook etc.) to facilitate our communication exposes it to interception and surveillance. In most cases we don't care. The convenience and ease-of-use that these commercial services provide is well worth the price we pay in terms of lack of privacy; where we have nothing to hide we should have nothing to worry about. This is the natural response for most people. The vast majority of information we share on the internet does not concern the government and so we are not particularly concerned that the government has the ability to take a look. For the vast majority of communication most people will therefore not be willing to sacrifice convenience for security. However, where freedom from surveillance is desired, the desire for convenience is secondary to the desire for security.

As dystopian as it may seem to have a government capable of surveilling almost the entirety of our interpersonal communications, most people won't care if they aren't breaking any law. In countries like the United States, where subversive groups only occupy the fringe, the primary proponents and users of Freedom Box will therefore be content pirates and drug dealers. In countries like China, however, where the state more actively and forcefully fights against the transmission of subversive information, Freedom Box will have a much broader appeal.

The ability to transmit and receive information securely is an essential tool for the destabilization of regimes. In a country like China, people fear reprisal by the state if they create or spread subversive information. Without the ability to securely communicate, it is therefore difficult for subversive actors to organize and gain followers. Tools that allow people to communicate with one another securely and without surveillance by the state are therefore essential to the destabilization of totalitarian regimes.

Where people are afraid of creating or disseminating subversive information they will be afraid of engaging in subversive action. The ability of the state to surveil communication between subversive elements allows it to act preemptively, before it reaches a critical mass. By arresting those who seek to organize against the state, the state can also chill any future subversive activity.

--More to come soon--

-- DarrenHaber - 07 Mar 2013

 

Navigation

Webs Webs

r1 - 07 Mar 2013 - 21:05:12 - DarrenHaber
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM