It's mind-boggling how quickly word gets out. I'm sure that's exactly what was running through General Patraeus's mind after the whole world learned about his short-lived affair. For those of you who are just finding out about the CIA scandal, I suggest you check out this link. When Jill Kelley reported threatening e-mails to an FBI agent, an affair between revered General David Patreaus and his biographer Paula Broadwell seeped out. But then, the situation became even stickier, when Kelley was accused of an affair with General John Allen, a close friend. Many details are still unclear, but there's one lingering question in the back of my mind. When a CIA director can't hide his activities online, can we really expect to?
Most of us don't understand the intricacies of how information is spread through the web. E-mail, even when anonymous, is not as secure as you'd think. Each e-mail we send out carries little packets of information called "metadata", containing information about the source of an e-mail, such as an IP address. If someone is willing to put in the time, there's always a way to track information, no matter how you try to get around it. In fact, some reports claim that Petraeus tried communicating with Broadwell through saving drafts in a shared e-mail account. This may sound clever, however it probably made it easier for investigators to access the messages once they found out this method was being utilized.Now, if you're one of those people who are thinking, "Well, I don't send private e-mails, so I don't have to worry," think again. Texts and phone call history can be tracked with the push of a button. When we take photos, digital cameras or image-storing programs often bundle data in an Exchangeable Image File Format (Exif) with each snapshot. This data may include GPS coordinates for where a photo was taken. For more information, read this article on digital privacy. I'm starting to wonder whether anything we do digitally can be considered "safe" from the people around us.
Only in the 21st century have we really seen digital footprints being used as criminal evidence. Ironically, an electronic communications privacy act was passed in 1986, largely before the age of the Internet and social media. But the USA PATRIOT Act, which Obama extended for an additional four years in 2011, expanded the government's definition of terrorism and its power of law enforcement, especially with regards to gathering intelligence.
Yet, people are complaining about a lack of privacy even on a smaller scale, such as with social media. By clicking on certain links, you may be inadvertently yielding information to unknown websites. Most of the times, the information being sent out is harmless; for example, your search history, which could be beneficial to advertising companies. But there can be much greater implications; we've all heard a story of someone who foolishly sent their credit card, bank account, or social security number in an e-mail to a fraudulent address. Be careful, you are not as hidden in the digital world as you think.
The idea you present about the level of privacy in an increasingly digital age is something I really do think we should all be aware of, but what do you think about the government's role in all of this. You briefly mention the patriot act, something that's come under great controversy. Some have even said that the act violates the most basic of civil liberties. And because of its passage after 9/11, many don't believe it was
ReplyDeletea) Fairly debated
b) Understood by most citizens, and even congressmen
Do you think that acts such as these are justified given the political circumstances and threats to the nation? I personally believe that generally, government tracking of these digital footprints is a bitter sweet development. It's a trade off between the security of our nation and the privacy of its people, but for the average american a lot of this close government tracking isn't even deployed.
There are also a number of commercial uses for internet tracking, for a lot of websites, that's how they determine the ads that you see based on sites that you've been to. In this way, tracking can be incredibly useful.
That's an interesting point. I think it's all relative to what the level of threat is. For example, this whole Patraeus scandal was considered a NATIONAL security threat after it was discovered that Broadwell had classified information on her computer. At that point, the security of the nation triumphs the security of the individual. Let's take another example. What about the Innocence of Muslims video? The man who posted that attempted to stay relatively anonymous, yet the government instantly tracked the source of his video, and then proceeded to trace all of his digital records and things like that to ascertain more information about the perpetrator. I think this reminds us that the government is the ultimate authority. But you're right, for the average American, the government doesn't utilize digital tracking. The commercial uses, on the other hand, apply more broadly to the public, and that's where a line has to be drawn as to what extent sites can track your internet activities for their personal benefits.
DeleteYou both bring up interesting points, but I can’t help to wonder how much do people want their government to be an absolute authority that steals your privacy. For the Patraeus scandal, it isn’t that security of the nation triumphs the security of the individual, what you are saying is that this triumphs the privacy of the nation. I really liked what Alex said as this being a bittersweet situation. Especially since 9/11 there is a fine line between protection and invasion, a perfect example being in airports with these new scanners that many people reject. Ultimately, I feel it needs to be the citizens’ decision to what extent they are willing to give up a personal freedom in exchange for safety. As for the commercial uses of this tracking with advertising companies, I personally feel that is wrong. This is not safety vs. privacy, but personal benefit vs. privacy where privacy should always win.
DeleteYou all bring up interesting points. Both sides of this "debate" make a lot of sense. On one side, the safety of our nation and citizens lives is of the uttmost importance, but to what lengths can our government go to get information about us? It is unsettling that a picture I post on a website can be utilized to find where I live with the proper resources and technology. Most of all, I think the points Rohan makes are most important to make us aware - that whether we like it or not, technology has the ability to make things increasingly more available in the public realm. This is something that is important as we move forward with our lives (interviews, job hunt, etc).
DeleteInteresting post, Rohan! This really made me think about the way my online activity is tracked. One thing which always makes me uncomfortable is the way that ads on many sites are tailored to my interests. Websites track which other websites I have been on and then advertise that same shirt I was looking at on Urban Outfitters or those shoes I was looking at on Zappos on a different website. This feels to me like a complete invasion of privacy - on the internet, nothing is a secret. My digital footprint grows each time I do anything on the internet, and while I'm careful with my distribution of information online, it makes me nervous that everything I do online could be public knowledge.
ReplyDelete