Privacy: Is there such a thing in this day and age?
Posted by Michelle Moquin on December 6th, 2012
Good morning!
If Broadwell and Petraeus weren’t careful enough, would the average person be? And if the little head is overriding the big head as in the affair between these two…probably not.
FRIDAY, NOV 16, 2012 04:45 AM PST
Paula Broadwell’s big mistake
She thought she was covering her tracks. But in the age of frictionless surveillance, Big Brother can’t be stopped
The funny thing is, Paula Broadwell and David Petraeus thought they knew what they were doing. They were careful, more careful than the average American fooling around outside the bounds of marriage tends to be. When Broadwell wanted to warn off the other woman she suspected of messing with her man, she set up an anonymous email account and only used it away from home, usually on the Wi-Fi networks of hotels she was staying in. Broadwell and Petraeus also thought they could avoid having their emails intercepted in transit by technically avoiding “sending” them at all. Instead, they saved their messages to each other as “drafts” in a Gmail account to which they both enjoyed access.
But if they thought they were being smart, they were wrong. Broadwell and Petraeus were undone, says ACLU privacy and technology expert Christopher Soghoian, by their “lack of knowledge of operational security” and “poor tradecraft.” “Draft” messages are stored in Gmail’s server cloud just like all other sent and received messages. And the FBI turned out to be more than capable of correlating the Internet Protocol addresses that identified the origin of Broadwell’s supposedly “anonymous” emails with hotel records that showed Broadwell as a guest at the same time the messages were sent.
If Broadwell had taken greater precautions, she might never have been caught. She could have covered her tracks with any one of myriad commercially available Virtual Private Network programs or, if she was looking for some heavy-duty protection, she could have downloaded the Tor Project’s anonymizing browser. We should all takes notes from her misfortune. For those of us who have been able to look beyond the shirtless-pic-sending FBI agents and Tampa socialite “honorary consuls” and overly flirtatious four-star generals, the obvious lesson to take away from this mess is that if we’re going to play hanky-panky with the director of the CIA, we’d better make sure we’re using the best privacy protection tools available.
But there’s another, more important lesson to be gleaned from this tale of a biographer run amok. Broadwell’s debacle confirms something that some privacy experts have been warning about for years: Government surveillance of ordinary citizens is now cheaper and easier than ever before. Without needing to go before a judge, the government can gather vast amounts of information about us with minimal expenditure of manpower. We used to be able to count on a certain amount of privacy protection simply because invading our privacy was hard work. That is no longer the case. Our always-on, Internet-connected, cellphone-enabled lives are an open door to Big Brother. Just ask Paula Broadwell.
* * * *
The title of Chris Soghoian’s dissertation is “The Spies We Trust: Third Party Service Providers and Law Enforcement Surveillance.” The changing economics of surveillance is a topic close to his heart. As recently as a decade ago, he says, surveillance’s “high transaction costs protected people’s privacy without the need for the law to do it.”
But then came the Internet, and GPS-enabled cellphones, and social networks. The cost of both crunching and storing data plummeted. We’ve seen this story play out in a host of domains — the Internet is really, really great at removing the “frictions” that would otherwise raise the cost of providing goods and services. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg loves to talk about how his social network facilitates “frictionless sharing.” But there’s a dark side to all the consumer benefits we gain from the digital, networked era. Call it “frictionless surveillance.”
When the last major law on electronic communications and privacy was passed in 1986, notes Soghoian, cellphones barely existed and most companies considered it far too expensive to store years of data about their customers, if they even collected it at all. Today, says Soghoian, the phone companies store years of location data, and law enforcement agents can gain access to it through custom-made Web-based interfaces. Companies like Facebook and Google have hundreds of employees whose sole job is to deal with government information requests. Remember those episodes of “The Wire” in which key plot points hinged upon whether investigators could get the funding and authorization necessary for expensive surveillance operations? Today’s intelligence agents “never have to leave their room,” says Soghoian.
Nor do they, in many cases, need to go before a judge. In the case of Paula Broadwell, as Julian Sanchez devastatingly documented for Reuters, the FBI was able to obtain subpoenas for Internet Protocol logs, guest records from hotels, and Wi-Fi activity at those hotels without seeking judicial approval or a warrant.
“We have unwittingly constructed a legal and technological architecture that brings point-and-click simplicity to the politics of personal destruction,” writes Sanchez. “The Petraeus affair has, for a moment, exposed that invisible scaffolding – and provided a rare opportunity to revisit outdated laws and reconsider the expanded surveillance powers doled out over the past panicked decade.”
“I think it is problematic and a concern for me that the government can pierce the veil of anonymity that Broadwell and General Petraeus worked so hard to erect,” says Soghoian, “and they can determine the identity of these people who have taken affirmative steps to protect their privacy, without having to appear before a judge. The history books are filled with examples of governments abusing surveillance powers — it’s just too easy not to — and one of the ways that we protect our society against that is by placing a judge in the middle.”
Our laws haven’t kept up with the changes wrought by technological progress, says Soghoian. He cites the work of law professor Harry Surden, who presciently saw all this coming in a law review article published in 2007. Surden explained that many of the safeguards that have traditionally protected our privacy never had to be written down in the legal code, because they weren’t needed: It was too hard or too expensive to gather all that detailed, granular information about our lives.
Surden warned that technological change would eventually result in the withering away of these “structural constraints” protecting our privacy. In the introduction to his law review essay, Surden wrote, “I emphasize the way in which latent structural constraints –which are premised upon cost inhibiting actions — are vulnerable to erosion by particular emerging technologies that lower those inhibiting costs. To the extent that society depends upon the presence of these costs to reliably inhibit a potential privacy-violating activity, their dissipation results in a sudden regulatory shift, leaving these interests unprotected.”
In that context, Broadwell’s misadventures are a wake-up call. Our interests are no longer being protected, and most of us haven’t even noticed, distracted by the last viral video posted on Facebook. We may not feel impelled to strike up an affair with one of the most powerful men in America, or send harassing emails to potential rivals, but we do have the right to draw the line at what our own government can find out about us without either our permission or that of a judge. If the old constraints are gone, it’s high time for some new ones.
********
Comments?
Dustin: You’re having a “moment”. Gather yourself. Your initial thought about Obama was correct – You don’t go crazy on us now.
Tony: Have a little faith. My gut says he will.
Anoton: :) I keep telling myself the same same thing. But ya know, once you get bitten by the political animal it’s hard to break away…and not sure I want to. As far as “talk is cheap” – I kind of have the feeling I am doing more than just talking, but hey that’s your opinion. I’ll stick to doing what I’m doing, thank you.
Ellen: Big kudos to you!
Douglas: I sense a sore loser. Evidently my opinion does mean something. And I am perfectly happy in my liberal hole, thank you very much.
John: I’ll take that as a compliment.
Dan: Nice pick – Zuni is a fabulous place. First let me express how delighted I am that you are a “firm Democrat” – congrats for the switch. As far as meeting you, I find it interesting how many men tout their income to me here. I’m not saying that money isn’t important – it certainly is. But it is not the only criteria on my list. Yes, I want a man who can “P”rovide but I want the other two “P’s” as well. :)
After reading my blog for three years (Thanks for being a loyal fan!), you obviously know more about me than I you. If you think you have something to offer this girl besides the big bucks, and are “willing to prove it” :), you know how to reach me. I’ll look forward to hearing from you. And the best of luck with Apple.
Oh Oscar: Really? Are you one of those kind of men?
Hey Zen Lill: What’s up? Sounds like you are busy too – HOPE all is good and fun!
Prism Princess: I don’t mind at all, and no apology necessary. I HOPE CnT392 finds his key. I HOPE all is good with you too.
Before I sign off I wanted to send good thoughts to the Philippine people. May you and yours be safe and sound.
Also…have any of my readers been attending the COP 18 Climate Summit in Doha? I have been reading, but am curious on your thoughts and experiences. Are we making any headway? Blog me.
Peace Out.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
Thank you for your loyal support!
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2012
“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream
" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
December 6th, 2012 at 11:59 am
Hi Mischa, all is good, the busyiness is because the universe decided to allow the space for me to do what I do best, delegate and ride herd, and as the males I ride herd on say, you are THE most pleasant BITCH (babe in total control, ha!) that they’ve ever met. My response is always, that’s because I’m all about the love…now git to it and at it! Hee hee hee…someday I’m going to be relaxing while being served peeled grapes but right now, I’m the grape peeler ; ) it’s all fun and interesting. I’ll email you a set of links so you can check it all out.
And about your topic, a friend mentioned their ‘privacy’ the other day at a coffee shop, her cell was sitting on the table and I told her, this thing right here has GPS (tracking you down, no prob!) and internet with apps like Facebook and twitter all in sign in mode (so transparent it’s ridicc!) and if your honey/anyone wanted to he/anyone could download some spyware to track your incoming/outgoing texts, vmails, etc…and you are busted doing whatever it is you’re doing. WTF Patreus and Broadwekk DID NOT know about ‘draft’ mode on gmail is just plain stupid. If you want an affair with no traces, you have to set up places/times to meet in person and meet at the proposed times and set up next time/day and hopefully at a no-tell motel that takes cash (does anyone still take cash?!) bc otherwise if someone wants to know you’re biz, they can easily access it.
Although, all you need is a ‘guy’ and we all have a ‘guy’ (I hope :) they do come in handy once in a while. I had stalking/hacking happen to me, I did my part, he did his, sitch fixed.
Luv, Zen Lill
December 6th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
My best wishes for the Philipines and the residents, hope Anna and Peter and others are OK. – ZL
December 6th, 2012 at 3:12 pm
No, there is no more privacy, Michelle.
Today I read that U.S. cable provider Verizon has applied to patent a set-top box technology that can observe what’s going on in the room and show viewers adverts based on what it detects.
In U.S. Patent Application 20120304206 the company suggests it could detect when people are ‘cuddling’ then show ‘a commercial for a romantic getaway vacation, a commercial for a contraceptive, a commercial for flowers [...] etc.’.
Talk about invasive!!!
My community is one that scans license plates when you drive through town.
No, there is no such thing as privacy any more.
/SB
The US is not a good place anymore.
December 6th, 2012 at 3:12 pm
No, there is no more privacy, Michelle.
Today I read that U.S. cable provider Verizon has applied to patent a set-top box technology that can observe what’s going on in the room and show viewers adverts based on what it detects.
In U.S. Patent Application 20120304206 the company suggests it could detect when people are ‘cuddling’ then show ‘a commercial for a romantic getaway vacation, a commercial for a contraceptive, a commercial for flowers [...] etc.’.
Talk about invasive!!!
My community is one that scans license plates when you drive through town.
No, there is no such thing as privacy any more.
/SB
The US is not a good place anymore.
December 6th, 2012 at 3:17 pm
weirdness on the double posting – sorry!
/SB
December 6th, 2012 at 9:58 pm
Verizon’s set-top box would even parse words from your conversations and detect moods to better market to you; the patent application describes sensing a viewer’s stress and advertising aromatherapy candles or a resort.
“If a user is watching a television program, a traditional targeted advertising system fails to account for what the user is doing (e.g. eating, interacting with another user, sleeping, etc.) while the user is watching the television program,” Verizon wrote in its patent application filing. “This limits the effectiveness, personalization, and/or adaptability of the targeted advertising.”
Creepy!
December 7th, 2012 at 9:44 am
The most terrifying thing is the level of social engineering that is taking place for this level of intrusion to become accepted and even embraced to some extent.
The combination of censorship, regulation, and indoctrination that has permeated our society in the past ten years is staggering. This trend will not cease; there will be more to come.
Any dissenters and critics are quickly ostracized or simply overlooked. There are no longer functioning democratic republics. Welcome to the NWO.
December 7th, 2012 at 9:46 am
I’m actually doing research forums government class on things like big brother the FBI and stopping chil pornography and I entered a bad website. Now I’m all paranoid that I did something wrong :(
December 7th, 2012 at 10:00 am
There is nothing wrong with aggressive surveillance. I think it is better to have more people with more power than to have a few in power. Its less likely for people to abuse there power if more people around them have the same power.
I would much rather be put under surveillance by a contractor with normal people than be put under surveillance by the FBI. We never had the freedom people like to think the FBI always had the power they are giving back to the people.
But really if your not doing anything wrong what can they do to you? The only reason they use aggressive surveillance is because it works and at least that way you know your under surveillance. Its a new thing and we have to give it a chance.
December 7th, 2012 at 10:02 am
New York state is going to collect DNA on all criminals which I can imagine will quickly extend to collecting it on all people who are arrested for any reason.
Combine that with the iris scans they try to force on people who are arrested and they are leading the way on invasion of privacy at the state level. The next step will be for them to require this data from all newborns.
Spy with drones using facial recognition software. Install cameras everywhere like London (has that really solved their crime and social ills?)
For what does NY collect this information? To continue paying big corporations to make the equipment and spy on private citizens – then sell us crap we don’t need.
If the government has complete control on dna and other biometric data – can anyone truly believe trial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt as the government would have all necessary data at its fingertips with which to frame an individual – even to orchestrate complicated frame-ups?
Of course, the government no longer needs to even hold a trial if they claim you are involved in terror. They will hold you indefinitely. Maybe especially if you are innocent they will hold you indefinitely.
I wish congress would pass laws to limit spying and data collection. Don’t see that happening.
December 7th, 2012 at 10:03 am
If you really want to be scared, check out the April issue of Wired. This problem is only getting worse. James Bamfor’s cover story is called “Inside The Matrix” and it’s the story of the NSA’s building of the government’s biggest spy center, in Blluffdale, Utah, where no one would think to look for such a thing.
It has direct bearing on this entire subject. Truly scary.
December 7th, 2012 at 10:04 am
Beware of what you google search.
And now we read of the politicization of the New York City Police Dept. which is conducting surveillence on what is being said on university campuses. And yet few complain.
December 7th, 2012 at 11:00 am
Michelle, before I answer your question about COP in Doha, let me introduce myself to you. I am one of several males here in Qatar of which Doha is the capital who monitor your blog.
Most of us males started monitoring your blog to see what kind of influence a westerner was attempting to foment in our women. But, I confess, I have become excited to learn of the openness and breath with which your blog has around the world.
This is my second year. Others have been around longer. I like what I see for the most part. Yes, some of us do attempt to track the muslim women who frequent your blog.
We have had some success and we have shut down those we have detected because we feel some of your dialogue is not for our females.
We are also alarmed at the evil some of them have for the arab male. Allah has put us here to protect our females and that includes protecting them from themselves as they are easily influenced.
As for the climate discussions, they were a failure because as soon as money became an issue, it became another summit of disagreement and displeasure as ‘blame game’ between rich and developing nations has overridden the summit’s basic theme of accelerating solutions to climate change.