from the sad dept
Reason
has a great (if disappointing) post noting the very different reactions
from both the press and the public to silly and exaggerated stories
about privacy issues around Facebook as
compared to the Senate reapproving the FISA Amendments Act,
which has almost certainly allowed massive surveillance of and
collection of data and communications from millions of Americans. You'd
think the latter would deserve more attention, but nope.
There's currently nothing on the New York Times web site about the votes (either yesterday's or today's). The
Associated Press wrote a story about the House's vote in September but nothing yet from yesterday or today. The Washington
Post did post a story this morning. A Google news search will land hits with mostly tech or web-based media outlets.
Compare the lack of response to the way people react to privacy
breaches connected to Facebook or Twitter. Media outlet after media
outlet carried reports
about a private picture of Randi Zuckerberg, Facebook founder Mark
Zuckerberg's sister, accidentally being made public somehow through
social media channels. And how many of your Facebook friends posted that
silly, pointless "privacy
notice" on their walls?
The post, by Scott Shackford, notes that you can't just blame the media
for failing to cover the FISA Amendments Act votes -- they're just
responding to what the public wants. And because Facebook seems more
"real" to people than the NSA recording all their info, it seems to hit
closer to home, even if one is a real abuse of privacy, and the other
isn't.
The degradation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is an academic or
theoretical matter for so many people and often lacks a
strong human narrative to draw public outrage. Indeed, the very secrecy
behind the application of federal domestic wiretapping has made it
impossible to introduce a human narrative. We do not even know how many
Americans have been spied on due to these rules (which was what Wyden's
amendment was trying to fix). Like our foreign drone strikes and indefinite detention laws,
the public's distance from the actual rights violations (and
government-fueled fears of acts of terrorism) is a useful barrier for
the state to get away with expanding its authority beyond the
Constitution's limitations without significant voter pushback.
Whereas, just about everybody's on Facebook. Facebook's privacy
systems affect them directly every day, and they see it. So Americans
are furious that Instagram might sell their photos, while shrugging at
what the federal government might do with the exact same data.
As he points out, this is why it's been so important for the government
to keep the details of its spying program a secret. If people realized
that the government really was sweeping up all sorts of data, they might
realize that this directly impacts them too. But, that's all secret.
No comments:
Post a Comment