In watching the documentary, the question of ownership repeatedly came up, making me wonder about who really owns the content we put out into the world. (Spoiler alert: it’s not us.)

Ownership of content, especially on more modern and high volume  platforms like Twitter and Instagram, is a tricky business, one where reposting is half complimentary, half copying. When thieves profit off of stealing (see this article of an artist selling screenshots of others’ Instagram photos for $90,000 a pop), the issue of morality becomes even more confusing.

Photo: CNN

One of the topics that struck me during the film was the company Toysmart selling its customer database besides promising not to in a user agreement. This seemed to be the epitome of declining morality in the face of financial gain, a policy adapted by companies that followed in Toysmart’s lead—for example, Google’s privacy policy changing from guaranteeing anonymity in 2000 to taking away the promise of anonymity in 2001. The third fact the movie brought to my attention that spoke to a lack of digital morality was Facebook’s policy of sharing all information. I was stunned to learn that Facebook had replaced almost all CIA information-gathering programs by way of users voluntarily offering up information.

Perhaps social media and oversharing has become too big for us to care about our privacy…but the issue of ownership remains a disturbing reality.

Questions

1. How would you react if one of your Instagram photos was “stolen” and sold as art, with you making none of the profit?
2. Why do you think people are OK with willingly sharing so much of their personal lives on Facebook? (school, neighborhood, job, etc.)

 

 

This documentary was so interesting! I truly enjoyed it and will encourage people to watch it to learn more. I learned a lot of new things, along with refreshing my memory on what I already do know.

Where we shop and what we shop for matters, and that is a big link between the economic system and government control. When using a debit or credit card, whether we shop online or at a store in person, our shopping records are obviously recorded. This is great because we can see our purchase history and keep track of our expenses, but this comes with a price. Credit limits have been reduced and insurance quotas have gone up due to the information collected. This is insane and not a reliable way to judge people, but that is how the power system works.

Power is based on money of course, but also access of information. When you contain tons of information on users, like Google and Facebook do, you’re more powerful. Users of the internet and technology are unique numbers defined by the information we provide when doing our online activities. They have the power, but they receive it from us, with our “help”.

By accepting the terms and conditions we allow companies to become more powerful by collecting data from us, data that is used for surveillance and to make money. We need to be careful with our online activities because it can definitely come back to bite us. Information companies (like Google) receive from us, like what we search for example, can be misleading, I enjoyed the scene involving a guy who had searched photos of decapitated people, dead people, and even searched on how to kill your wife. It turned out that he was a writer, which was his reasoning for those searches. Seeing people type those things in though can be seen as more than someone being curious or simply doing research, it can be seen as a red flag, and that is something we must worry about since we are constantly under surveillance and information we search can become public one day, just like many other pieces of information have become. This surveillance can be used and indeed sometimes is used as a form of control, like Michel Foucault states “The disciplinary society, then, is a prison both within and without walls. One outcome of disciplinary action on this mass scale is ‘govern-mentality’, a new form of impersonal, rationalized, authoritarian rule” (211 – 212).

What are the three facts, stories, or scenes from the documentary that are surprising/shocking to you? What do they reveal?

-Our shopping habits (when using our debit/credit cards) can affect us in serious ways, like our credit limits being lowered because of judgments made, judgments that are based upon where we shop and what we shop for. I could not believe that so many people’s credit limits were reduced for no reasonable reason, just like the rich guy whose credit limit was reduced because he shopped at a place where people with poor credit histories make purchases! Another example that also shocked me was that buying lots of alcohol has affected people with their car insurance, making them more of a risk therefore having to pay more. The foundation that these judgments are made on are inaccurate and a violation of privacy.

-In the Netherlands, information provided from peoples’ GPS (like how fast they are driving) was collected to be given to the authorities so they can issue tickets to people. I don’t know how to feel about this, in a way it is making the streets safer, but at the same time it is shocking and a violation if people do not know about it.

-Facebook has more information than the CIA or FBI would have on an average person. This is insane, but I can see how it’s possible. On top of that, Facebook sends all kinds of information to third parties, so various companies have information on people/users. Companies keep sharing it with other companies, and then there are tons of companies (even companies we may not know) that have our information.

The terms and conditions to a site are made undesirable to the eye, therefore undesirable to read, like the following article by the NY Times states about terms and conditions, “Each is epically long, and despite a nagging feeling that you should have read it, you probably haven’t.” This is true, I do not read the terms and conditions, the most I have ever done is skim through it. Although, we do have some idea that information is being collected from us online, like Mark Andrejevic stated, “Most of us have some vague understanding that marketers are gathering information about us… but we have very little knowledge about what information is being gathered, who has access to it, and how it is being used” (7).

We should be aware of what we are “buying’ into when agreeing though. Facebook and Google for example may be “free” in regard to money, but not free in regard to labor and information we provide. Also, below is a funny video of a social experiment to show that people really do not read terms and conditions:

 

Questions:

Is there anything that can be done to make the terms and conditions easier to read?

Shouldn’t the Government and big companies know better than to judge people based on what they buy and where they shop? Do they not know that it is not an accurate way to assess a person?

While watching this documentary, I wasn’t quite surprised about how little privacy we do have. However, there were many aspects of how our information gets passed around that I was not aware of. Personally, I have never read a Terms and Agreement or Privacy Policy simply because they make them so long and tedious they almost don’t want us to read the fine print. (#1) They mention that our information will go to whoever can price the price. Essentially, giant companies are bidding on our private information. Isn’t that something? All of the irrelevant things I believe I have posted on various social media accounts can actually mean a whole lot.

What we don’t realize is by accepting these terms and conditions, we are actually allowing the government to track our location, emails, text messages, Google searches, and virtually everything we have ever done in our lives. I also didn’t realize that Instagram has the right to sell our images for advertising purposes and users do not need to get compensated or notified. It also amazed me that Mark Zuckerberg asked for his privacy and to not be recorded, which he was not granted as they kept recording.

They bring up how they are using our information to “prevent.” In the example, the Irish guy got pulled aside and questioned for 5 hours because of a tweet. They mentioned how they can look for key words and in his case it was a part of a tweet that said, “destroy America.” Without context, this can be of concern but the two young tourists actually meant they were just coming to America to party and have a great time. They were held and actually handcuffed solely because of this keyword. (#2) This goes to show how easily our information can be pulled and analyzed without even knowing it. (#3) Obama actually said, “Watch what you put on Facebook.”

After watching this documentary, it is crazy to me how willing we are to sell our privacy. They raise the question is privacy dead? I would say yes, it very well might be. In this article, they give tips on how and why we should be more careful on the Internet.

My questions here:

1. What do we do if innocent people keep getting nailed for innocent tweets and searches?
2. Since there seems to be no law that deals with the policies that allow the U.S. government to abuse personal information, what kind of law would you put in place?

 

I wasn’t surprised about a lot of information in the documentary because i just assume that whatever I’m doing is being monitored. However, learning about the devices, tools and the laws that the government uses to enforce our own safety?  made it a lot real than expected. Over the years, I would get into extensive conversations about lobbyists with my friends. It is no longer a secret that companies want to aggressively sell their products to us and it is evident in the documentary that they will do whatever it takes to learn more about you, and sell something so specific that you didn’t know you wanted. Power in the digital economies is shared amongst the government ( including the NSA, CIA and FBI) , social media companies and surveillance vendors. Information about individuals is collected to be used for security, to prevent crime ( so the authorities say)  or to sell something to you. The implications of this is that it would be very easy for someone to see bit of information about you and totally misinterpret your intent, if they just look at a search or a comment that we post and take it completely out of context, an example of this is the Irish national who made a comment about destroying America on his tweet.

There was definitely more than 3 parts in the documentary that were interesting to learn the 3 I learned was:

1. The 4th amendment can be surpassed if the information gathered about a person is from a third party.
2. Surveillance vendors can sell surveillance tools to whoever can pay the price.
3. Carrier IQ can track every single keystroke on our cellular devices and the information can be retrieved fairly easily.

As i post this blog, i am aware that anything said on here could be misconstrued out of context and become a nightmare for me at some point in time. Good night. 🙂

Do you think the government should control the sale of surveillance tools?

Should there be a limit to the influence ( tracking of payment and gifts to lawmakers)  of tech lobbyists in congress?

As we delve further into the digital age, one central concern is brought up every time – privacy. As citizens of the United States of America, privacy is a right that we’ve never been conscious about. What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is yours. In fact, people have taken it for granted. All of a sudden, the computer is invented and internet shortly thereafter, and one by one, we’re sharing personal information about ourselves. In the documentary Terms and Conditions May Apply, the director of the CIA admits that he is surprised the general populous would be so forthcoming in giving out their personal information. Race, age, even religious beliefs are now plastered onto every social media platform, society as a whole is becoming more self conscious about who they are and what they believe in, and information is being circulated like never before. What a time to be alive.

But the problem lies within the government and other surveilling entities that hold on to this information. In the documentary, Cullen Hoback shares a narrative criticizing these entities for misusing the information we trust them to keep. One story depicts a failing toy store decides to sell their client list of 150,000 people with their names, age, and addresses. This shocked the public because in fine print, the toy store promised them that their information would never be disclosed. Governments and media companies have a long history of abusing this information as well. From international cases like Edward Snowden and the NSA, to smaller ones like tabloids hacking into the phone of a murdered school girl to get the inside scoop, we slowly realize that the government does not always have the public’s best interest at heart. These stories really surprised me because we hold the government and corporations at a higher standard, but never check up on them until the damage is done. Is it possible for us to make sure that our private information is being stored safely?

Image Source

The relation between economic systems and the system of government control shown in “Terms and Conditions May Apply” is that the minority controls the majority. In the documentary, we see people getting their rights violated without their knowledge. The government sends people to jail because of an innocent tweet, while others are having their personal information being sold to the highest bidder. Just like in economic systems, capitalist societies have a handful of corporations dictating the flow of information from the millions of people, while communist societies take away people’s rights in the name of public safety.

Now that I am aware of this, I often wonder: how will I protect my privacy? I just hope that one day, and some day soon, we will be able to have committees/organizations in place to ensure that surveilling entities are not infringing on our privacy.

 

Questions:

1. When it comes to privacy, how can we, the people being surveilled, make sure government entities do not abuse their power?
2. Is it possible to create a checks and balance system between the surveillers (digital companies) and surveilled (the people)?

Will we ever get to a phase in technology where users can feel “safe” using their cell phone, laptop, tablet, etc.?

Image Source

For the later second-half of the semester, it seems as if privacy has taken over most of our discussions.  In the last section of our class, Digital Authorities, we’ve discussed market surveillance and state surveillance; concepts taught to us by Mark Andrejevic.  According to Mark, “we know in general terms that we’re being monitored, but we are far from having a sense of how extensive, detailed, and sophisticated the monitoring system has become” (Andrejevic 7); an idea most of us can best refer to as “scary.”

The documentary brings forth a similar concept.  In an attempt to better explain this concept, I’m going to make up a concept called “corporate websites” to describe the big players in privacy invasion (FaceBook, Google, Amazon, YouTube, Twitter).  From the perspective of the corporate websites, the best way for us to invade your privacy is through our agreement acknowledgement page, listing our terms and conditions.  Everyone knows consumers rarely ever read what they’re actually agreeing to.  I personally, have never read a companies policy before using their service.  It’s surprising to learn that this is just the way the economic system works.  Why?  Because as educated we like to think we are about privacy policies and law, most of us are actually uneducated.

The relation between the economic systems and the system of government control is based on pure manipulation and deception.  In the documentary, “Terms and Conditions May Apply,” Leigh Bryan shares his experience with the economic system and the relation of government control.  To summarize, Leigh had posted a tweet on Twitter “@MelissaxWalton free this week for a quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America? x” and a few days after when he had traveled to the United States, was pulled aside, questioned, and put in jail at the airport for misunderstandings about the meaning in his tweet.  This is a perfect example of govement control mechanisms manipulating the ways of the economic system.  This was one of the stories I found shocking.  Even though in this particular example, the government was trying to act on a threat against national security, it’s racial profiling.

Becauase at the time, with the presidency and Congressmen/women we had in our government, the above scenario was okay.  Government control officials can potentially say to any company who keeps a record of it’s users data “hey, I need this and this person’s personal record” and that company would have to comply.  Before, the documentary shared a warrant or some sort of formal legality was needed but at the time the video was filmed, formal legality was out the window.  As a side fact that I think is important for knowledge acknowledgement, is these companies have access to EVEYRTHING according to the documentary.  Things sugh as deleted posts, tweets, searches that you may have forgotten about, corporate businesses can pick up that information within a matter of seconds.  This may just be my lack of knowledge on privacy, but this completely threw me for a loop in shock.  Imagine you’re applying for a job at Google or FaceBook and the management department looked up your history before deciding your employment status.  How would you feel about that?

I’ve done a little more research about what other changes were made to the law since the documentary and as it turns out President Trump had made some recent changes.  According to the article, during the Obama presidency, a law was passed but no actions were taken to effect stating “telecommunications companies to obtain user consent before collecting personal information on consumers’ online activities” (Schmidt).  During the current Trump presidency, a new law was passed which reversed the effect of the law passed during the Obama presidency.  Trump’s new law sas “internet service providers will now be the de facto controller of data privacy standards for fintech businesses and consumers” (Schmidt).  What this now means is that service providers will control internet privacy and there’s no going around those policies set.

With this new knowledge, I’m still on the verge if this will better help the issues between consumers and economic systems as well as the issues with the economic systems and government control mechanisms.  We can only hope that whatever changes are being made, their being made to keep and make us feel “safe.”

Questions:

1. Do you think MUD or any virtual reality stimulation experience privacy issues as prominent as social media platforms?  Can you think of any possible examples?
2. Kids in the 21th century are so dependent on technology.  With this knowledge, why do you think parents still reach for a cell phone or tablet to keep their child quiet?  If the parent’s private information is leaked to marketers by the telephone company, who is to blame?  The telephone company or the parent?