The release of classified information about the NSA’s “PRISM” project has highlighted the fact that wiretapping ain’t what it used to be. While some have explained that the data transfers consist of “metadata,” and not “content,” this is a distinction that professionals and laymen find equally baffling. It is a distinction that may have no meaning where our civil liberties are concerned.
Wiretapping used to be the spy game of: Get a court order authorizing a wiretap. Place the device. Make the recording. Listen to the conversation. Get a conviction.
It appears there is a new form of wiretapping where one does not have to listen to the actual conversation to determine what the caller is up to.
Today, information scientists have discovered that if they look at massive amounts of metadata, they can see the trends and signs of human behavior. “Metadata” is information about something, like details of the call information, without the substance of the call itself. By looking at metadata, NSA believes they can find behavior indicative of terrorists or other bad guys.
This is not at all new and is routinely done by commercial companies. Stores and online services monitor your buying habits and then use this information to tailor their offerings to you. Mostly we authorize these commercial entities to do this when we sign up for their frequent buyer programs. The metadata for our phone, emails, and computer footprints tell a lot about who our friends are, where we shop and what we buy, and ultimately what we know and believe. And the analysis can be done by machines, and doesn’t require a human to listen in to recordings.
Are these massive data analysis programs any less or more intrusive than NSA’s PRISM Program?
These are the questions that will define our privacy, anonymity, and civil liberties in the 21st century.
The PRISM project is intended to increase the safety of Americans. We hope that it minimally compromises our privacy, because the data is analyzed by machines, and filtered for the relevant targets. Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois asks the question “What do we need to do to be safe in America? How far do we need to go? Do we have to sacrifice our own privacy and rights to do it?” The question becomes even more salient as machines increase their ability to reason and model the data to obtain not just raw information, but to gain knowledge about us. How will we ensure our privacy in a world where machines are looking at the details of all our activities? How will we make sure this information is not miss-used by politicians?
The wonderful technology of the information age empowers our society in so many ways. Clearly it can also empower those who might take our freedoms away.
Jennifer Buss, PhD, Patrick Cheetham, Robert Hummel, PhD, Kathryn Schiller-Wurster, and Michael Swetnam make up the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies' Center for Revolutionary Scientific Thought. The Center develops new ideas about the future directions of science and technology, formulates strategies on how to achieve revolutionary gains in that field, provides a forum to discuss the associated political, ethical, legal, and social issues, and informs the public and policymakers to solve vital societal problems.