Subscription Center
Jun 8, 2010 05:30 PM | 20
In a previous post, "Grassroots spying will make world peace possible," I argued that the spread of technologies that allow us to spy on each other might also make us safer. New York Press smacked me for having "elevated the idea of no-privacy to jaw-dropping levels." The writer, Matt Harvey, quotes some pro-privacy guy wondering whether my "pro-intelligence rhetoric" reflects my "clandestine corporate or intelligence connections."
Well, I do own a little Apple stock; I would have owned more but I sold most of it in February after my kids showed me an Internet video of Hitler ranting about the soon-to-be-released iPad ; naturally the stock subsequently soared. Also, I once consulted for the National Counterterrorism Center , an episode that I'll describe if someone asks nicely. But I promise that no insidious motives—unless yearning for peace counts as insidious—lurk beneath my hopes for omnidirectional spying.
In fact, two crises dominating headlines lately have bolstered my belief in the positive potential of ubiquitous surveillance. One is the fatal May 31 seizure by Israeli commandos of the Mavi Marmara , a Turkish boat attempting to break Israel's blockade of shipments to Palestinians in Gaza. The commandos killed nine activists and injured many others. Both the Israelis and the activists video-recorded the encounter; so did reporters from Aljazeera and other media on the Mavi Marmara.
A dispatch from an Aljazeera reporter accused the Israelis of instigating the violence and using excessive force. However, an Israeli video shows activists on the Mavi Marmara beating commandos with rods and chairs, supporting Israel's claim that its soldiers fired in self-defense. In other words, both sides seem to deserve some blame for the tragedy. My hope—and belief—is that the spread of surveillance equipment will inhibit such violence in the future, not just in the Middle East but around the world. I realize that some bad guys, like al Qaeda militants, shamelessly deploy videos to boast of their brutality. Why else record and release, for example, the beheading of the journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002? But most people fighting for a political cause want to persuade others of their righteousness and don't want to be perceived as aggressors.
Surveillance technologies are also helping to document the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. A group called SkyTruth, which publishes images from satellites and aircraft to "show people the impacts of our activities on the planet" (as its Web site puts it), helped establish that early estimates of the rate of the oil leakage were far too low. In his invaluable blog Dot Earth, my old friend Andy Revkin notes how other groups are creating detailed maps of the spill's effects on the sea and coastal regions.
One group mentioned by Revkin, the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, is employing "crowd-sourcing" software from the Ushahidi Web site, which I mentioned in my previous post on surveillance. Swahili for "testimony," Ushahidi was created in 2008 to help Kenyan "citizen journalists" report on human rights abuses. Ushahidi software, which allows people to post pictures, video and text, along with GPS locations, has already raised awareness of many humanitarian crises, notably the earthquake that devastated Haiti in January.
Harvey of New York Press wrote that "intelligence is only good if you have the power to use it." Surveillance technologies can certainly help the powerful, just as they helped Israel defend its behavior on the Mavi Marmara. But the primary value of grassroots intelligence is to empower the weak as well as expose and deter wrongdoing by the powerful, whether crimes against humanity or against nature. To repeat the kicker of my previous post, slightly modified: Privacy is a small price to pay for peace and justice, especially since we're headed toward radical transparency anyway.
Photo by Quevaal from Wiki Commons
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
John Horgan, a former Scientific American staff writer, directs the Center for Science Writings at Stevens Institute of Technology. (Photo courtesy of Skye Horgan.)
The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
Tags:
open source
More Cross-check:
Next: Chain links: Is the Internet empowering or enslaving us?
Previous: If religion is a side effect of sex, does that mean God doesn't exist?
See what we're tweeting about
FlyingTrilobite Talking to potato bugs. http://t.co/6c078FRyOF
BoraZ Medieval Europe: Why was water the most popular drink? http://t.co/6MTEq7KT7w
JenLucPiquant "The most beautiful inventor in the world" by @hillaryjohnson https://t.co/wHyrTuGH03
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
20 Comments
Add Commenthttp://www.davidbrin.com/transparent.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll ask nicely... Will you please tell us about your experience with the National Counterterrorism Center?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsrael is more brutal and radical terrorist than Al-Qaeda; period
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn, it's a nice hope, which I share, but has it helped to reduce police violence against citizenry? I'm not sure. Police must be aware that someone will likely film them, yet we keep seeing uncalled for beatings. Logically, it should help over time. We'll see.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would argue that any activity not undertaken in one's abode is non-private and therefore subject to observation and documentation by anyone in the presence of that activity. A claim to privacy in such situations is, I believe, equivalent to the restriction of journalism. Therefore, it seems absurdly hypocritical that a member of the press would take such issue with your statements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps the use of the word "spying", with its sinister connotations, is ill-advised. I wouldn't consider that someone recording video with one's mobile phone is spying in the traditional sense of that word; "observing" and "documenting" would be more appropriate terms.
Amazing. A heavily edited Israeli video is taken as evidence that "both sides deserve some blame". I would have thought that unarmed people on a civilian ship in international waters are entitled to defend themselves against heavily armed attackers. Isn't that what the law says? Ooops. Forgot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInternational law does not apply to Israelis. Silly me.
Once again Scientific American is clearly showing its pro-Israeli bias!!! The Israeli commandos boarded a ship they had no right to board IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS! In fact under international maritime law boarding the ship of another sovereign nation is an act of war!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen of course there is also the issue of reasonable force, "rods and chairs" against machineguns? Gimme a break. The commandos murdered nine people on that ship. Another thing; did the Israelis even identify themselves before they boarded?
I ve mentioned before that there has been plenty of articles about radical Islam, CIA torture and virtual terrorism. Not a jot about Israel testing chemical and biological weapons on Palestinian civilians, or their illegal occupation or their flagrant disregard for human rights and international law. I ve never seen anything in the 5 years I ve been subscribing to this magazine.
I mean come on guys a scientific publication is supposed to be unbiased and show both sides of an argument, right?
I could be very cynical and say the reason for the bias is the strong position Israelis/Jewish Americans hold in the scientific and academic worlds. Politics and research dollars.
If anyone has a reasonable counter-argument I d love to hear it, because to be honest I d love to be proven wrong, I really would.
Tom, Dublin
When Orwell wrote 1984, he had no way of knowing that a group of people out there would take it on themselelves to actively seek out opportunities to kill and maime innocent people in public places. Big Brother is watching had sinister connototations back then. In the present context, perhaps Big Brother watching will be a deterent to these would-be killers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, here I am, hat in hand, asking nicely; please share your comments and story about working for the National Counterterrorism Center. We would love to hear about that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAm I the only one with my hand slapping my forehead because I realized as soon as I saw mention of Israel, Palestinians, etc that the comments would be quickly dominated by arguments about them instead of the content of the whole article and what the author is trying to convey?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article is about how the ease of recording an event and spreading it with the help of the internet has implications for the behaviors of people, organizations, and even nations. The article is NOT about middle-eastern conflict, Israel, Palestinians, blockades, or anything else. That was just used as an example of ONE instance.
You stupid zealots and your pet topic ruin the commentary section of every article that ever mentions that conflict, whether it's actually about the conflict or not.
Am I the only one with my hand slapping my forehead because I realized as soon as I saw mention of Israel, Palestinians, etc that the comments would be quickly dominated by arguments about them instead of the content of the whole article and what the author is trying to convey?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article is about how the ease of recording an event and spreading it with the help of the internet has implications for the behaviors of people, organizations, and even nations. The article is NOT about middle-eastern conflict, Israel, Palestinians, blockades, or anything else. That was just used as an example of ONE instance.
You stupid zealots and your pet topic ruin the commentary section of every article that ever mentions that conflict, whether it's actually about the conflict or not.
"Stupid zealots"? Get a grip of yourself buddy, and for your information I m wasn't talking about the middle eastern conflict per se, I was commenting on the bias present in Scientific American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd another thing, its pretty effing topical at the minute so why wouldn't people talk about it? Scientific American has made a blatantly pro-Israeli statement in this article. THATS NOT THEIR JOB!!! Scientific writing is supposed to be unbiased. Thats the point I m making!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomeone needs to record video of lili spamming with her retail ads.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe boats came into the exclusion zone of an internationally recognized blockade. They were warned. The claim of international waters is a lie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly 1 of 5 ships had an incident. The others went peacefully to Israel. When the supplies were taken to the border, Hamas would not let them through. It is Hamas that is blockading its own people.
On the one ship where there was violence, the boarding soldiers were attacked by martyr seeking radicals. Israelis were hit with iron bars, shot at, etcetera. There is no blame on Israel. All the blame goes to the muslim brotherhood.
Get your facts right buddy it was in INTERNATIONAL WATERS and the blockade is illegal. Anyway I m not here to argue the facts I was only stating that this is a biased publication. But since you asked:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you broke into someone's house armed with a gun and they came at you with a chair or a stick and you shot them dead is that reasonable self-defence? No its not because you shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Someone says that "The Israeli commandos boarded a ship they had no right to board IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS! In fact under international maritime law boarding the ship of another sovereign nation is an act of war"!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell that is exactly what a ship load of "peace activists" gave the IDF as soon as they landed on the ship.
After watching the Israeli video version of the boarding I was simply amazed at how well these "peace activists" wielded their clubs and metal bars. They were so adept in their use of these crude weapons, that the IDF seemed to have had no choice but to use their own more advanced ones.
Interestingly enough, we have not yet seen the video of the casualties on the IDF side. But then that does not matter. When you board a ship that you have no right to board on the high seas, then as the aggressor you must take whatever the peaceful people dish out.
The significant comment is that the Israeli video was heavily edited and the timestamps removed, although I'm sure they could have not only time-stamped but provided GPS data. Too bad the piracy took place in the dark. I'm sure that improved the situation for the commandos, with their US-supplied night vision goggles (a violation of US law concerning usage of such technology). What isn't mentioned is the state of mind of the people on the Mavi Marmara, who couldn't have been more aware of the violent nature of Israeli soldiers, since that was what they were there to protest. Israel is a renegade state operating under the threadbare cover of "existential threat."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA very close neighbor was on the Mavi. She had everything (about $5000 worth) stolen by the Israelis except her passport, and was dumped at the airport, but not Officially Deported, to save Israel buying her ticket to Turkey. Shades of piles of rings and gold teeth in concentration camps.
We seem to be seeing a suicidal culture in its death throes.
Interesting that your "Both the Israelis and the activists video-recorded the encounter; .." so evidently fails to include that the Israelis commandeered all of the activist footage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich is still, I understand, very largely sequestered, unseen.
[It gets a little like the Goldstone report which found that Hamas was 50% responsible for an unwarranted, absolutely unnecessary & brutal invasion of their own home(s). A report which the Israelis had the effrontery to protest. Amazing.]
Obvious B.S., my friend and you're an apologist.
Agree with Tom.
@Prabir Basu
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly, you've never read 1984, or anything else by Orwell for that matter.