[Reader-list] Carnivore: Its Simply Not Cricket

[Lachlan Brown]

Well, thanks. 

>not about a degree in cultural 
>studies or 'BS' as I like to call it. 

BS? The Birmingham School? I think its moved on a bit from there! (Though 
sometimes I wonder...)

I think an important question to raise is: Why just when the 
consituency of Internet users has begun to shift from a Eur-American
axis, when South Asians, women of color (ie undercurrents) and lists
like Afro-Futurism are using Internet to great effect in forming
affinities and opinion sharing internationally, and at a time when less 
than 50% of users are now American do we suddenly get a lot of hype 
about the 'dangers of surveillance technology'?

I do not disagree with the fact that potentially 'packet sniffers' 
(where does this terminology come from?) can intercept all digital 
communication, nor that the sophistication of strategies of intelligence 
gathering which have been around for decades cannot fill in what 'Carnivore' 
'Omnivore' and 'Dragonet'- all used by the FBI apparantly - miss in our
media and communication lives. 

Nor would I disagree with concern about private misuse of surveillance 
methods and technical applications.

I think that the addition of yet more technology to counter the
detrimental impacts of technolgy on culture is the wrong tactic. And I 
think Geert is wrong to hype the potential 'frightfulness' of technology.
There are technologies more frightful than Carnivore, and these are more
immediate threats to people's wellfare, rights, and health. This 'tactical'
thinking surrenders the 'strategic' terrain to enemies, real or imagined.
It leads to paranoia. It leads to disempowerment.

A more successful strategy (one more fully worked out in a range of
civil rights issues during the past several decades at least) is to counter 
through clearly articulated argument for rights, for policies that protect 
rights, and for legislation that upholds rights vis a vis State as well as
private sector. I think this is the more productive way to go.

I read the article Geert linked to and it ended with the
admission that 'According to the official: "The IB is the only 
Indian intelligence Agency that has the ability to intercept 
mails. None of the other agencies involved in investigations—the 
Delhi Police, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), 
Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)—have the ability 
to intercept mails. Only the CIA has similar capabilities."
'The official, however, also admitted that the 
exercise of intercepting mails will present a logistical 
nightmare given the huge mass of mails emanating from India.'

A surveillance society is formed by the *belief*
in the effectivity of surveillance. It is not countered by
the distribution of state surveillance technologies developed
during the Cold War among the general public. That's rather like
Archie Bunker's (famous American TV Sit Com 'red neck' reactionary
Yank character) suggestion during the hijack panic of the 1970s 
that the solution was to 'arm the passengers.'

I think Geert is slipping uneccessarily into hyping panic over
'technology', when the answer to the problem will require more
than yet more technology (American and European technology) a bit 
of work on rights and responsibilities.

The article also commented on one kind of potential use:

"Commenting on the issue of invasion of privacy of an individual, the 
official said: "This exercise is similar to the secret cellphone 
tapping of suspects involved in ... cricket match-fixing, 
that was implemented by the Delhi Police. It met with a lot of success. 
The issue of intercepting mail is being done in the interest of national 
security."




Lachlan





-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8