Surveillance: The New Normal
Summary
TLDRThis video delves into the evolving perception of privacy, using the analogy of 'shifting baseline syndrome' from fish populations to illustrate how we've normalized surveillance. It critiques the acceptance of companies like Microsoft monitoring user activities, questioning if this is truly the future we desire. The video urges viewers to consider the broader implications of privacy erosion and to advocate for a digital ecosystem that respects privacy, drawing parallels to the need for a holistic approach in fisheries management.
Takeaways
- đ Our societal expectations of privacy have significantly evolved, with once-taboo surveillance practices now being accepted as normal.
- đ The 'Fish' analogy illustrates how each generation's perception of 'normal' is based on their own experiences, leading to a gradual and often unnoticed decline in privacy standards.
- đ Microsoft's monitoring of its AI tools exemplifies the blurred lines between expected security measures and what was traditionally considered spying.
- đ€ The debate over whether Microsoft's actions constitute 'spying' highlights the complexity of privacy in the digital age and the role of user consent.
- đ The issue with Terms of Service is that they are often dense, confusing, and not read by users, leading to a false sense of consent for data collection.
- đŠ Financial surveillance has become the norm, with banks reporting suspicious activities without customer knowledge, a stark contrast to the past when such actions were met with outrage.
- đł The shift from cash to digital transactions has normalized the surveillance of financial data, which was once considered a significant invasion of privacy.
- đ The concept of 'shifting baseline syndrome' from fisheries management is applied to privacy, showing how each generation's declining privacy expectations mask a significant loss over time.
- đ Modern technology and cloud services have facilitated constant surveillance, changing the baseline of what is considered private.
- đ The 'Frog-in-boiling-water syndrome' metaphor describes how we don't notice the gradual loss of privacy until it's too late, emphasizing the need for vigilance.
- âïž Legal protections for privacy are also subject to shifting baselines, with rights diminishing as societal expectations of privacy change.
Q & A
What is the main theme of the video script?
-The main theme of the video script is the shifting expectations of privacy and the normalization of surveillance in society, drawing parallels with the concept of 'shifting baseline syndrome' observed in fisheries.
Why does the script mention Microsoft's response to state-backed hackers?
-The script mentions Microsoft's response to illustrate how the perception of what constitutes 'spying' has changed, with the security community questioning Microsoft's monitoring of its AI users rather than the hackers' actions.
What does the term 'spying' traditionally mean in the context of the script?
-Traditionally, 'spying' means secretly monitoring someone's activities without their knowledge, as discussed in the script to contrast with the current acceptance of company monitoring due to terms of service agreements.
How are terms of service agreements related to privacy concerns in the script?
-The script argues that terms of service agreements, often written in complex legal language, mislead users into a false sense of privacy, as they may not fully understand the extent of data collection and surveillance they are consenting to.
What historical example is used in the script to demonstrate a shift in privacy norms?
-The script uses the historical example of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 and the public's outrage at the time, contrasting it with today's normalized financial surveillance and data sharing practices.
What is 'shifting baseline syndrome' as mentioned in the script?
-'Shifting baseline syndrome' refers to the phenomenon where each generation uses a different baseline for normality, leading to a failure to recognize the severity of decline in a resource, such as fish populations in the script's analogy.
How does the script compare the decline of fish populations to privacy erosion?
-The script compares the decline of fish populations to privacy erosion by suggesting that just as each generation of scientists had a lower baseline for fish populations, society's baseline for privacy has also shifted, leading to a normalization of surveillance.
What is the 'Frog-in-boiling-water syndrome' mentioned in the script?
-The 'Frog-in-boiling-water syndrome' is a metaphor used in the script to describe how people don't notice the gradual loss of privacy due to technology and always-connected services, similar to how a frog doesn't notice the water boiling if the temperature increase is gradual.
What does the script suggest as a solution to the privacy erosion issue?
-The script suggests taking a holistic, ecosystem-wide perspective to understand and protect privacy, similar to how fisheries scientists now approach the management of marine ecosystems.
How does the script encourage viewers to engage with the issue of privacy?
-The script encourages viewers to reflect on past privacy standards, question the current status quo, and advocate for better practices to protect privacy, possibly through donations or supporting initiatives that promote digital rights and online privacy.
Outlines
đ Shifting Privacy Expectations and the Analogy of Fish
The paragraph discusses the significant changes in societal expectations of privacy over the past few decades, drawing a comparison to the public's changing acceptance of surveillance. The analogy of fish is introduced to illustrate how norms shift over time, referencing an essay by Bruce Schneier and Barath Raghavan. The video aims to explore these ideas, assess the changes in our views on surveillance, and question whether this is the future we desire. The example of Microsoft detecting state-backed hackers using its AI tools is used to highlight how the security community's focus has shifted from the act of hacking to how Microsoft was able to detect it, implying a form of surveillance. The paragraph challenges the notion that companies monitoring users' activities is no longer considered 'spying' if it's done within the bounds of a terms of service agreement, critiquing the idea that users' lack of awareness or understanding of these terms absolves companies of responsibility for their intrusive data collection practices.
đ The Shifting Baseline Syndrome and Its Parallel in Privacy
This paragraph delves into the concept of 'shifting baseline syndrome' as observed in the decline of fish populations, where each generation's perception of 'normal' is lower than the previous one's, leading to a failure to recognize the severity of the decline. The concept is then applied to the erosion of privacy, where each generation accepts less privacy as the new normal due to advancements in technology and changes in societal norms. The paragraph contrasts the past, where individuals had more control over their data, with the present, where always-online services and cloud computing have become the norm, leading to a loss of privacy. It suggests that just as fisheries scientists have had to adopt a broader perspective to manage fish populations, we need to take a holistic view to protect privacy in the digital age, questioning whether the current trajectory of surveillance is acceptable and advocating for a reevaluation of privacy norms.
đŹ Call to Action: Challenging the Status Quo of Privacy and Surveillance
The final paragraph serves as a call to action, urging viewers to reflect on the privacy enjoyed in the past and to consider whether the current state of surveillance is acceptable. It emphasizes the need for a broader perspective on privacy and security, akin to the approach taken by fisheries scientists in addressing the 'shifting baseline syndrome.' The paragraph concludes by thanking Bruce Schneier and Barath Raghavan for their influential ideas and encourages viewers to support the content creator's mission to promote positive change in privacy and digital rights. It also provides information on how viewers can contribute through donations and by purchasing merchandise, highlighting the importance of community support in sustaining efforts to protect online privacy.
Mindmap
Keywords
đĄPrivacy
đĄSurveillance
đĄTerms of Service
đĄShifting Baseline Syndrome
đĄFrog-in-Boiling-Water Syndrome
đĄFinancial Surveillance
đĄData Misuse
đĄCloud Services
đĄAlways-Connected
đĄLegal Protections
đĄDigital Rights
Highlights
Privacy expectations have dramatically shifted over the past few decades, with once outrageous surveillance now commonplace.
The concept of 'shifting baseline syndrome' from Bruce Schneier and Barath Raghavan is used to explain changes in privacy norms.
Microsoft's detection of state-backed hackers using AI tools led to discussions on company surveillance of users.
The debate on whether Microsoft's monitoring of user activities should be considered 'spying'.
Critique of Terms of Service documents being written in legalese, making them difficult for users to understand.
The historical outrage over the Bank Secrecy Act in 1970 versus today's normalized financial surveillance.
The current financial system allows for extensive monitoring and reporting of customer transactions without their knowledge.
The normalization of surveillance in various aspects of life and the lack of awareness of these changes.
The analogy of fish population decline to explain how privacy expectations have shifted without much notice.
Daniel Pauly's discovery of 'shifting baseline syndrome' in fisheries management and its relevance to privacy.
The impact of modern technology on the pervasiveness of surveillance and the erosion of privacy.
The concept of 'Frog-in-boiling-water syndrome' to describe the gradual, unnoticed loss of privacy.
The lack of effective legal protections for privacy due to shifting baselines and changing societal expectations.
The call to take a holistic perspective on privacy and security, similar to the approach in fisheries science.
The need for a cultural shift towards respecting privacy rights and reevaluating the current surveillance practices.
Encouragement for viewers to reflect on past privacy norms and consider whether the current state of surveillance is acceptable.
A call to action for supporting content that promotes positive change around privacy and the protection of digital rights.
Transcripts
ï»żOur expectations of privacy have shifted dramatically in the past few decades. Â
Surveillance that once seemed outrageous has today become commonplace. Itâs just Â
like what happened with Fish. Fish huh? Fish are Weird. Â
Wait wut? Donât worry, Â
Iâll explain the analogy. It comes from a fantastic essay by Â
Bruce Schneier and Barath Raghavan. In this video I want to talk about ideas Â
from this essay, taking stock of how much things have changed when it comes to how we Â
treat surveillance in our lives and think about whether this is really the future Â
we want to be moving towards. Letâs start with exploring some of Â
the ways our perception of privacy has changed in recent years. Â
Take this news from Microsoft for example: Just recently, Microsoft said they caught Â
state-backed hackers using its generative AI tools to help with their attacks. Â
The security community immediately started asking questions. Not about how hackers were using the Â
tools -- that was utterly predictable. The questions were about how Microsoft figured Â
it out. The natural conclusion was that Microsoft was spying on its AI users. Â
Some pushed back at calling Microsoftâs actions âspying.â Â
Of course cloud service providers monitor what users are doing, they said. Â
And because we expect Microsoft to be doing something like this, Â
itâs not fair to call it spying. So we can no longer call a company watching all the activities Â
of their users âspyingâ. I donât think so, Pal. Â
Got it. Letâs dissect Â
this a little more. Spying traditionally means secretly monitoring someone's activities without Â
them knowing. Was Microsoft spying? Because technically, they did release Â
a terms of services that probably provided that information. Â
Some people say that if you donât read a companyâs Terms of Service, Â
it's your fault if your data gets misused. I can see that argument. But let's get real. Â
These documents are deliberately written in legalese, filled with vague language Â
and buried in fine print, designed more for liability protection than to inform users. Â
The myth of implied consent assumes people understand what theyâre agreeing to, but Â
most donât have a law degree or hours to dissect these terms. Companies know this and exploit it, Â
collecting mountains of data while users remain clueless about the extent of the intrusion. Â
Microsoft apologists might be technically correct, that the information was conveyed to users. But Â
whatâs most interesting is how weâre so focused on whether Microsoft technically covered their bases, Â
instead of whether watching the every digital move of their users is right or Â
wrong. We used to think companies monitoring their customers to this degree was creepy. Â
Apparently not anymore because of a vague terms of service that no one read? Ok. Â
Letâs look at financial surveillance, because thatâs a clear Â
example of how far norms have shifted. In 1970 when the bank secrecy act was Â
introduced, the government said theyâd start monitoring transactions of $10,000 or more, Â
and customers would be alerted whenever this happened and have the ability to push back. Â
People were outraged at the time, saying this was unconstitutional. The government Â
wasnât meant to be able to get your information without a warrant. Â
And keep in mind that at the time 10000 was a HUGE amount of money, that could buy you a Â
brand new house in some areas of the USA. People still thought this was overreach. Â
Today, mountains of suspicious activity reports are filed by banks every day about Â
their customers, for any transaction size. And itâs illegal for the banks to tell their Â
customers about it. So none of us can push back. Every swipe of our credit card hands over data, Â
and any payment account like venmo or paypal with $600 of activity over the course of a year Â
gives that information in bulk directly to the government. On top of that, all of this data about Â
our finances is sold to countless entities. We used to use cash, and consider handing Â
over our financial data to be an overreach. Now we all swipe our cards, Â
and consider it normal that so many entities see every financial transaction we make. Â
My, how things have changed. In all areas of our lives we see examples of privacy disappearing, Â
but we donât quite seem to register how much things have changed, and how much surveillance Â
weâve begun to normalize. To understand this phenomenon, Â
we can look to an unlikely source: fish. How âbout fish? Fish are crazy, right? Â
You know the phrase âThere are plenty of fish in the seaâ. It came about because the number of fish Â
in the ocean used to be so vast. But in the mid-20th century, scientists Â
began noticing that this number had started declining rapidly due to overfishing. Â
They had already seen a similar decline in whale populations, when the whaling Â
industry nearly drove many species extinct. In whaling and later in commercial fishing, Â
new technology made it easier to find and catch marine creatures in ever greater numbers. Â
So Ecologists, specifically those working in fisheries management, Â
began studying how and when certain fish populations had gone into serious decline. Â
One scientist, Daniel Pauly, realized that researchers studying fish populations Â
were making a major error when trying to determine acceptable catch size. Â
It wasnât that scientists didnât recognize the declining fish populations. It was just that they Â
didnât realize how significant the decline was. And this was because each generation of scientists Â
had a different baseline to which they compared the current statistics. And each generationâs Â
baseline was lower than that of the previous one. In a 1995 paper, Pauly called this Â
âshifting baseline syndromeâ. The baseline most scientists used Â
was the one that was normal when they began their research careers. By that measure, each decline Â
they saw from thereon out wasnât significant. But when you zoomed out, the total decline was Â
devastating. Each generation of researchers wasnât taking into account the previous decline that had Â
led up to the start of their own research, accidently masking an exponential decline. Â
Paulyâs insights came too late to help those managing some fisheries. Â
The ocean suffered catastrophes such as the complete collapse of the Northwest Â
Atlantic cod population in the 1990s. Internet surveillance, and the resulting Â
loss of privacy, is following the same path. Just as certain fish populations in the worldâs Â
oceans have fallen 80 percent, from previously having fallen 80 percent, from previously having Â
fallen 80 percent, and so on, our expectations of privacy have similarly collapsed. Â
Modern technology has become a pervasive part of our lives, and this has made Â
surveillance easier than ever before. But each generation considers the privacy Â
theyâve grown up with to be the status quo. So the severity of this disappearance of privacy Â
thatâs happened over the past several decades, and the complete change of the Â
digital landscape, goes unnoticed. Historically, people controlled their Â
own computers, and software was standalone. They backed up their files to floppy disks Â
and thumb drives that only they had access to. This new world of always-connected cloud-deployed Â
software and services changed everything. Most apps and services are designed to be Â
always-online, feeding usage information back to the company and most users Â
donât even realize itâs going on. The consequence is that everyoneâ from Â
cynical tech folk even to ordinary usersâ expects that what you do with modern tech Â
isnât private. Our baseline has shifted. And this is at the heart of our collective Â
loss of privacy. I like to call it Frog-in-boiling-water syndrome, Â
because we donât notice it as itâs happening, so we donât push back, but soon our privacy is dead. Â
Are there any legal protections in place that might safeguard our privacy? Well not really, Â
because they too are subject to shifting baselines. Â
The U.S. Supreme Court effectively says that our right to privacy depends on whether we Â
have a reasonable expectation of privacy. But this means that as our expectations continue Â
to slip, so do our protections. The question remains: What now? Â
Fisheries scientists, armed with knowledge of shifting-baseline syndrome, now look at Â
the bigger picture. They no longer consider relative measures, such as comparing this Â
decade with the last decade. Instead, they take a holistic, ecosystem-wide perspective to see what Â
a healthy marine ecosystem should look like. In privacy and security, we need to do the same. Â
Ultimately, as with fisheries, we need to take a big-picture perspective and be aware of shifting Â
baselines. This is essential for figuring out what a healthy technological ecosystem would Â
look like, where peopleâs privacy rights are respected by governments and companies alike, Â
and companies are allowed to recoup the costs of the services they provide without Â
having to sell their users as the product. So take a moment, zoom out, think about the Â
privacy that people used to have decades ago in their daily life and the freedom they enjoyed as Â
a result. Then ask the question, are you ok with the current status quo, and where surveillance is Â
headed in society? If not, you may want to start speaking out and demanding better practices. Â
A huge thank you to Bruce Schneier and Barath Raghavan for letting me reproduce their ideas Â
in video form. I think reframing our view of shifting privacy norms by considering Â
shifting baselines is a crucial step towards changing culture around surveillance. Â
You can find their original essay in the video description. Â
I want to make sure that we can keep bringing you content to help make a positive change around Â
privacy. But we canât do this without your support. So if you find what we do valuable, Â
consider setting up a monthly donation to keep us going. We rely on community donations for our Â
work, and really appreciate all of you who have joined our mission to help protect digital rights Â
and online privacy. Visit nbtv.media/support today. Also check out shop.nbtv.media, Â
where youâll find all kinds of cool swag that also supports our content, like this t-shirt here. Â
Thanks so much for being here, you all are great. Wow. The Plant is like our privacy. Dying.
Voir Plus de Vidéos Connexes
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)