Surveillance: The New Normal

Summary

This 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

• 🔍 Our societal expectations of privacy have significantly evolved, with once-taboo surveillance practices now being accepted as normal.
• 🐟 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.
• 📜 Microsoft's monitoring of its AI tools exemplifies the blurred lines between expected security measures and what was traditionally considered spying.
• 🤔 The debate over whether Microsoft's actions constitute 'spying' highlights the complexity of privacy in the digital age and the role of user consent.
• 📑 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.
• 🏦 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.
• 💳 The shift from cash to digital transactions has normalized the surveillance of financial data, which was once considered a significant invasion of privacy.
• 📉 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.
• 🌐 Modern technology and cloud services have facilitated constant surveillance, changing the baseline of what is considered private.
• 📉 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.
• ⚖️ 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

00:00

🔍 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.

05:03

📉 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.

10:04

💬 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.

Keywords

💡Privacy

Privacy refers to the state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion or attention, particularly in one's personal matters, data, or communications. In the video, privacy is a central theme as it discusses how societal expectations of privacy have shifted over time, with surveillance becoming more commonplace. The script uses examples such as Microsoft's monitoring of its AI tools and financial surveillance to illustrate the erosion of privacy.

💡Surveillance

Surveillance is the act of monitoring individuals or groups, often secretly, for the purpose of gathering information. The video script discusses the normalization of surveillance, where once outrageous practices are now accepted as the norm. It uses the analogy of fish populations to explain how we've become desensitized to the increasing levels of surveillance in our lives.

💡Terms of Service

Terms of Service (ToS) are legal agreements between a service provider and its users, outlining the rules and conditions for using the service. The script criticizes the complexity and obscurity of ToS, suggesting that users often unwittingly consent to data collection practices due to the difficulty of understanding these documents. This is exemplified by the discussion on Microsoft's monitoring practices and the implied consent users give by not reading the ToS.

💡Shifting Baseline Syndrome

Shifting Baseline Syndrome is a concept where each generation uses a different starting point to measure changes, often failing to recognize the cumulative impact of those changes. In the context of the video, this syndrome is applied to the gradual decline in privacy expectations. Each generation normalizes a lower level of privacy, failing to see the overall erosion of privacy rights.

💡Frog-in-Boiling-Water Syndrome

This is a metaphor used in the video to describe how people become accustomed to gradual changes in their environment without realizing the overall impact. In the context of privacy, it suggests that as surveillance becomes more pervasive, people become desensitized to it, not realizing the loss of privacy until it's too late.

💡Financial Surveillance

Financial Surveillance refers to the monitoring of financial transactions by banks and governments. The script discusses how norms have shifted from outrage over the Bank Secrecy Act in 1970 to acceptance of banks reporting all suspicious activities to the government without customer knowledge, illustrating the decline in privacy expectations.

💡Data Misuse

Data Misuse occurs when personal information is used without consent or in ways that violate privacy rights. The video touches on this issue by discussing how companies exploit vague Terms of Service to collect and potentially misuse user data, highlighting a lack of user awareness and control over their personal information.

💡Cloud Services

Cloud Services are internet-based services that store and manage data remotely. The video script points out that cloud services have changed the digital landscape, making it easier for companies to monitor user activities and collect data, contributing to the decline in privacy.

💡Always-Connected

Always-Connected refers to devices or services that are perpetually online, enabling constant data transmission. The script mentions that modern apps and services are designed to be always-online, feeding usage information back to companies, which is a significant factor in the loss of privacy.

💡Legal Protections

Legal Protections are laws and regulations designed to safeguard individual rights, including privacy. The video script questions the effectiveness of these protections, suggesting that as societal expectations of privacy change, so too do the interpretations of what constitutes a 'reasonable expectation of privacy,' potentially weakening legal safeguards.

💡Digital Rights

Digital Rights encompass the rights of individuals in the digital realm, including privacy, freedom of expression, and access to information. The video script emphasizes the importance of protecting digital rights and online privacy, suggesting that these rights are at risk due to the normalization of surveillance and data collection practices.

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

Our expectations of privacy have shifted  dramatically in the past few decades.  

Surveillance that once seemed outrageous  has today become commonplace. It’s just  

like what happened with Fish. Fish huh? Fish are Weird.  

Wait wut? Don’t worry,  

I’ll explain the analogy. It comes from a fantastic essay by  

Bruce Schneier and Barath Raghavan. In this video I want to talk about ideas  

from this essay, taking stock of how much  things have changed when it comes to how we  

treat surveillance in our lives and think  about whether this is really the future  

we want to be moving towards. Let’s start with exploring some of  

the ways our perception of privacy  has changed in recent years.  

Take this news from Microsoft for example: Just recently, Microsoft said they caught  

state-backed hackers using its generative  AI tools to help with their attacks.  

The security community immediately started asking  questions. Not about how hackers were using the  

tools -- that was utterly predictable. The questions were about how Microsoft figured  

it out. The natural conclusion was that  Microsoft was spying on its AI users.  

Some pushed back at calling  Microsoft’s actions “spying.”  

Of course cloud service providers monitor  what users are doing, they said.  

And because we expect Microsoft  to be doing something like this,  

it’s not fair to call it spying. So we can no  longer call a company watching all the activities  

of their users “spying”. I don’t think so, Pal.  

Got it. Let’s dissect  

this a little more. Spying traditionally means  secretly monitoring someone's activities without  

them knowing. Was Microsoft spying? Because technically, they did release  

a terms of services that probably  provided that information.  

Some people say that if you don’t  read a company’s Terms of Service,  

it's your fault if your data gets misused. I can see that argument. But let's get real.  

These documents are deliberately written  in legalese, filled with vague language  

and buried in fine print, designed more for  liability protection than to inform users.  

The myth of implied consent assumes people  understand what they’re agreeing to, but  

most don’t have a law degree or hours to dissect  these terms. Companies know this and exploit it,  

collecting mountains of data while users remain  clueless about the extent of the intrusion.  

Microsoft apologists might be technically correct,  that the information was conveyed to users. But  

what’s most interesting is how we’re so focused on  whether Microsoft technically covered their bases,  

instead of whether watching the every  digital move of their users is right or  

wrong. We used to think companies monitoring  their customers to this degree was creepy.  

Apparently not anymore because of a vague  terms of service that no one read? Ok.  

Let’s look at financial  surveillance, because that’s a clear  

example of how far norms have shifted. In 1970 when the bank secrecy act was  

introduced, the government said they’d start  monitoring transactions of $10,000 or more,  

and customers would be alerted whenever this  happened and have the ability to push back.  

People were outraged at the time, saying  this was unconstitutional. The government  

wasn’t meant to be able to get your  information without a warrant.  

And keep in mind that at the time 10000 was  a HUGE amount of money, that could buy you a  

brand new house in some areas of the USA.  People still thought this was overreach.  

Today, mountains of suspicious activity  reports are filed by banks every day about  

their customers, for any transaction size. And it’s illegal for the banks to tell their  

customers about it. So none of us can push back. Every swipe of our credit card hands over data,  

and any payment account like venmo or paypal  with $600 of activity over the course of a year  

gives that information in bulk directly to the  government. On top of that, all of this data about  

our finances is sold to countless entities. We used to use cash, and consider handing  

over our financial data to be an  overreach. Now we all swipe our cards,  

and consider it normal that so many entities  see every financial transaction we make.  

My, how things have changed. In all areas of our  lives we see examples of privacy disappearing,  

but we don’t quite seem to register how much  things have changed, and how much surveillance  

we’ve begun to normalize. To understand this phenomenon,  

we can look to an unlikely source: fish. How ‘bout fish? Fish are crazy, right?  

You know the phrase “There are plenty of fish in  the sea”. It came about because the number of fish  

in the ocean used to be so vast. But in the mid-20th century, scientists  

began noticing that this number had started  declining rapidly due to overfishing.  

They had already seen a similar decline  in whale populations, when the whaling  

industry nearly drove many species extinct.  In whaling and later in commercial fishing,  

new technology made it easier to find and catch  marine creatures in ever greater numbers.  

So Ecologists, specifically those  working in fisheries management,  

began studying how and when certain fish  populations had gone into serious decline.  

One scientist, Daniel Pauly, realized  that researchers studying fish populations  

were making a major error when trying  to determine acceptable catch size.  

It wasn’t that scientists didn’t recognize the  declining fish populations. It was just that they  

didn’t realize how significant the decline was. And this was because each generation of scientists  

had a different baseline to which they compared  the current statistics. And each generation’s  

baseline was lower than that of the previous one. In a 1995 paper, Pauly called this  

“shifting baseline syndrome”. The baseline most scientists used  

was the one that was normal when they began their  research careers. By that measure, each decline  

they saw from thereon out wasn’t significant. But when you zoomed out, the total decline was  

devastating. Each generation of researchers wasn’t  taking into account the previous decline that had  

led up to the start of their own research,  accidently masking an exponential decline.  

Pauly’s insights came too late to  help those managing some fisheries.  

The ocean suffered catastrophes such as  the complete collapse of the Northwest  

Atlantic cod population in the 1990s. Internet surveillance, and the resulting  

loss of privacy, is following the same path. Just as certain fish populations in the world’s  

oceans have fallen 80 percent, from previously  having fallen 80 percent, from previously having  

fallen 80 percent, and so on, our expectations  of privacy have similarly collapsed.  

Modern technology has become a pervasive  part of our lives, and this has made  

surveillance easier than ever before. But each generation considers the privacy  

they’ve grown up with to be the status quo. So the severity of this disappearance of privacy  

that’s happened over the past several  decades, and the complete change of the  

digital landscape, goes unnoticed. Historically, people controlled their  

own computers, and software was standalone.  They backed up their files to floppy disks  

and thumb drives that only they had access to. This new world of always-connected cloud-deployed  

software and services changed everything.  Most apps and services are designed to be  

always-online, feeding usage information  back to the company and most users  

don’t even realize it’s going on. The consequence is that everyone— from  

cynical tech folk even to ordinary users—  expects that what you do with modern tech  

isn’t private. Our baseline has shifted. And this is at the heart of our collective  

loss of privacy. I like to call  it Frog-in-boiling-water syndrome,  

because we don’t notice it as it’s happening, so  we don’t push back, but soon our privacy is dead.  

Are there any legal protections in place that  might safeguard our privacy? Well not really,  

because they too are subject  to shifting baselines.  

The U.S. Supreme Court effectively says that  our right to privacy depends on whether we  

have a reasonable expectation of privacy. But  this means that as our expectations continue  

to slip, so do our protections. The question remains: What now?  

Fisheries scientists, armed with knowledge  of shifting-baseline syndrome, now look at  

the bigger picture. They no longer consider  relative measures, such as comparing this  

decade with the last decade. Instead, they take a  holistic, ecosystem-wide perspective to see what  

a healthy marine ecosystem should look like. In privacy and security, we need to do the same.  

Ultimately, as with fisheries, we need to take a  big-picture perspective and be aware of shifting  

baselines. This is essential for figuring out  what a healthy technological ecosystem would  

look like, where people’s privacy rights are  respected by governments and companies alike,  

and companies are allowed to recoup the  costs of the services they provide without  

having to sell their users as the product. So take a moment, zoom out, think about the  

privacy that people used to have decades ago in  their daily life and the freedom they enjoyed as  

a result. Then ask the question, are you ok with  the current status quo, and where surveillance is  

headed in society? If not, you may want to start  speaking out and demanding better practices.  

A huge thank you to Bruce Schneier and Barath  Raghavan for letting me reproduce their ideas  

in video form. I think reframing our view  of shifting privacy norms by considering  

shifting baselines is a crucial step towards  changing culture around surveillance.  

You can find their original  essay in the video description.  

I want to make sure that we can keep bringing  you content to help make a positive change around  

privacy. But we can’t do this without your  support. So if you find what we do valuable,  

consider setting up a monthly donation to keep  us going. We rely on community donations for our  

work, and really appreciate all of you who have  joined our mission to help protect digital rights  

and online privacy. Visit nbtv.media/support  today. Also check out shop.nbtv.media,  

where you’ll find all kinds of cool swag that  also supports our content, like this t-shirt here.  

Thanks so much for being here, you all are great. Wow. The Plant is like our privacy. Dying.