Let It Snowden

The United States federal government currently has way too much power in terms of their abilities to acquire our personal information. The NSA recording our phone calls and text messages has always been something that people joked about, but because most people had that seeking suspicion as to what the NSA was doing. A few years ago, whistleblower Edward Snowden confirmed our suspicions and exposed the federal government’s surveillance activity. The Patriot Act, the piece of legislation that initiated this heightened surveillance, was passed in lieu of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and was justified by the movement of counter-terrorism. The American people were aware of this heightened vigilance, but it was not until Edward Snowden came along that we truly saw how closely our government was watching us. I personally believe that any sort of surveillance of private information is not only immoral, but goes directly against the fundamental ideals of freedom and civil liberty. In a country that was founded on principles that were meant to guarantee and protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens, government surveillance of the private activities of citizens is the antithesis of freedom. Many of the things the federal government and agents of the government do nowadays are technically against what is written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Moreover, many laws and statutes are enforced inconsistently based on a number of factors, leading to mistreatments and biases suffered by many minority groups. There are many governments around the world that are much worse than ours, so although our government sometimes abuses its power, their actions are nothing to compared to the abuses of power present in the government of many other nations. I believe that surveillance carried out by the federal government is fundamentally anti-freedom, and there needs to be laws in place that keep the government more accountable. If it stops terrorism, that’s great, but that is where the line should be drawn. The government does not need to be looking at our social media accounts and text messages in most situations, as was noted by Jennifer Granick in her TED Talk.

The Senate

In Jennifer Granick’s Ted Talk I shared, she discusses the concept of “ability vs permission” in regards to the US government’s ability to use mass surveillance techniques on its own citizens. Do you think there is a current need to push for surveillance law reform in the US? Please use concrete examples of instances in which you think the US (or any other) government has abused their power, with regards to surveillance, and offer possible routes to prohibit uses of power like it in the future.

I think there is a need for public privacy reform at a global level. The UN does not have a lot of power, but countries should come together and establish basic ground rules which protect their citizens from unnecessary and invasive monitoring. I realize this is not very likely to happen anytime soon. However, It will be an important step in the development of civilization to establish ethical surveillance techniques across the globe.

A more attainable goal is to try to sway Congress to change the law to minimize the abuse of surveillance. After everything that’s been exposed via Wikileaks or Edward Snowden concerning the lack of ethics or regulations imposed on government monitoring techniques post-9/11, Americans are more aware of the situation we face. Congress has butted heads with Apple, who refused to unlock their data. With the way Net neutrality is being handled, I’m quite skeptical for the future of America, but hey, that’s why I’m going to Africa for a few years.

Fortunately, we have a new president. He has never been wrapped up in any scandals, and he seems to be against surveillance especially when it pertains himself. As a person who believes the government should never butt into people’s lives; I’m glad the president doesn’t want us to mess with Russia anymore. Those poor Russian government officials are almost analogous to MLK jr. in the way Jennifer Garnick referenced them in her talk. Therefore, I’m optimistic about the future of the country and I’m confident Trump will end all surveillance, or get arrested.

 

Integrity of Information

The use of surveillance, especially by the government, has been a hot button topic in the United States for many years now.  Several infamous instances, from Watergate to Edward Snowden, have frequently reinforced the notion in the minds of citizens that there are undoubtable negative aspects of mass surveillance.  With Watergate, the entire situation gained so much publicity and widespread attention because the accused mastermind of the crime was the sitting president of the United States.  As one would expect, corruption in such a powerful seat can permanently strip a citizens trust.  That said, over the past decade or so there has been slim to no political action with the goal of promoting significant surveillance law reform.  I strongly believe this must change if we as a society wish to maintain the integrity and privacy of our day to day lives.  This is extremely apparent in the case of Edward Snowden.

Employed by the NSA as a systems administrator, he leaked information to the public via the newspaper the Guardian which revealed the vast extent of data collection from U.S. telephone records and Internet activity.  According to NBC news, “Among the revelations are the NSA’s bulk collection of phone and internet metadata from U.S. users, spying on the personal communications of foreign leaders including U.S. allies, and the NSA’s ability to tap undersea fiber optic cables and siphon off data.”  Given such an immense capacity for mass surveillance alongside a government with little to no hesitation to utilize such power, the need for a system of checks and balances seems obvious.

Watching

1. In Jennifer Granick’s Ted Talk I shared, she discusses the concept of “ability vs permission” in regards to the US government’s ability to use mass surveillance techniques on its own citizens. Do you think there is a current need to push for surveillance law reform in the US? Please use concrete examples of instances in which you think the US (or any other) government has abused their power, with regards to surveillance, and offer possible routes to prohibit uses of power like it in the future.

I think that there is a need to push for surveillance law reform in the U.S. because it is extending beyond solving criminal cases for the federal government. If the government were to purely be using surveillance for large scale conspiracies, then I feel like that instance would be fine since it is protecting the nation as a whole. With terrorist attacks frequently happening, I do not see the harm in surveillance but I do wish there was some transparency so we could know when and how the public is being watched.

I think that in recent technological advances, the U.S. is starting to expand beyond using surveillance for solving cases and I believe that is where the line should stop. One of my professors was explaining that she had been talking to her daughter about traveling and needing a new suitcase and not even 30 minutes later, advertisements for suitcases started appearing on her Facebook feed. In this case, that is when the surveillance is pushing its morality because there isn’t a need to record the conversation except to promote capitalism. I think that using surveillance in this way is extremely invasive of privacy because there isn’t a greater moral need for it, but the conversation is now recorded and saved for the benefit of a company. I don’t see a problem with the federal government having records of conversations because it is to enforce the law and protect us, but the notion of it is of course unsettling, especially if the information is not going towards stopping extreme crimes.

 

We’re Watching…

 

In Jennifer Granick’s Ted Talk I shared, she discusses the concept of “ability vs permission” in regards to the US government’s ability to use mass surveillance techniques on it’s own citizens. Do you think there is a current need to push for surveillance law reform in the US? Please use concrete examples of instances in which you think the US (or any other) government has abused their power, with regards to surveillance, and offer possible routes to prohibit uses of power like it in the future.

In her Ted Talk titled American Spies, Jennifer Granick discusses the relationship between the ability and permission the United States government has when surveying it’s citizens. Granick defines surveillance as the “government collection and use of private and sensitive data about us.” Like most cases, when people are given this overwhelming power, more often than not this power will be abused. This is described by Granick when she talked about the history of surveillance and surveillance abuse. In the Ted Talk, Granick gives her definition of surveillance abuse when “sensitive information has been used against people because of their race, their national origin, their sexual orientation, and in particular, because of their activism, their political beliefs.” Although, the United States and other governments have their reasons and uses of surveillance, most countries do abuse that information.

When discussing the concept of ability versus permission in regards to the United States governments ability to utilize mass surveillance, one must remember that until recently the United States did not have that ability. Before, the United States did not have the power or technology to be able to survey hundreds of millions of Americans, so the conflict between ability and permission was never a problem. However, with recent advancements in technology and the passage of new laws like the Patriot Act, gives both the ability and permission of the United States government to conduct mass surveillance. Since, the United States now has both the ability and permission to mass survey, the question becomes whether the information that they collect is too invasive of our personal affairs.

I do agree with some of Granick’s points in her argument, but I understand the need of mass surveillance in order to keep our country safe. Although the existing processes that were in place were not enough to stop terrorist attacks like 9/11, surveillance has done more good than harm in preventing terrorist or other violent acts. However, the need to utilize surveillance is necessary, even though our government tends to abuse that need. For example. the Patriot Act authorized the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order. This act of surveillance would usually be deemed as illegal, but it shows the over-arching power the United States government has and the need to create surveillance law reform. In combination with the Patriot Act and how Granick defines surveillance abuse, one possible route to protect citizens from this abuse would be more transparency from the government in regards to what exactly they are surveying for.

 

 

I Spy

In Jennifer Granick’s Ted Talk entitled American Spies she identifies the fine line between ability and permission in relation to the United States Government. She goes on to state that: “It used to be that our government didn’t have the ability to do widespread massive surveillance on hundreds of millions of Americans and then abuse that information.” During the beginning of  her Ted Talk all I could think about were the terrorist attacks and mass murders that have occurred in recent times. It seemed as though she was arguing against any type of government surveillance, which I think is preposterous, as we need to use the technological advancements that we have created and are currently producing to combat such occurrences.

Later on in her Ted Talk, Granick brings up September 11^th and how the systems put in place in relation to surveillance largely failed. I believe that in the years to come surveillance will continue to be used mostly to combat such travesties form occurring. Something needs to put a stop to the blood shed and our government needs to figure out how to put measures in place to do so.  I understand the point that Granick is trying to make, but I also do believe that surveillance to some extent as long as it is lawful is necessary for our country to function. I do agree with her when she is talking about government transparency to understand the surveillance that takes place and the uses of this information.

Based on the issues that she raised, there is an apparent need for surveillance law reform in the United States. In one sense the government should be visible and transparent in what forms of surveillance they are using and the use of this information, but on the other hand if everyone in the world new the forms of surveillance occurring than it would be virtually impossible to stop crimes and tragedies from occurring. I do think that the government may overstep their boundaries in some aspects and that concrete laws should be in place. In the Martin Luther King instance that she brought up, I do not think it was fair for the government to accuse him of being a farce due to his personal affairs. No matter what your standpoint, government surveillance is clearly a relevant issue that needs to be addressed by the government. At the end of the day I would like to think that the government has been using such surveillance techniques in order to keep us safe, since that is supposed to be their job, right?

 

Time Is Precious

Due to the nature of the premise of the movie In Time, there is not really a good way to end the film. The way they ended it was pretty much the only way to end it where the supposed ‘good guy’ triumphs. Any system where the currency is living time will ultimately collapse in one way or another. Our time on this Earth is objectively the most irreplaceable and invaluable thing one could possibly imagine, so why create a society where the currency is something that cannot be assigned a value. The nature of time people have to live is that it is not about how much time one has, but what one does with that time. I think the only other way to end the movie that could have been better is if time ceased to be the currency, and everyone went back to their lives running a more natural course. This way, something else could be instituted as the currency that is not as invaluable as time. I agree with the review article that the movie could have been a lot better, but it was a good idea. It set a precedent for future movies covering similar topics. Perhaps maybe there was underlying meaning to the ending, with the creators of the movie trying to show what would happen with a complete redistribution of wealth, and what would happen if the proletariat stopped working. There is also the possibility that the writers ended the movie the way they did to show that nothing good can come from using time as a currency. In summary, I believe that the only ending to this movie that could have been better is if time was eliminated as the currency, so the characters stopped having to live their entire lives trying to acquire time to live longer.

Are We Screwed? Discussion Lead

So I’m Max… this will be a nice and fruitful discussion. Today we want to talk about a few articles and movies and how they relate to this week’s topic, which is social divergence and political unrest. So we’ll introduce each major work that we’re going to examine separately, but today plan to understand: why these pieces were made, what they reveal about modern society, and what they predict for the future.

So first let’s talk about the movie you hopefully watched sometime soon and that we just saw a clip of… In Time. Honestly, not a great film, but there are a lot of juicy concepts we can get into here. Time is a literal currency, people stop physically aging at 25, there’s drastic ‘wealth’ inequality, and the wealthiest can achieve immortality. WOW! What a world! So our first question is going to focus on immortality and we thought this excerpt from a video might give an alternative perspective. *Watch Why Die*

Okay so based off In Time and that video, whadaya think? If we had an infinite number of years to live, would we be happy or should we accept death as an inevitable and necessary part of life?

I think that, as crazy as it sounds, maybe we should get rid of death if you know I’m saying. I know some would argue that death gives life meaning, and it’s true without a ticking clock some people may struggle to do something when they can always do it tomorrow. However, people seem to like the idea of a heaven in which they live forever and are always happy. Therefore, couldn’t we just do this in real life? That would be pretty great. There will need to be advances in our understanding of emotional intelligence for this to be feasible. Yet, I can see this working out. I mean, I don’t want to die if I don’t have to. Do you?

Good job group 1. Now let’s watch a quick clip from a trailer for In Time which highlights its plot development and shortcomings.

Rivetting. So what’s this article about Steph? It analyzes all the references and concepts brought up in the film. It also calls it the first movie of the occupy wall street era.

“Because the nature of the class appropriation of wealth is described so crudely, the “revolutionary” means by which it is resisted inevitably present in equally crude terms, as the isolated and individualized resistance of two individuals who simply try to “steal back” time from those who have filched it in the first place.”

Basically, it says the film oversimplifies the social inequality to which it brings attention. Because of this distortion, the ending lacks emotional or rational weight. But let’s turn this over to you group 2: (Oh me?) What do you think is a better way to end this film?

The review article of In Time points out the shortcomings in the film’s ending. “That In Time is not going to enter the echelon of great science fiction is not of prime concern here. What is of more interest is how the film itself acts as a barometer for social change.” In Time overtly points out the social inequality particularly salient during the Occupy Wall Street era, but fails to offer a satisfying resolution outside of the anarchical wealth redistribution seen at the end of the film. What do you think is a better way to end this film in which society will not immediately crumble from the halting of factory production and other consequences JT (Salas) didn’t foresee?

One of In Time‘s biggest flaws is its lack of depth. For a film which highlights wealth inequality and presents a hero who rejects the status quo, the manner in which Salas rejects the nebulous economic system is downright anarchy. If Will had more foresight he would have been able to see that he needed a plan to change the corrupt system instead of toppling it over creating a power vacuum any organized group could fill, which could be even worse than the corporate oligarchy we see in power at the beginning of the film. Will should have bought ads and educated the people across timezones of the corruption while slowly stimulating the economy of the poorer districts so that they could slowly come out of poverty and the nation didn’t lose its labor force. Basically, he should have planned ahead. Salas even could have just called an economist. Once he had stolen a significant amount of capital, he had the power to cause tangible change, Salas just didn’t think it through.

Perhaps, as unlikely as this may be, the director was attempting to show the shortcomings of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which many criticized as a call for change without a plan for implementation. If this is the case, this film acts similar to a farce, wherein the humor is so dry it appears to be a typical Hollywood film on the surface.

Normally I’m not a conspiracy person, but you know what: In Time is a brilliant film. It may hide behind a drab, over-produced exterior, but within is a layered meta-commentary on the movie industry, the science fiction genre, posthumanism, and of course the American economy.

Great job group two! That was astonishing. Now let’s take a gander at this clip from the hunger games…

Inspiring. So, now let’s look at the second article: Precarious Dystopias. Basically, it analyzes three films which you’ve probably seen. These quotes are analyzing hunger games and I thought they gave a good sense of what the article does. In the first quote: “feelings of betrayal and resentment rising in a generation asked to accept that its quality of life will be worse than that of its parents”, the idea that our generation has been raised to believe everything is getting worse, now whether you agree with that is another discussion, but this sort of political analysis takes place all throughout the article and it’s generally a rather bleak look at what these films are saying about the current political climate. The second quote,“In an inversion of Hobbes, the war of all against all emerges as an artificial condition”, references Thomas Hobbes: a dude who thought everyone was, at their core, evil. By calling the hunger games anti-Hobbesian, Fisher argues for an optimistic perspective of humanity and a pessimistic view of society.

That being said, let’s get to the question: Do you agree with Fisher? How would you categorize modern society? I don’t think society is disintegrating. In fact, I think it’s growing and becoming better. It’s easy to feel like everything is going to crap, but ultimately the future looks bright as long as we don’t blow ourselves up. One thing that may be, at least, deteriorating is neoliberalism. All markets are regulated on some level. Granted, I don’t imagine President Trump is going to impose more regulations on the economy, but that doesn’t mean that we live in a completely free-market. I think that political power will swing back in favor of the left in the next election cycle. Besides that, I hope that America abandons the current two-party dominance that has come to characterize our political climate.  I would label our society as segregated, but diverse. Globalism will continue to spread and those fighting to stop it may end up losing more than if they had accepted it.

That was lit group 3. Onto the last article: Apolitical Adolescents. It takes a look at political activism in the youngest voting demographic. In general, this group is often underrepresented in voter turnout. However, since 9/11 there has been an increase in political activism in adolescents. YA dystopian literature has become increasingly more popular since 9/11… You get the jist. Now for the last group question. How does (the even more recent) rise in super-hero movies effect or mirror the political climate or youth sentiment?

Well here’s the thing. Everyone is talking about dystopian fiction, but the most popular IP’s have been superhero themed. What is it about superhero movies that have made them so popular? In many ways, these films center around a vigilante who operates outside, sometimes even in contrast to the government. These films also show a certain discontent for the current state of society.

I feel like this post may be longer than it should be so I’m going to fast-forward to the finale: What does all this say about the future?

We live in a time where everything is changing faster than ever. The internet and other new technologies have both brought people together and polarized groups more drastically than has ever been seen. I think Dystopian fiction is seeing a decrease in popularity more recently. The Walking Dead has its lowest ratings since season 2 (which was super boring), and I can’t think of any hot movies or books that have come out in the past year which take place in a dystopian society. I think youth engaging in alternative forms of political activism is great, but unless young people vote more they will continue to be underrepresented by our legislation. Old people are going to die though. So we’ll see what will happen. Overall, I am optimistic when looking towards the future of society and even if America is incredibly polarized, I’m confident we will work hard to find a solution.

Occupy Time

The review article of In Time points out the shortcomings in the film’s ending. “That In Time is not going to enter the echelon of great science fiction is not of prime concern here. What is of more interest is how the film itself acts as a barometer for social change.” In Time overtly points out the social inequality particularly salient during the Occupy Wall Street era, but fails to offer a satisfying resolution outside of the anarchical wealth redistribution seen at the end of the film. What do you think is a better way to end this film in which society will not immediately crumble from the halting of factory production and other consequences JT (Salas) didn’t foresee?

The film, In Time, and the events that occurred during the Occupy Wall Street Era go hand-in-hand when describing the social inequality occurring earlier this decade. In the film, society is a basic dystopia where their is no form of currency other than a timer on every person’s wrist. This timer shows how time each person has left to live. However, in this society, much like in the Occupy Wall Street era, some groups of people like the very elite or one percent have more time to live than people with a lower status. This parallels why the Occupy Wall Street began because their were a small group of people, the 1%, who had almost all the wealth in society and everyone else, the 99%, were at many disadvantages as well as being looked at as second class citizens due to the wealth they had. In the film, just like the Occupy Wall Street movement, the group of people who have faced inequality for all their lives rose up and toppled the 1%, ideally ending the social inequality throughout their society. However, this end to social inequality does not cease to exist because of the anarchical wealth redistribution that occurs. Due to the anarchical wealth redistribution, society began to crumble and faced many other consequences that were not foreseen. One way that I believe the film could have been ended to avoid the crumbling of society would have been Salas utilizing all the extra time that they have received to create incentives for citizens to rebuild society. Another possible solution would be Salas could have created a society not based on time and focus on a building a utopian future from a dystopian past.

Sorry, I Don’t Have The Time

The film In Time plays upon the social inequality of the Occupy Wall Street Era. The film is focused on capitalist exploitation through the use of time as currency. Government control and the perception of this capitalist society are also major focus points in the film. In the review article of In Time, Karl Marx’s thoughts on capitalism are brought into question, Marx is quoted saying: “Time is everything, man is nothing; he is at the most, time’s carcass. Quality no longer matters. Quantity alone decides everything; hour for hour, day for day (pg.118).” This quote encompasses the underlying message of the film, as quantity of time left takes precedence over the quality of existence. As Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) and Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried) literally fight against the clock to save those who cannot save themselves, wealth distribution and redistribution are used as the catalyst for plot development.

The film is often criticized for its shortcomings in its ending as it fails to resolve the anarchical wealth redistribution that occurs post wealth redistribution, foreshadowing the unavoidable decay of society. The viewer is left with the images of an anarchical society, once the stolen wealth is dispersed to the masses. After viewing the film, I think that it could have ended in many ways that would have solved the underlying issues raised in the film, rather than ending in the way that it did. When the film is coming to a close and the viewer is taken to the government control office, I think that instead of showing the government officials leaving work with no hope left for the world that they created and once controlled – it would have been better to see the government officials coming together to realize that the world they created was corrupt and needed to be changed. The film could have instead ended with the officials sitting around a table in the planning process to change the way that their society has functioned showing hope for the future, rather than anarchy and apathy.