Drones, Data, and National Security in the 21st Century
Friday, January 16, 2015
Blog 4: Slow Poison of the Covert Image
In The Slow Poison of the Covert Image by Timothy Burke the issue of surveillance by the government is discussed. Burke discusses this topic in a very interesting way, Burke does not feel that the direct surveillance is the actual problem. He is fine with the idea of surveillance by the real trouble is the 2 effects the surveillance produces. He says that the government officials have created this image in their head that basically they have all this power about the information that they have gathered from surveillance. The government has all this mass information that they really can't sift through and use efficiently. Its like finding a needle in a haystack. This then leads use to the second problem. The people of the united states now have this fear and perception that the us government has all this power of surveillance and can use it against one whenever they want. This has caused people to think and act differently then they used to. I agree with Timothy Burkes idea that surveillance in itself is not the issues, its the effects it has on political leaders and the people that is the real problem. I do think that if the government really could use this information more efficiently the number of crimes per capita would drop dramatically. But because there is SO much information being gathered all at once its nearly impossible to sort and use properly.
Others might say that that Timothy Burke is just being naive. One could say "who is Timothy Burke? What degree of knowledge of the efficiency of this surveillance can he possibly have?" To extent I would agree that we the people, including Timothy Burke, (unless he actually works for the government or has inside source) don't really know what exactly is going on. Timothy Burke quotes the NSA when they said "We are not really looking at content" he uses this quote to demonstrate that the NSA is basically using words that trick americans into thinking the government isn't looking into them, but actually they dont have the technology to do so. Which leads back to the point of invoking false fear of this program which leads to behavioral change. I think there is just too little information on what actually is happening with this surveillance its used, who is it used for, when and so many different questions that we can't answer to really see it in that positive in a light. All we can see is it in a negative light, in my personal perspective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Timothy Burke is a swarthmore history professor so he has little inside knowledge, though that is not always a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteAs to your post, I am not sure that Burke is pro-surveillance as much as he wants to talk about problems other than surveillance.
Burke's article (at least in my interpretation in blog) wasn't so much about if he is pro-surveillance or not, although i thought he did believe there was some positive effects that *could* emerge from information. I believe it was about other problems that were a cause of the surveillance not necessarily other then surveillance.
DeleteI think Burke is pro-surveillance. I think he just sees a lot of bad effects to it. The NSA does a lot of surveillance but when they do surveil they make sure to not just collect data on just any American citizen. Yes they collect data but they make sure to not investigate a citizen unless they feel as though the person is a national security threat.
DeleteIt took me a few reads to understand this article so I am not sure how to discuss it very efficiently, but I have understood what you wrote, and I agree that surveillance is okay. You discuss two problems, however, I see a great plus to having surveillance-it is a great deterrent. People act differently when they believe they are being watched, even if they aren't. Do you think this is a good effect or bad effect? Some argue that this isn't so positive because this deceptive talk lead people to do things other than what they would like to do (something that is not accepted in a democratic nation).
ReplyDeleteWhen i say act different, I don't mean in a way that a criminal wouldn't use his cell phone to drug deal or use a burner phone as a solution, but the overall feeling of the government and the way they view politics or specifically a political practice. I also think that terrorists also act differently and the release of how we surveillance could be counteractive..
DeleteAlexei,
ReplyDeleteI think what Burke is trying to get at is that core American democratic values are at stake here not because of the surveillance programs themselves, but because of how they have been misrepresented to the American public. The trade-off doesn't seem to be worth it for Burke.
Also, I agree with your statement that as the way things stand now, the American public doesn't really know all of the facts behind what is going on. Do you think that this should change? If so, how?
I think that it is a VERY VERY touchy subject to release to the public what exactly is going on with surveillance. Who, what, where, how and why? We see every so often that we find out the Facebook is collecting information and giving it to google or some social website giving information to the government and it causes outcry all across the country. I think if the government released a lot of information it could cause uproar in the united states.
DeleteIt definitely is reminiscent of a "father knows best" type mentality. That the government, and intelligence agencies should be trusted that they are acting in the public's best interest, and that we should trust them on blind faith. I think it's a slippery slope and seems a little contradictory to the principles of a democratic government (as Burke discusses).
ReplyDelete