Are our phone calls being listened to?

Article Link:Are the NSA listening to our phone calls? 
Article Headline:

'Mobile phones hacked: can the NSA and GCHQ listen to all our phone calls?'

Tagline Reads: 'Snowden leak reveals that the US and UK security services hacked into servers and stole the access keys to billions of sim cards around the world'

So what's apparently happened?
It has been argued that the largest manufacturer of sim cards in the world has been hacked into with the encryption keys stolen by the US NSA and the UK GCHQ. This raises the questions of - how was this done? What does it mean for us, the general public? And should we be worried?

What the article tells us:

• What has been claimed? 'The US and UK security services can potentially listen in on any conversation across any network that uses the compromised Sim cards.'
• What does this enable hackers to do? Allows them to 'decrypt voice communications sent between a mobile phone and a mobile mast, which carries the call to the recipient. To pick up the call they can use an aerial placed in the vicinity of the caller. They will have to be relatively close to the mobile phone user' however.
• Is this legal? No. 'If the keys are used to listen into conversations, it is likely to be a violation of data protection laws in most countries.'
• So, are we affected? Yes. 'Gemalto (targeted company) supplies 2bn Sim cards annually to 450 mobile phone providers across 85 countries.' In the UK used by 'Vodafone, EE, O2 and Three, in the US by AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon.
  Most mobile phone providers will have used Gemalto sim cards at some point, meaning anyone with a Sim in their mobile phone could be affected'.
• What can be done? Not much. Little 'can be done to stop the US and UK security services using the encryption keys...That means someone could be listening in on any conversation had via the mobile phone network.' Using other services such as Chatsecure, Whatsapp or iMessage, are still safe from NSA and GCHQ hacking.
• On a large scale what does this mean? 'The encryption keys give the US and UK security agencies powers to circumvent resistance by other countries'. This allows these agencies to spy on important people without security forces knowing.
• What is being done about it? Investigating into the 'security implications', but 'there is little that can be done without replacing the affected sim cards, as the encryption keys are hardwired into the sim cards and cannot be changed. EE, O2, Three and Vodafone said that they were speaking to suppliers of Sim cards about the implications of the revelations.'

What do I think:

I think the issues of privacy and hacking by Government and security forces is fast becoming a potential technological panic. Breaches of privacy is a hot topic in the news recently, with a number of hacking stories becoming aware to the general public. 

It's fair to say I'm not surprised that officials are listening and accessing our phone calls and this is because of other privacy stories in the press recently, such as Samsung's voice recordings from our homes being corresponded to third parties and the FBI pressuring Google for private information on its users. Even though I'm not surprised this doesn't mean I'm not angered by this. Another case of privacy invasion makes part of me less trustful and more suspicious of where I put my information, while the other part of me wonders if there is any point being cautious of what I do with my technology. Is there any point trying to protect my information? Is my information already in the hands of third parties? And even if it is, arguably there's little I can do, so should I just forget about it?

In reality, I do believe that even if officials are listening to my phone calls, personally it doesn't really matter. Phone calls to my friends about organising a girls night or talking to my sister on how my week of school has gone, is hardly desired information surely? Especially when you compare this to phone calls relating to organised crime etc. And even if everyone is aware their calls are being listened to, because this is on such a huge scale, people still feel a lack of proximity to the issue. What are the real chances this is affecting me after all?

However, the fact my calls will be listened to or not is not the point, and even this being a legal matter isn't the concern, instead I think the matter is an ethical one. The issue of power and its distribution is important; I accept my power is limited, but I still want my share of it, even if it is unequal. Protection of personal information should be determined and controlled by ourselves. Fundamentally, I believe that privacy is a human right everyone should be entitled to irrespective of their position in society. It's true that issues of privacy are becoming more and more abundant, leading to further feelings on uncertainty and frustration, which is only going to continue to going to rise. And what will happen when these feelings reach an optimum point? I'm not sure, but I fear one day we'll find out.

Is the internet damaging our creativity?

Article Link: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/06/internet-industry-overwhelms-us-need-for-change-online-time-offline

Article Headline: 

We need an internet that leaves space in our heads to enjoy creative peace

The internet killed...creativity 

Tagline: 'The internet is not made for the benefits of us. We owe it to ourselves to realize what we lose in all the noise'.

Jemima Kiss the author of this article writes of the dangers the internet has on our creativity and how it may be far more damaging than beneficial.

She explains her experience of no internet for the week in a excluded spot in Spain - 'It was very, very quiet. No TV, no music, no radio, no children. Not even a book'. While most of us would feel frightful at the thought of not being able to access our phone or switch on the TV for a day let alone a week, Jemima surprises but outlining how being without the internet isn't such a bad thing.

The article - Jemima's view:

• 'At the end of my tether a month ago, I felt the internet had stolen my creativity. I came here out of necessity, for exactly this moment, to reset my restless, relentless, internet-saturated mind'. And what did an internet-less week enable?
• 'I opened my sketchbook. I started to draw. I wrote a letter to someone who’ll never receive it. I had an idea for a novel. I had an idea for an essay on artists and their muses. I made plans, reprioritised. I started to think again'. This suggests that being without the internet allows our imaginations to open up and think creatively, without the internet harbouring our thoughts and decisions. 
• 'All those sites we use, that pull us in – none of them has our creative health or our well-being at heart. The mechanics of the internet – the bright lights and dopamine rewards – are deadly in combination with social expectations and instincts, and make it so hard to resist. It feels the norm'. She blames the internet for making us dependent on it, taking us away from the simplistic measures of life, that time should't be spent more so on a screen than with a real life person. What's worse she argues, is that internet-saturation has become the norm. 
• 'We face unprecedented social, cultural and ethical challenges from technology, which the industry itself isn’t objectively equipped to address: the redefinition of privacy; the balance of state surveillance and security; the life-changing opportunities of new healthcare, of transport, of education.' However, she argues that, 'we can’t scrutinise, and interrogate, and push for the better internet we deserve, if we are too overwhelmed by the superficial internet of the now.' Her opinion imposes that we need to re-evaluate the purposes of the internet, that it can be an amazing thing, but it's important to not be reliant on it. 

What I think:

I think this article makes a powerful point that perhaps the internet is damaging our creativity. By all means the content of the internet is diverse; we are exposed to vast amounts of information and a whole host of opinions. But these opinions may fracture our own independent thoughts and prevent our imagination from reaching its potential. The amount of time we spend watching videos on YouTube, interacting on Facebook, reading through Twitter trends, and all the while being targeted by media advertisers through pop ups on screen. This all has an affect on altering our own opinions. And as the cultivation theory suggests, the more we are exposed to this content, the more we take on its beliefs.

I believe that the internet, although diverse and beneficial, may be to blame for influencing us to all have the mainstream beliefs. Gatekeepers, although their influence arguably weakened, they still have a say on the content we see. And what we say habitually abides by mainstream ideologies. 

Bringing this back to the issues raised in the article - the internet may be damaging our creativity. Arguably, in a postmodern society, it's difficult for new and original ideas to come about, and the internet is preventing us from shutting off and letting our imagination run free. It certainly worked for the author of the article who found time without the internet enabled her to draw and write. Taking time out to enjoy the real world instead of the superficial one should be embraced; I don't want to think about how I ended up spending more of my life scrolling on a screen then interacting with the people around me. 

However, I think saying the internet is a killer of creativity is a step too far. The internet is an inspirational phenomenon that has allowed us all to feel connected. We can be informed by the internet, learn new information from it, be entertained, interact with people outside of our geographical capability. Seeing Tumblr posts, photos on Instagram, and clips on YouTube all can spark creativity within us, helping our imaginations build new ideas that we can then share back onto the internet to inspire more and more people. So maybe, the internet isn't to blame for killing creativity within us, maybe it's about balancing time in the real world and the superficial one, combining both elements, and becoming the best creator we can be. 

Google and US Government's Hacking Debate: Privacy and the user

Article Link: Google and US Government's Hacking Debate
Article Headline:

Google warns of US government 'hacking any facility' in the world

Tagline: 'Google says increasing the FBI’s powers set out in search warrants would raise ‘monumental’ legal concerns that should be decided by Congress'  

This article outlines how Google are opposing an attempt by the US Justice Department to have power to search and seize digital data.

FBI agents would have the power to carry our covert raids on servers no matter where they were situated, giving the US Government ultimate control to access private information on a global scale. As it stands, Federal agents have to be in the same district as a property in order to search it, but this may be abolished, if the Government breach privacy issues and enable computers to be hacked into, anytime and anywhere.  

Even though Google oppose this, 'The FBI argues that this new power would be essential in investigations where suspects have concealed the location of their computer networks.' It would allow more criminals to be caught which is a good thing, however, at the moment breaking privacy restrictions, ultimately means agents would be breaking the law themselves.  

What the article uncovers:

• 'The FBI has been developing its computer surveillance techniques over almost 15 years, (allowing)...agents to control the machine – they can turn on or off cameras and recording equipment, download the entire database of information and gain access to other linked computers.' Google draw attention that these 'tactics run the risk of the private information of innocent third parties being hoovered up in a massive data sweep'.
• Google argues that by changing privacy laws the 'US government risks undermining diplomatic arrangements it has built up with other countries over many years that allow cross-border investigations to take place with the approval of all parties.'
• However, to backlash this, FBI director James Comey suggests that, “encryption threatens to lead us all to a very, very dark place”.
• Instead he asks this question: “Have we become so mistrustful of government and law enforcement in particular that we are willing to let bad guys walk away, willing to leave victims in search of justice?”

What I think:

I think the content of this article raises the new and upcoming technological panic of privacy and misused information that all technology users are at risk of.

Anyone on social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, face the privacy settings option, in which the user decides who can view their profile. However, does the user really have the control? Arguably, once something is uploaded onto a social networking site even if you delete it, the information has never fully gone away. For example, even if you delete a photo off Facebook, the institution themselves still have access to it on their system. Obviously, one could argue this isn't such as big deal. Facebook has millions upon millions of users, so one photo we deleted that we didn't like, isn't such a big deal right? But of course the wider debate is more of an issue. Information we put on these sites has the ability to end up in the wrong person's hands years later. Childhood conversations could end up haunting people in the public eye years on from happening. Maybe the content of this information again isn't what's important - but the panic around control and privacy is significant. 

Nothing seems an issue until it directly affects us, and thinking someone could be viewing intended private information on your profile is quite startling. If someone came up to you on the street and asked for a photo of you, we'd all say no, but we allow this to happen online everyday. It's come to our attention that we're not in the control of information once we've posted it. Once it's online it's online for good.

Linking this to the article I think it's true that privacy restrictions is an ongoing debate. From one perspective, allowing access to any computer, can like the FBI argue, catch more criminals and hopefully reduce hacking crimes, but it opens up a huge issue of rights to personal information. It's not just the criminals who are being watched but it's everyone. People go online to interact, learn and be entertained, not be watched by unwanted eyes and monitors. 

However, again it could be argued that this element of control is already under way. Institutions already monitor our interacting habits and alter accordingly. For example, Facebook advertise products that match our profiles and our recent searches. And it's not just Facebook. For example, YouTube too tailor their advertising to what we have been recently searching, providing us with similar searches and what they 'recommend' from our views. So, the issue of control and privacy has already left our hands; I just wonder whose hands they are entering.