Schuster, S., van den Berg, M., Larrucea, X., Slewe, T., and Ide-Kostic, P. (2017). Mass surveillance and technological policy options.

From Digital Culture & Society

Schuster, S., van den Berg, M., Larrucea, X., Slewe, T., & Ide-Kostic, P. (2017). Mass surveillance and technological policy options: Improving security of private communications. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 5076-82 https://journals.scholarsportal.info/details/09205489/v50icomplete/76_msatpoisopc.xml

In the journal article, Mass surveillance and technological policy options: Improving security of private communications, the authors explore the various ways of how society can regain its control of privacy in online communications. Instead of navigating the moral discussion of privacy vs. security the journal article tackles what could be some solutions to the problem.

The argument of the article has made its point abundantly clear. Firstly, there has been a great deal of noise and debate on the topic of online privacy however little has come of it to protect user’s privacy online and in some cases the situation has only gotten worse. In addition, through development of PET (Privacy-Enhancing Technologies) governments around the world should develop policies which support these technologies. Furthermore, software and hardware which have security weaknesses should be addressed and taken more seriously especially in the discussion of “government backdoors”. Lastly, governments should implement incentives for online industries to provide with users with more choices for how their personal data is handled.

The article’s argument is organized in a logical order. First presenting the issue, the exploitation of privacy online, the authors tell the general history of surveillance online. By first providing a preface to the article the authors can efficiently communicate to readers the important facts which are essential to understanding the issue. Next, the authors begin building their argument by providing some ways to counter mass surveillance practices. They do this by presenting the possible avenues society could take, some require a great deal of effort to accomplish. The article includes a diagram which promptly categorizes each solution into one of four panels: build confidence, disrupt, promote adoption and innovation. Which panel a solution is categorized in is determined by the solution’s level of public intervention and level of innovation necessary to accomplish. By using a graphic to support the explanations the authors can efficiently display what is required to overcome each solution’s hurdles and the consequences of each. The article does a great job at not focusing on one area for too long. So rather than promoting the ideas it just presented it discusses the potential of PETs which have an exciting future if the public can easily use them. PETs are described as the most ideal short-term solution. Furthermore, the articles subsequent focus on the lack of security in the design of software and hardware. The authors then touch on how services which provide additional protection lack support and attention when compared to other services such as Facebook Messenger who has much larger user base when compared to secure messenger services like Signal. By doing so, the article demonstrates that web giants like Facebook and Google, who profit off selling user data, are a daunting obstacle to online privacy.

Some of the concepts the article proposes are radical and would drastically alter how, not only EU citizens, but all internet users across the globe use the web. Yes, the article addresses the prospect of such a drastic change through its explanation of the “disruption” panel’s solutions, however the consequences perhaps may disrupt much more than mass surveillance. The economic, cultural, and political implications of such a drastic change could be quite grave which the article does not mention. This can be best exemplified by the concept of a “European Subnet” which would essentially be a completely isolated internet for EU citizens. Although addressing every possible solution is a good thing, some of the disrupting solutions could be avoided with proper government policies which protect user privacy from over reaching corporations and government agencies.

Overall, the article provides multiple useful solutions to the matter of online privacy, particularly within the European Union. The article’s decision to not overly focus on each solution and present the diverse possible ways to recapture online privacy thoroughly organized in to both categories of time and the concept’s traits. Furthermore, how the article includes sections on new developing technologies which put protecting ones privacy in their own hands as well as addressing governments role in the issue provides readers with the knowledge to better protect their information online as well as better understanding how essential governments play in the issue.

Kevin Pendergast