I was troubled, if perhaps unsurprised, to read the statement from the founder of Cree.py, an application that tracks individual's locations based on their own social network posts. An article on the program stated:

The author, Yiannis Kakavas, does not think that creating the geolocation aggregator is disturbing; he says in the FAQ though, that he finds the fact that people are publishing that data in the first place is. Kakavas says the tool was not created to assist stalkers, but to make people "think twice" about opting in to geolocation features on Twitter.

Based on unprotected information offered entirely by the users themselves, this program can locate the physical whereabouts of people who use popular services such as Twitter, Instagram, and Foursquare. Most interesting about this article, however, was the fact that while the creator of the program claims to have done so to increase awareness, the story was published over two years ago, I have never heard of Cree.py until this point, and such geolocation-based services seem to be more popular than ever.

The Problem

Ideally, the only people curating such information would be creative activists like Kakavas, and their purpose in doing so would be educational. However, such idealism is incredibly unrealistic. A New York Times article [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/us/police-tracking-of-cellphones-raises-privacy-fears.html?_r=0] last year discussed how not only federal agencies, but local police forces, were using cellphone tracking services to conduct surveillance, frequently, according to the ACLU, doing so without a warrant.

Meanwhile, the Air Force, it was also revealed last year, not only has the capability to conduct drone-based surveillance of American citizens – a reality which did not gain significant public awareness until recently – it apparently can, and has been, doing so accidentally. A report by Wired includes this troubling revelation:

The Air Force, like the rest of the military and the CIA, isn’t supposed to conduct “nonconsensual surveillance” on Americans domestically, according to an Apr. 23 instruction from the flying service. But should the drones taking off over American soil accidentally keep their cameras rolling and their sensors engaged, well … that’s a different story.The Air Force, like the rest of the military and the CIA, isn’t supposed to conduct “nonconsensual surveillance” on Americans domestically, according to an Apr. 23 instruction from the flying service. But should the drones taking off over American soil accidentally keep their cameras rolling and their sensors engaged, well … that’s a different story.

Moreover, the report states, not only can the cameras 'accidentally' surveil Americans without warrant or even probable cause, the video filmed on such operations can, according to Air Force policy, be kept for review for up to 90 days.

Meanwhile, consumers continue to offer their own information – more or less, willingly – for public consumption. Just as Cree.py exploited information offered by social networking and image sharing location services, other websites and programs are popping up to increase such purposeful invasions of privacy. On one hand, you have devices like the Zoombak GPS device, which are intended as a security measure for the tracking of your personal goods or loved ones. However, as one report detailed, the device is easily hacked, and can be used to monitor the location of other cars, or other people, on a live basis.

On the other hand, websites such as Yoyurl and Dscover.me launched with the stated purpose of allowing others to see your entire browser history, under the guise of social connectivity. As one article describes, so-called “click sharing” is market to enhance your social interactions on the web, and in so doing, bring you advice for other sites that match your interests or habits. However, the sites exist simply as tools for the publication and tracking of your entire internet habits. For the luxury of social interaction and perhaps some interesting new articles, a user is willing to pay the price of allowing third-parties to see everything they look at on the web. This seems like an incredibly steep price to pay for such a “service”.

Solutions

It seems that, as privacy is invaded, and more and more information about personal habits, interests and even locations is made available to others, that a knowledgable consumer may want to limit this exposure. As such, there are two separate problems presented herein, and accordingly two separate solutions.

On one hand, the warrantless surveillance by government agencies is obviously a violation of constitutional rights. While the policing is escaping through loopholes such as “accidental” coverage or necessary policing, it is incumbent upon organizations such as the ACLU, who are pursuing litigation against such efforts, to continue to do so. Without continued legal pressures, such unlawful government investigation work will continue unchecked.

On the other hand, such unlawful surveillance hardly seems necessary when the information needed is being offered, by choice, by an increasing number of citizens. To this effect, information is key. Those who support privacy need to educate the masses, and help them to understand that it is not just their friends or social media network who can see these posts, and that they may be sharing more than they intend. As long as people continue to post their location, knowingly or unknowingly, on an unprotected twitter account tied to a location-based service, they can have no expectation of privacy. Is is absolutely incumbent upon those who understand the greater consequences of this sort of thoughtless sharing of personal information to get those we care about to do so as well, and stop making warrantless invasions of privacy easier for those who would seek to do so.

-- MatthewAmsterdam - 12 May 2013

<--/commentPlugin-->