4 ms·

Students Against Mass Surveillance on Campus

39 points by thedg 12y ago

webaholic 12y ago
Well, it is hard to sell this to a friend of mine who got mugged in broad day light on a weekend on campus. If it was not for a surveillance camera, the thugs would still be roaming free. Not only did the surveillance help in nabbing the criminals in a short time, it also helped prevent the same happen to other students as the thieves were caught looking for other scapegoats near by. What is needed is oversight on this technology. Not outright banning. There is good and bad for any technology, surveillance is no different.
- tommycollison 12y ago
  We're not against any form of surveillance ever, we just think that over-broad NSA/GCHQ spying as it currently exists violates the Constitution. Maybe we'll agree some day that this level of surveillance is a price we're willing to pay, but that needs a rigorous and well-informed public debate. Our letter ends by calling on the U.S. government to "bring the NSA back within the bounds of the constitution," not to scrap the NSA entirely. Hope this clarifies. :-)
  - XorNot 12y ago
    So why on campus then? "on campus" implies this is a campus specific issue, hence the aforementioned security cameras. The NSA/GCHQ is a nation-state level issue, effecting populaces on the same scale.
    - tommycollison 12y ago
      Well, headline aside, we feel the NSA/GCHQ overreach is a problem that particularly affects students, since college is a time for exploration, creativity, and freedom. The private realm is the only place any of these things reside, and we're concerned about the erosion of online anonymity.
- dalke 12y ago
  I'm confused on why you brought up security cameras. It doesn't say anything about them. I see things like > governments monitor our communications and social media activity > The fact of the matter is that if you're using the Internet, you can bet the NSA is watching. They keep a record of what you’ve visited and whom you’ve been talking to. The NSA has the ability to build a complete picture of your day-to-day activities. > if you have called a Pizza Hut, and a known drug dealer has called that Pizza Hut, then the NSA is currently keeping records of your actions -- and the actions of everyone you’ve spoken to. It also addresses the good - there isn't any, or at least no good reason has been given: > If it’s to prevent terrorism or keep the public safe, it’s not working. On December 12, 2013, the President’s Review Group found that this data collection was “not essential to preventing attacks”. If there's a lot of bad (it gives details) and no known good ... I believe their point is, why have it in the first place?
fown9 12y ago
Bad premises "In societies where there is mass surveillance, it’s harder for people to think, learn, and explore. " US, England, France, Germany, Sweden have mass surveillance. All leaders in progress, innovations, and exploration. Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, Brazil, Argentina, Greece, Iraq, .....you get the idea. They don't. "Privacy is important not only for students and academics, but also for journalists, lawyers, activists, doctors, entrepreneurs -- anyone who wants to think and act freely without worrying about who is watching them and why." In this country, we have freedom of press. Much more important than privacy. Surveillance doesn't prevent you from acting freely. Living in an authoritorian country does. So you can't curse out the president and hold protests. "Additionally, privacy helps ensure that everyone in our society is treated fairly, no matter their religion, sexuality, race, or other traits." What? Huh?
- fown9 12y ago
  Downmodded without a substantial comment; privacy working at its best!
- littletimmy 12y ago
  I'd like to take issue with your "freedom of press" statement. The press is certainly Not free in the US. We have a propagandist press that serves to deceive (Fox News), serve special interests (CNBC) or generally toes the establishment line (NYT, CNN). More importantly, the US government actively takes steps to stop a free press. Take for example the recent attempts to stop Glenn Greenwald, punish Snowden, etc. The US govt also takes active steps to push the "free" press in particular directions, such as hiring retired commanders to pose as independent analysts to bolster the Iraq war, or by infiltrating online news networks to post via shills. How exactly is the press "free"?
geographomics 12y ago
> The ability of students to learn and grow is severely hampered when governments monitor our communications and social media activity. Is there any evidence of this? Why would monitoring students' social media activity and emails negatively affect their ability to learn?
- tommycollison 12y ago
  We feel this because we think that surveillance leads you to self-censor. In “The Chilling Effects of Surveillance," a study done by Stanford University psychologists Gregory White and Philip Zimbardo, participants were placed under varying levels of surveillance as they were asked their opinions on the severity of marijuana penalties. Those who were under surveillance (told that their answers would be shared with the police for training purposes) were more likely to denounce pot use. This happens with writers too: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/01/how_surveillanc.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/01/how_surveilla...
  - geographomics 12y ago
    I don't think you've made a strong case for mass surveillance having a significant effect of self-censorship. The study you cited [1] is an interesting read, but its applicability to mass surveillance is questionable. Being informed that your opinions on a specific topic - of which you are acutely aware are being immediately recorded - will definitely be reported to the police, is not the same as the more vague notion of some unknown entity recording and possibly analysing your everyday words. There may be a perceptual difference between personal surveillance and mass surveillance, which is not addressed in that study. As an analogy, consider the ubiquitous, largely unnoticed CCTV coverage in urban areas, versus the acutely uncomfortable feeling of being followed down the street - the two perceptions are quite different. That survey of writers linked by Schneier [2] describes its limitations - namely, that it is not really representative of all writers, only those that self-selected (from an email sent to them on the topic of government surveillance) to answer the survey, and that the sample sizes are relatively small. Also, the writers surveyed are all affiliated with the organisation conducting the survey, an advocacy group for freedom of expression. This may well bias the results towards that group rather than writers in general. Indeed, the report authors explicitly state: "the findings cannot be generalized to represent all writers in any given region or level of freedom." Another point specific to students is that, if they choose to pursue an academic career, it necessitates publishing research to a wide audience (wider than their professional colleagues, at least). Surveillance involves the intrusion of privacy, but publication is essentially the opposite of privacy, so how can it be negatively affected by surveillance, and mass surveillance in particular? [1] http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA013230 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDo... [2] http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Chilling_01-05-15_FINAL.pdf http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Chilling_01-...
flashman 12y ago
Campus IT surveillance is a much more immediate invasion of privacy. It's not just being able to see what websites you visit and when. Many enterprise networking products allow you to stalk a user around campus in real time by which wifi access point she's connected to. For instance, if you use a student ID as a wifi login, that ties your MAC address to your identity. Then the wifi access points report which MACs they've seen, and some (thanks Cisco) let you query historical data by MAC. This has legitimate uses for tracking stolen items but frequently no privacy controls or oversight. Add a little machine learning and you can also identify people's associates with decent accuracy.

39 points by thedg 12y ago

Well, it is hard to sell this to a friend of mine who got mugged in broad day light on a weekend on campus. If it was not for a surveillance camera, the thugs would still be roaming free. Not only did the surveillance help in nabbing the criminals in a short time, it also helped prevent the same happen to other students as the thieves were caught looking for other scapegoats near by. What is needed is oversight on this technology. Not outright banning. There is good and bad for any technology, surveillance is no different.

tommycollison 12y ago
We're not against any form of surveillance ever, we just think that over-broad NSA/GCHQ spying as it currently exists violates the Constitution. Maybe we'll agree some day that this level of surveillance is a price we're willing to pay, but that needs a rigorous and well-informed public debate. Our letter ends by calling on the U.S. government to "bring the NSA back within the bounds of the constitution," not to scrap the NSA entirely. Hope this clarifies. :-)
- XorNot 12y ago
  So why on campus then? "on campus" implies this is a campus specific issue, hence the aforementioned security cameras. The NSA/GCHQ is a nation-state level issue, effecting populaces on the same scale.
  - tommycollison 12y ago
    Well, headline aside, we feel the NSA/GCHQ overreach is a problem that particularly affects students, since college is a time for exploration, creativity, and freedom. The private realm is the only place any of these things reside, and we're concerned about the erosion of online anonymity.
dalke 12y ago
I'm confused on why you brought up security cameras. It doesn't say anything about them. I see things like > governments monitor our communications and social media activity > The fact of the matter is that if you're using the Internet, you can bet the NSA is watching. They keep a record of what you’ve visited and whom you’ve been talking to. The NSA has the ability to build a complete picture of your day-to-day activities. > if you have called a Pizza Hut, and a known drug dealer has called that Pizza Hut, then the NSA is currently keeping records of your actions -- and the actions of everyone you’ve spoken to. It also addresses the good - there isn't any, or at least no good reason has been given: > If it’s to prevent terrorism or keep the public safe, it’s not working. On December 12, 2013, the President’s Review Group found that this data collection was “not essential to preventing attacks”. If there's a lot of bad (it gives details) and no known good ... I believe their point is, why have it in the first place?

fown9 12y ago

Bad premises "In societies where there is mass surveillance, it’s harder for people to think, learn, and explore. " US, England, France, Germany, Sweden have mass surveillance. All leaders in progress, innovations, and exploration. Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, Brazil, Argentina, Greece, Iraq, .....you get the idea. They don't. "Privacy is important not only for students and academics, but also for journalists, lawyers, activists, doctors, entrepreneurs -- anyone who wants to think and act freely without worrying about who is watching them and why." In this country, we have freedom of press. Much more important than privacy. Surveillance doesn't prevent you from acting freely. Living in an authoritorian country does. So you can't curse out the president and hold protests. "Additionally, privacy helps ensure that everyone in our society is treated fairly, no matter their religion, sexuality, race, or other traits." What? Huh?

fown9 12y ago
Downmodded without a substantial comment; privacy working at its best!
littletimmy 12y ago
I'd like to take issue with your "freedom of press" statement. The press is certainly Not free in the US. We have a propagandist press that serves to deceive (Fox News), serve special interests (CNBC) or generally toes the establishment line (NYT, CNN). More importantly, the US government actively takes steps to stop a free press. Take for example the recent attempts to stop Glenn Greenwald, punish Snowden, etc. The US govt also takes active steps to push the "free" press in particular directions, such as hiring retired commanders to pose as independent analysts to bolster the Iraq war, or by infiltrating online news networks to post via shills. How exactly is the press "free"?

geographomics 12y ago

> The ability of students to learn and grow is severely hampered when governments monitor our communications and social media activity. Is there any evidence of this? Why would monitoring students' social media activity and emails negatively affect their ability to learn?

tommycollison 12y ago
We feel this because we think that surveillance leads you to self-censor. In “The Chilling Effects of Surveillance," a study done by Stanford University psychologists Gregory White and Philip Zimbardo, participants were placed under varying levels of surveillance as they were asked their opinions on the severity of marijuana penalties. Those who were under surveillance (told that their answers would be shared with the police for training purposes) were more likely to denounce pot use. This happens with writers too: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/01/how_surveillanc.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/01/how_surveilla...
- geographomics 12y ago
  I don't think you've made a strong case for mass surveillance having a significant effect of self-censorship. The study you cited [1] is an interesting read, but its applicability to mass surveillance is questionable. Being informed that your opinions on a specific topic - of which you are acutely aware are being immediately recorded - will definitely be reported to the police, is not the same as the more vague notion of some unknown entity recording and possibly analysing your everyday words. There may be a perceptual difference between personal surveillance and mass surveillance, which is not addressed in that study. As an analogy, consider the ubiquitous, largely unnoticed CCTV coverage in urban areas, versus the acutely uncomfortable feeling of being followed down the street - the two perceptions are quite different. That survey of writers linked by Schneier [2] describes its limitations - namely, that it is not really representative of all writers, only those that self-selected (from an email sent to them on the topic of government surveillance) to answer the survey, and that the sample sizes are relatively small. Also, the writers surveyed are all affiliated with the organisation conducting the survey, an advocacy group for freedom of expression. This may well bias the results towards that group rather than writers in general. Indeed, the report authors explicitly state: "the findings cannot be generalized to represent all writers in any given region or level of freedom." Another point specific to students is that, if they choose to pursue an academic career, it necessitates publishing research to a wide audience (wider than their professional colleagues, at least). Surveillance involves the intrusion of privacy, but publication is essentially the opposite of privacy, so how can it be negatively affected by surveillance, and mass surveillance in particular? [1] http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA013230 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDo... [2] http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Chilling_01-05-15_FINAL.pdf http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Chilling_01-...

flashman 12y ago

Campus IT surveillance is a much more immediate invasion of privacy. It's not just being able to see what websites you visit and when. Many enterprise networking products allow you to stalk a user around campus in real time by which wifi access point she's connected to. For instance, if you use a student ID as a wifi login, that ties your MAC address to your identity. Then the wifi access points report which MACs they've seen, and some (thanks Cisco) let you query historical data by MAC. This has legitimate uses for tracking stolen items but frequently no privacy controls or oversight. Add a little machine learning and you can also identify people's associates with decent accuracy.