Most people would be outraged if there was a policeman sitting on their sofa recording all their conversations. However, they tend to be less disturbed if the surveillance is unobtrusive, even if they know it exists.
Modern communications surveillance is built around that behavioural quirk: if surveillance is unobtrusive, people are less bothered. A surfer on a personal computer or smartphone has an illusion of anonymity. In reality, somebody may be logging location and communications in real time. Even users who are tech-savvy enough to know this often shrug and carry on.
The concerns of the few, who do complain about loss of privacy, are brushed aside in the name of security. That is the rationale that has driven nation after nation to develop surveillance networks and pass legislation that Big Brother would have wet dreams about. If you use the Net, or a cellphone, the police can locate you, record site visits, conversations, and texts as they occur or later. They may not need a warrant. That data may be admissible evidence.
One problem is that legislators and courts are often less than tech-savvy in passing “tough” laws that are massively invasive of privacy without being aware of the full implications. Another issue is that security services have got used to simply ignoring outdated laws.
America owns a chunk of internet infrastructure, which makes cyber-snooping easier for its agencies. Many US police departments also use devices that can suck data straight from a phone. India has been through its tapping scandals. The UK is contemplating laws that may compel service providers to maintain permanent records of all logs. These are democratic nations with relatively stronger safeguards for citizens’ rights. Things are worse under less evolved political systems.
There are ways around surveillance. Unfortunately, many of the circumvention methods are devised and used by tech-savvy people, who are genuinely up to no good, stealing data and carrying out scams. They are also used by people who simply place a high premium on privacy.
Hacker groups consist of loosely connected folks with varying ethics, conflicting aims. There are a few common links: a desire for privacy, commitment to free speech and a fascination with networks. Most hackers have an abiding distrust of governments and corporations, and of conventional organisational structures in general.
The interplay between security agencies, national governments, and white/blackhat hackers has turned the Interwebs into an amoral arena hosting an unending, ever-evolving game without any rules. Sometimes the hackers and security agencies are on the same side. Often not.
During Iran’s aborted Twitter revolution, Western nations hailed hacktivists, who helped to co-ordinate protests, and also to shut down sites circulating pictures of wanted protesters. Hacker group Telecomix was active during the Arab Spring. First, it helped Egyptians get online during the blackout in Mubarak’s last days. Then, it hacked Syrian servers to reveal the extent of government surveillance and left messages instructing Syrians on how to evade that surveillance.
Sometimes nation states cultivate hackers. Every server in Georgia was knocked out by mysterious attacks during the Russia-Georgia war. There have been persistent rumours that China uses hackers to garner sensitive information.
When interests diverge, nations would like hackers behind bars without Net access. The US has been embarrassed by WikiLeaks and by attacks from Anonymous. Governments have also been at the receiving end of Telecomix’s campaign to keep filehosting servers, which enable piracy, functional, and to protect the legal rights of downloaders.
Anonymous has just mounted an attack on Chinese servers. It’s also trying to educate Chinese surfers about ways to bypass or jump the “Great Firewall”. The People’s Republic of China is a tough nut to crack — the campaign will be fascinating for geeks. It will also be entertaining to see the evolution of international opinion on this issue.
