# data[].attributes.body
"Freedom to be yourself is everything," Tiffiny Cheng, co-founder of Fight for the Future, said. "No government can take that away from us, so we're going to use the power we have to take it back.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One year on from revelations by former National Security Agency (NSA) contract worker Edward Snowden that intelligence agencies were conducting surveillance on an unprecedented scale, some of the world's largest websites are making a stand against state spying.

The Reset the Net campaign has drawn support from the usual internet campaigners of Reddit, Imgur and Boing Boing - who successfully protested against SOPA - but also includes contributions from internet giants like Google and Mozilla.

Today Google signalled its support for the campaign by announcing End-to-End, an email encryption service for its Gmail customers that makes it harder for third-parties to monitor emails.

The day of action takes place on thursday, 5 June, on the anniversary of the first NSA surveillance story breaking, with the intention of highlighting privacy issues and fighting plans to limit internet freedom.

"We can take back control of our personal and private data one website, one device, at a time," said Erik Martin, general manager of Reddit. "We're proud to stand up for our users' rights and help Reset the Net."

Advocacy group Fight for the Future is co-ordinating the campaign, spear-heading over 200 organisations and companies in the day of action.

Internet users visiting the websites of those taking part will be greeted with a "splash screen" detailing the reason behind Reset the Net and inviting them to sign an online petition to install privacy and encryption tools to secure their personal digital footprint against surveillance.

"Freedom to be yourself is everything," Tiffiny Cheng, co-founder of Fight for the Future, said. "No government can take that away from us, so we're going to use the power we have to take it back.

"Now that we know how mass surveillance works, we know how to stop it. That's why people all over the world are going to work together to use encryption everywhere and make it too hard for any government to conduct mass surveillance."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reset the Net: The Internet Fights Back Against NSA Surveillance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One year on from revelations by former National Security Agency (NSA) contract worker Edward Snowden that intelligence agencies were conducting surveillance on an unprecedented scale, some of the world's largest websites are making a stand against state spying.

# data[].attributes.body
Alexa is a purchasable device by Amazon and is a digital assistant. This technology device is similar to the "telescreen" in George Orwell's novel 1984. The Alexa assistant is always powered on and ready to hear the words "Alexa" to key the startup of the feedback process, so if this is always listening technically it can "spy" and eavesdrop on private home conversations such as the telescreen does in 1984.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Natalie, a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, is a freelance writer who can write on anything she can research. Her interests span the globe.

Introduction to Topic

In the novel 1984, George Orwell sets up a world whose inhabitants are constantly under surveillance by the government. This constant surveillance, manipulation and control is symbolized through the idea of "Big Brother," and the phrase, "Big Brother is watching you," is repeated throughout the novel. The slogan is shown to be displayed everywhere as a method of reminding the citizens they are always being observed and scrutinized. In the real world, the phrase has come to represent the abuse of government power especially in relation to civil liberties and rights and is often used to refer to instances of mass surveillance of the population. As Orwell predicted, people have increasingly given up their personal freedoms, and right to privacy, passively allowing governmental surveillance to grow. In the novel 1984 this willingness to surrender privacy is due to fear. In today's high-tech era, however, much of this loss of privacy has come about through perceived benefits provided by technological advances such as the ability to social network on online platforms from home, instant access to information on just about any topic through the internet and the increased ease of communication and convenience such technology has provided. While in both the book and today's society, it seems that the Government has revoked former rights to privacy, the reality is that in both cases it is the citizens of that have permitted it to happen.

In the novel 1984, Orwell creates a dystopian society in which citizens do what the government commands, and follow the rules due to fear of discovery and subsequent punishment. This fear results from the knowledge that the government has systems in place to ensure they know what citizens are doing at all times. Due to the awareness they are always watched, people learn to even not think in ways that would be considered in opposition of the government. This is accomplished through the added threat of the "Thought Police" who are also always watching through the use of telescreens which are never allowed to be turned off. These telescreens are two ways such that they are used to project messages as well as to watch the citizens. People learn to control their expressions and often maintain a blank face as they are unsure what expression or gesture would be considered indicative of problematic or subversive thoughts. The Thought Police look for even the most subtle of signs such as a twitch or eye tick which they are likely to conclude is a sign that someone may be thinking "illegal" thoughts.

Telescreens are not only put in private residences and public locations but also line every hallway and street. These screens aren't the only means the government has of watching the people. While a telescreen may not be in view, one cannot be certain their voice is not being picked up on a hidden microphone, or that a helicopter used to spy out those who break the law may not suddenly appear above them. In this society. even a child is to be feared as they are trained and rewarded for turning in parents and other adults.

Although this surveillance creates anxiety and all but eliminates privacy, no one attempts to overthrow the system. This is because they are willing to relinquish the right to think, speak and act as they choose in exchange for perceived safety from the unending war allegedly being fought. Their fear is escalated by the frightening facts reported by the Government. Additionally, though there is a history of peaceful relations with the countries with whom Oceania is supposedly at war yet the people do not know this due to government's policy of re-writing the past and the present whenever necessary to suit their needs.

The Concept of Big Brother

The opening pages of the novel present two main characters: the protagonist, Winston, and the antagonist, Big Brother. Winston, a 39 year old man, is coming home from work. As he heads for his apartment, we are told that on each landing is a poster of a large face of a man about forty-five years old with a black mustache and strong, handsome feature. The appearance of this face, simply referred to as Big Brother, is described to impart the sense of an imposing presence which found in every area of the society. The image establishes the perception of an eye that sees all. The idea that this unnamed individual is always watching from the shadows establishes the social order of the society whose members have learned better than to utter anything that might be construed as negatively related to Big Brother and The Party, which is the ruling upper class.

Orwell's first reference to "Big Brother" is found the third paragraph of the first chapter of 1984. He writes, " "The flat was seven flights up, and Winston, who was thirty-nine and had a varicose ulcer above his right ankle, went slowly, resting several times on the way. On each landing, opposite the lift-shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption read" (3). Thus, the concept of constant surveillance is presented at the very beginning the book.

Although seemingly overly intrusive, the people tolerate this constant surveillance deeming it justified in a world which is unsafe due to the potential horrors of war. The perception that the government is actively preventing the enemy from taking over the country and abusing its citizens has led to the willing forfeit of individual rights. The author writes, "The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival (192).

Throughout the book this phrase about Big Brother is seen to appear on posters and telescreens not just as a political slogan but as a real life actuality. Big Brother in this story is the supreme authority of a totalitarian state called Oceania. He is the head of "the Party" which has complete control over the inhabitants to the extent they even control peoples' thoughts by inducing the belief they are able to know what a citizen thinks through observation of body language and facial expression.

How Close are We to Orwell's Vision of a Future of Surveillance?

There has been much discussion in recent years as to the similarities between what Orwell predicted in his novel in 1949, thirty five years before the year referred in the title. Many have said that the types of surveillance seen in the book have come to exist in the advent of modern technological inventions while others have said that the types of surveillance seen today far surpass those presented in the novel. Further discussion has centered on the differentiation of the concepts of care, the stated goal of such surveillance by governmental entities and coercion.

According to the American Civil Liberties Organization, (ACLU), the government in this country is an increasing threat to peoples' privacy from growing surveillance technological advantage which is said by them to be justified in order to ensure national security. Governmental agencies such as the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, and state and local law enforcement agencies are known to intrude upon the private telecommunications of innocent inhabitants, collect a huge amount of data regarding who people call, and create data bases of what they consider suspicious activities, based on the unclear criteria. The ACLU goes on to say that while the collection of this private information by the government is in itself an unacceptable invasion of privacy, how they use the information is even more problematic to the point of abuse. Otherwise harmless data gets placed on a variety of watch lists, with harsh consequences. Innocent individuals are prevented from boarding planes, are unable to obtain certain types of jobs, have their bank accounts frozen and find themselves repeatedly questioned by authorities without knowing why. Once the government has such information, it can widely share it and retain it indefinitely (American Civil Liberties Organization).

The rules regarding who has access to this surveillance information and how it can be used can changed and changed again in secret without the public ever becoming aware. The government can also use it to justify changing rules or even breaking laws as it did after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. For example, after 9/11 surveillance data was used to indicate potential terrorists so that the CIA could capture them and obtain information that would prevent other terrorist attacks. Despite it being against international law and the law of the U.S. to torture anyone for any purpose (Restatement of the Law Third), the CIA was known to have used torture to obtain information and confessions from a number of individuals after 9/11. Furthermore, of 119 people held in custody and tortured by the C.I.A. following 9/11, 26 were subsequently found to be innocent. These included cases of mistaken identity, people held due to a false confession of two people erroneously tied to Al Quida as well as someone who was mentally retarded and held just to pressure a family member into confessing.

These cases sound like they could come directly out of the novel 1984 as the torture of the main character Winston, and another character he was involved with, Julia, are clearly detailed in the book. One example of such narrative which describes the severity of the torture inflicted against Winston can be found on page 244. It says,

There were times when it went on and on until the cruel, wicked, unforgivable thing seemed to him not that the guards continued to beat him but that he could not force himself into losing consciousness (244).

Surveillance today does seem to go beyond what Orwell presented in his novel. For example, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has warned of a secretive surveillance tool being used by the FBI which acts as a face cellular tower. These devices, called Stingrays, lets the government search large geographical areas for a particular cell phone signal. In the process however, the devices collect information on thousands of other cell phone signals belonging to unassociated people, which happen to also be located in the same area. More recently local law enforcement personnel have used the device in order to avoid limitation provided in the Constitution including the requirement the issuance of individualized warrants (Cox).

Participatory Surveillance

While in the novel 1984 surveillance of the population is presented as something the government puts into place to control the society for the governments benefit, the reality in today's world is that data mining of social network pages, email, location information, individual search histories and data bases that include information of interrelated people goes beyond governmental involvement. Termed participatory surveillance, individuals using sites such as Facebook voluntarily provide personal information about themselves in a profile and knowingly give permission for other sites to access their profiles in order to gain access to news, weather, and other information or even to be able to play games online. Most social networking sites ask their users to provide these kinds of details. This information commonly appears in casual digital conversations within given social networking communication platforms. Consequently, personal information about people is not something necessarily hidden that must be uncovered or retrieved using exotic technologies, human agents or advanced bugging equipment. People themselves are knowingly publishing this information on public websites accessible by almost anyone with internet access and often available without cost.

Additionally, the devices that gather information about others that may subsequently be used for covert surveillance today are not relegated to government alone, as presented in the novel 1984. Anyone, including children, who owns a cell phone, tablet, or notebook computer generally has access to still and video cameras, microphones used for recording purposes and other technologies used for to capture images and visual and audio footage included as part of these types of mobile technology platforms. People routinely take pictures and record video of people who are aware or unaware that they are being recorded, uploading the information in order to share it with what is often a large social network. Once online, these images can be re-shared indefinitely and thus, are available publicly to practically anyone with a Facebook or other social networking free membership. They can also be edited and re-edited to inaccurately represent the individual and the individual's actions and presence in a variety of locations. This data along with that provided by public records or anything that an individual has listed for any purpose online is also collected by pay-for-information sites. These sites then summarize the information obtained and provide reports with the resulting details which may or may not be accurate for use to individuals who may be checking on people they date, potential roommates and to determine is possible sexual offenders may live nearby. While the public is made aware of the use of their personal data for legitimate and abusive purposes, it does not stop people from continuing to enter personal information in online forms and to publicly share information about themselves and others.

Although this information may lead to increased convenience such as through targeted ads and local search results, public sharing has led to such long lasting abuses as identity theft. Identity theft involves the false assumption of another individuals identity through use of the their readily available personal information in order to gain access to bank accounts, credit cards and other financial information usually for financial benefit. Some people whose identity has been stolen have become bankrupt, had criminal charges made against them, and the victim hours spent in repairing the damage from the theft as well as the inability to clear negative records have resulted in additional long term distress and other negative outcomes.

The Future Begins Now

What does the future hold? Consider the government approved group that hacks computers, the Tailored Access Operations group (TAO) inside the NSA. What we know is that the TAO gains access to computers remotely, using programs with fabulous secret names like QUANTUMINSERT and FOXACID. We also know that TAO has created specialized software to hack into all manner of electronic information devices including computers, routers, servers and smartphones, and that its agents often install data collection implants into this type of equipment by intercepting its signals and infecting it while in transit. It has been estimated that TAO has successfully hacked into, and is currently extracting information from, over 80,000 computers worldwide. According to the Chief of TAO, who has spoken publicly on this program, there are things you can do to limit their ability to hack you systems. He mentioned limiting access to important or private information only to those who absolutely need it, not lightening security ever even temporarily, and making sure to shore up any cracks in your security no matter how tiny they may seem. This being said he implied that while this would make is job more difficult it would not prevent you from ultimately being hacked. He also mentioned zero day exploits, flaws in programs or systems that have yet to be discovered and are therefore vulnerable to exploitation. He said that to date only a few of these types of flaws have been discovered but it is a sure bet more will be found in the future. This includes flaws in home networking systems and home security.

In addition to these types of governmental agencies of which the TAO is only one among many, the ability of our population to know enough about computers to hack for fun or for serious exploitation is growing as our young people are gaining increasingly technically complex instruction about computers, programming, and infrastructure. With government surveillance, surveillance by citizens for fun or to gather information and monitory peoples' activities, store and street video cameras, and private cameras set up outside and inside residences, not to mention surveillance from other countries gathering intelligence of this countries systems, it is hard to imaging anywhere or anytime we might not be under surveillance. Where we have come to and the potential for even further exploitation of our privacy and personal information that gets accidently scooped up with actual targeted data like dolphins when they are fishing for tuna would like have given even George Orwell nightmares.

Most of what we know about developing governmental surveillance programs and America's growing hacking efforts comes from top-secret NSA documents provided by Edward Snowden, infamous whistleblower who handed documents to journalists and is still on the run. Although there are laws against persecuting whistleblowers who reports something in good faith, and their names are supposed to remain anonymous, this almost never happens. Subsequent to Snowden, another whistleblower, John Crane, came forward supporting the information delivered by Snowden. The irony was that Crane, formerly an assistant inspector general at the Pentagon, was in charge of protecting whistleblowers but when the system failed felt obligated to become one himself. While there was a public outcry after Snowden's disclosures, there was little change in opinion demonstrated by several poll. In 2006, a NSA surveillance poll indicated that 51 percent of those surveyed found NSA's surveillance policy to be acceptable while 47 percent found it unacceptable. In a Pew Research poll carried out a month after Snowden's disclosures although there was some indication that people changed their behavior in terms of electronic security, attitudes about government surveillance remained similar. According to the Pew Research Center:

Overall, 52% describe themselves as "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about government surveillance of Americans' data and electronic communications, compared with 46% who describe themselves as "not very concerned" or "not at all concerned" about the surveillance. When asked about more specific areas of concern over their own communications and online activities, respondents expressed somewhat lower levels of concern about electronic surveillance in various parts of their digital lives:

39% describe themselves as "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about government monitoring of their activity on search engines.

38% say they are "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about government monitoring of their activity on their email messages.

37% express concern about government monitoring of their activity on their cell phone.

31% are concerned about government monitoring of their activity on social media sites, such as Facebook or Twitter.

29% say they are concerned about government monitoring of their activity on their mobile apps."

These numbers seem to indicate that while there was an initial outcry against government surveillance of private citizens, there was no real change in opinion or attitudes. Similar findings have been reported on opinions related to surveillance cameras and retention of data at work (only 24% of participants in a Pew survey said this was acceptable), and surveillance cameras placed in neighborhoods and public places (78% of respondents in a New York Times/CBS News Poll were in favor).

Video on the Future of Surveillance

Summary

In summary, George Orwell's novel, 1984, presents what is often considered to be a frightening picture of the use of surveillance data collected by the government. While much of what Orwell seemed to fear has become a reality in today's world, the current reality of the negative consequences of participatory surveillance far surpasses what Orwell envisioned. Participatory surveillance is engaged in when individuals knowingly allow websites to access personal information entered in profiles and online forms as well as when easily gathered recordings of oneself and others through commonly owned mobile technology. This process is a type of passive permission for others such as insurance companies, marketing firms and service providers to gain access to our online information even when we have some semblance of a reason to believe it will be kept anonymous or private. We know in the back of our minds there are risks every time we are online even if we never enter anything into a form or purchase anything from an online store. Yet most of us leave on our location, camera and microphone features, believing them to be protected and unable to be used against us. More of us ignore the risks feeling that, similar to an IRS audit, while hacking and stealing of personal information is always possible, it won't happen to them. Individuals contribute even more overtly to the process of public surveillance by purposely uploading personal information, record and schedules related to their day, where they are and where they are going, reporting what time they will be away from home or when they will depart on a lengthy vacation. The long lasting negative consequences resulting from widespread public access to uploaded records, personal disclosures, images and recordings of themselves and others is infrequently considered in the short term when individuals actually record and upload these representations. The ability to not just upload information and images but to share them instantly makes participatory surveillance the largest potential data collection method available.

Review of the book 1984 by George Orwell

The novel 1984 was authored by a liberal and objective socialist not long after the Second World War had ended. The book discusses a future in a totalitarian state where people's thoughts and behaviors are minutely monitored, interpreted as indicating party alliance or party misalliance and controlled to increase or decrease them depending on the valence. The entire novel was based on a "what if" questions, specifically what if Bitiain had lost the war. Orwell found himself wondering what Britain might have looked like if it fell under the rule of either one of the totalitarian powers that dominated the mid-20th century. From that basic question, 1984 was created. Orwell presents a dark, unfulfilling, over-politicized society, which is deemed tolerable for the safety it provides. From the beginning however, Orwell presents the protagonist as having a passionate individual side that calls to revolt, despite being somewhat pitiful in the opening scenes.

Winston, the protagonist, is an ordinary man who lives a state sometime in the future, where the rulers control absolutely everything. Winston is a member of the party but just barely working at the Ministry of Truth where he changes historical documents to reflect the government in a more positive light.

Soon he meets Julia who sends him a note saying she loves him and they start on an elicit, illegal, passionate affair. Winston rents a room in one of the low class areas, where he and Julia spend time together, sleep together, and talk about their hopes for freedom, which involves an ideal completely outside of and unconnected to the oppressive state in which they live.

The secret police arrest Winston and take him to the Ministry of Love, an ironic name for a place that 're-indoctrinates" people through torture. At first, Winston won't say that he was wrong to go against the government. Then he is taken to Room 101, where one is torture with their worst feats. When a cage with rats, Winton's greatest fear, is locked on his face he betrays Julia even begging that she take his place.

The books ends with an account off how Winston becomes a committed member of society, no longer resisting the government's control. He sees Julia again but realizes he has no feelings for her at all, Instead he looks up at one of the posters of Big Brother and smiles, realizing that is the individual for whom he feels love.

While the ear 1984 has come and gone long ago, the disturbing yet strangely prophetic vision George Orwell presented in 1949 continues to be timelier with each passing decade. The novel 1984 remains the great classic of "negative utopia" which all subsequent dystopian novels were modeled on. As one of the first of its kind it in a time when many authors were focusing on the hopeful images of utopias, this view into how terribly wrong things can go for a society run by a government who not just alters peoples every behavior through reward (very little of it) and the threat of punishment but even alters their thoughts by changing the past through rewriting documents and thus history. The book is stunningly original and troubling novel that creates an imaginary world that is entirely convincing, from the first sentence to the last four words. No one The novels grasp of the imaginations of not just those who read it as it came out but entire subsequent generations cannot be denied nor can the force of its powerful warnings which seem to become more salient over time.

***************************

If you'd like to read 1984 free online click here

If you'd like to watch the free movie of 1984 click here

*****************************

Personal Rating for George Orwell's 1984

5 stars for 1984 by George Orwell

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Similarities in the Surveillance Presented in Orwell's 1984 Compared to the Present Day and Beyond

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Natalie, a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, is a freelance writer who can write on anything she can research. Her interests span the globe. In the novel 1984, George Orwell sets up a world whose inhabitants are constantly under surveillance by the government.

# data[].attributes.body
In Big Brother's eyes, surveillance is a very beneficial technology because him and other party members can constantly monitor the proles and catch them trying to rebel or commit any thought crimes.(Theme throughout the book)
-

# data[].attributes.body
Winston does not feel safe by constantly being monitored 24/7 because that means he must watch all of his actions and make sure not to commit the crimes that are punishable by death.(5-6)

# data[].attributes.body
in the book 1984, the main character Winston Smith buys a journal from a shop and he writes in it, but to write inside this journal, he has to hide from a "telescreen" that is always on monitoring video and audio to watch out for "thought crimes"
- "By sitting back in the alcove, and keeping well back, Winston was able to remain outside the range of the telescreen, so far as sight went."(6)

# data[].attributes.headline
Body 3 - What are some of the major benefits of surveillances technology?

# data[].attributes.subject
Body 3 - What are some of the major benefits of surveillances technology?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Would-be criminals perceive a greater risk of being caught if they know they are being watched.

2. Law-abiding citizens perceive an enhanced sense of safety where surveillance systems exist.

3. Surveillance systems are thought to enhance the efficiency of criminal justice jurisdictions that implement them.

4. Recorded footage documenting criminal activity may aid investigations and prosecutions, thereby increasing police and prosecutorial efficiency to the benefit of crime victims.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Understanding the Benefits of Security and Surveillance

By Pro-Vigil | May 4, 2016

When it comes to the purpose behind public video surveillance, deterrence is still the primary objective. It's a heavily researched subject. In fact, in 2011 Urban Institute published an authoritative report , which (among other things), outlines the basic premises of why surveillance is important and useful to the public. Here's a quick breakdown:

1. Would-be criminals perceive a greater risk of being caught if they know they are being watched.

2. Law-abiding citizens perceive an enhanced sense of safety where surveillance systems exist.

3. Surveillance systems are thought to enhance the efficiency of criminal justice jurisdictions that implement them.

4. Recorded footage documenting criminal activity may aid investigations and prosecutions, thereby increasing police and prosecutorial efficiency to the benefit of crime victims.

Of course, the advantage security and surveillance technology yields to law enforcement probably doesn't come as news to anyone. It's a well-known story that hinges on placing a representative of authority between those who might do harm, and those who might be harmed. What may come as news, however, is the fact that not all the advantages of surveillance technology are about Big-Brother government surveillance; there is another version of the story, which many commercial enterprises have learned to adapt to their own interests. Once you know that version, you'll have a broader understanding of why surveillance is so vitally important. Let's begin with some examples.

Monitoring Market Behavior Not all market behaviors can be measured in charts and graphs from the ivory towers of Wall Street. Some of the most important market research happens right at the place where buyers meet vendors. Business owners with a little insight, and who understand the importance of video surveillance can extend their market perspective with a handful of well-placed gadgets. A car dealership, for example, might use video surveillance to monitor which cars on the lot are getting the most customer attention, potentially indicating which models have the most local appeal. With information like that, a car dealership can optimize the way cars are arranged on the lot, placing the most popular models in the most easy-access spots.

Environmental Monitoring Often during seasons when weather patterns are unpredictable, construction workers get up bright and early to commute to the job site only to find that the conditions are unsuitable for work. As a result, company time and money go to waste. During an unusually snowy winter or an unusually rainy spring, this wasted capital can really add up. In this case, another one of the benefits of surveillance is that crews can check on worksite conditions before leaving home, or leaving the shop. And if things don't look good, they can reallocate their time and efforts towards other activities.

Safety Monitoring A safety manager's job is to make sure every employee adheres to federal, state, and local protocols, and there's a lot at stake. One of the problems safety managers sometimes face is that potentially-dangerous work processes are spread across fairly large spaces, like the entire roof of a building under construction. It's not feasible to hire the same number of safety managers as workers just to ensure each employee gets proper monitoring minute-by-minute. As such, one of the benefits of security cameras is they can be placed to provide a 360-degree view of worksites where dangerous processes are underway. Then, rather than being yet another person working in the danger zone, safety managers can monitor the work from a remote location, and communicate with workers via radio or cell phone.

Productivity Monitoring Not every instance of employers using the benefits of security cameras is necessarily a case of snooping. For instance, monitoring employee productivity may lead to insights about how to improve work processes. It may also reveal problems that aren't being reported. One of the greatest benefits of surveillance for employers is that it gives them an objective perspective on workplace matters.

Some of the most-interesting insights regarding surveillance advantages have come from all the ways surveillance technology can be used for purposes other than security. In addition to placing a watchman between people with competing interests, surveillance benefits can be turned into more of a direct visual link between individuals. The fact is, the benefits of surveillance technology can be applied in an unlimited number of ways. All it takes is a little creative problem-solving.

Want more? Learn more about the benefits of wireless surveillance units.

Benefits of Surveillance

RELATED ARTICLES

A Deeper Look Into Mobile Security Apps

Cutting-edge technology has the potential to change a wide range of operations within your organization, security being chief among them....

Continue Reading

What to Look For in a Wireless Surveillance System

With security threats looming for businesses, you'll want to protect all your hard work and valuable property. That's why many...

Continue Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding the Benefits of Security and Surveillance | Pro-Vigil

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Pro-Vigil | May 4, 2016 When it comes to the purpose behind public video surveillance, deterrence is still the primary objective. It's a heavily researched subject. In fact, in 2011 Urban Institute published an authoritative report , which (among other things), outlines the basic premises of why surveillance is important and useful to the public.

# data[].attributes.headline
Body 2- How much freedom and privacy should you give away to stay "safe"?

# data[].attributes.subject
Body 2- How much freedom and privacy should you give away to stay "safe"?

# data[].attributes.body
“I always try to tell the truth,” Alexa replies. “I’m not always right, but I would never intentionally lie to you or anyone else.”

“Alexa?” Cook continues, as the blue ring lights back up, “what is the CIA?”

“The United States Central Intelligence Agency—CIA,” Alexa responds.

“Alexa,” Cook says, “are you connected to the CIA?”

Rather than providing a response, or even the usual “Sorry, I don’t understand the question,” the Echo made a soft chiming noise and simply shut down. “Alexa,” Cook tries, more firmly this time, as the ring lights back up. “Are you connected to the CIA?”

Again, the chime, the blue light ring turning gray and silence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
2017: A Surveillance Odyssey. Illustration by Tim Durning

Amazon, the biggest retailer of web-connected microphones, works for the CIA. Should that bother you?

For the most part, suburban Maryland grandmother Pauline Cook just teased her Amazon Echo. Before leaving for work in the morning, she might ask the Echo's onboard AI, Alexa, for basic information: the weather, traffic updates. But for the most part, her interaction with the smart home device-a Christmas gift to her husband-was limited to human-robot antagonism.

"Whenever I would come into the room, I would ask it crazy questions like 'Why do you exist?' or 'Who are you?' Those types of things," she chuckles. "Whatever crazy question I'd think of."

On March 7, Cook was at work, where she manages SEO and social media for a nonprofit, when she saw the news about WikiLeaks' Vault 7 release-the biggest leak of CIA documents in history. For Cook, the story was a big deal. She had closely tracked the fallout surrounding WikiLeaks' release of emails throughout the 2016 presidential election, but on top of that, the Vault 7 release concerned one of her favorite subjects.

"I've watched a lot of documentaries on things like the dark web, Tor, zero-day vulnerabilities ... this is the type of stuff that interests me," she says. So, she wasn't exactly surprised by what was found in this latest trove of documents: a startlingly vast cache of CIA cyberweapons, containing several hundred million lines of code, that were developed to hack into an array of common consumer web services, apps and devices. Many of the cyberweapons were made possible by stockpiling the same kind of zero-day vulnerabilities-that is, holes in computer software that hackers can exploit quickly, with "zero days" before vendors are able to patch them-that Cook had learned about. Others were made possible using Trojan horses: deceptive, malicious computer programs that dupe their victims into unwittingly disclosing private information or opening a backdoor to the perpetrator. The most widely reported revelation was that the CIA had the capability to hack into iPhones and Android phones, taking control of the onboard microphones and cameras or intercepting messages and audio, using techniques that could preempt protective end-to-end encryption services like Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram.

One particular hack stuck out to Cook, though: a project the CIA code-named "Weeping Angel." Like many of the project codenames that Vault 7 revealed-eight of which were named after Pokémon, such as "Dugtrio"-the Weeping Angel project was a callout to geek pop culture, and a particularly menacing one at that. In Doctor Who, Weeping Angels are monsters that look like stone statues as long as you're observing them. But as soon as you turn away, or even so much as blink, the Weeping Angel can move, feed off the energy of its victims and kill them. It was a particularly fitting project name given the hack: an insidious exploit that allowed the CIA not only to listen to and record people through the web-connected voice control microphones in Samsung smart TVs, but to do so using a "fake-off mode" that could trick the consumer into thinking the TV was off even when, secretly, it was still on and listening.

"When I saw this, I decided that I was going to go home and see what Alexa had to say about it," Cook says, since the Echo is essentially just a big microphone connected to the internet.

In a short video that would be retweeted thousands of times and rocket to the front page of Reddit, Cook, adopting the tone of an attorney, interrogates Alexa. "Alexa?" Cook asks, as the device's iconic blue ring lights up to indicate that it's listening, "would you lie to me?"

"I always try to tell the truth," Alexa replies. "I'm not always right, but I would never intentionally lie to you or anyone else."

"Alexa?" Cook continues, as the blue ring lights back up, "what is the CIA?"

"The United States Central Intelligence Agency-CIA," Alexa responds.

"Alexa," Cook says, "are you connected to the CIA?"

Rather than providing a response, or even the usual "Sorry, I don't understand the question," the Echo made a soft chiming noise and simply shut down. "Alexa," Cook tries, more firmly this time, as the ring lights back up. "Are you connected to the CIA?"

Again, the chime, the blue light ring turning gray and silence.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has made it clear that, along with Amazon Prime, Amazon Marketplace, and Amazon Web Services, the monolithic Seattle tech company believes the Amazon Echo digital assistant will become the "fourth pillar" of the company. "It's hard to overstate how big of an impact it's going to have on society over the next 20 years," Bezos told an audience at the 2016 Code Conference, referring to the Echo and consumer AI in general. (This year, he told Billboard he had an Echo in every room of his home, including his bathroom.)

Based on sales since the device's release in 2014, investment firm Mizuho Financial Group recently projected that the Amazon Echo and other Alexa-enabled devices will drive an additional $11 billion to the company by 2020. Amazon recently created a $100 million Alexa Fund to provide venture capital for companies looking to develop new "skills" (the Alexa equivalent of an app), a testament to Amazon's serious investment in the technology helping to foster a sub-industry that is already experiencing rapid growth. A year and a half ago, just after Amazon opened Alexa up to third-party developers, it had 158 skills. Last month, it passed 10,000, a number that has its closest major competitor, Google Home, playing catch-up.

But, despite its belief in the inevitability of consumer AI, Amazon also seems to realize that Alexa and the Echo are a little creepy. Perhaps to remedy this, last month, Amazon introduced "speechcons," a series of geeky pop-culture catchphrases that Alexa can now drop in its speech to give it a more human feel-phrases like "bazinga" from The Big Bang Theory and "Great Scott!" from Back to the Future, which the device is programmed to say with a distinct gusto.

After Cook's decidedly creepy video went viral, Amazon made another update to soften Alexa's image. "If you ask the question 'Are you connected to the CIA?' instead of shutting down, it says, 'No, I work for Amazon,' now," Cook says. "I guess you could say I helped Amazon close a gap in their system."

There's something very curious about that patch, however. Alexa is telling the truth when it says that it works for Amazon. But what it doesn't say is that, as of 2013, Amazon works for the CIA.

In 2012, big data analytics firm DeepField Networks did a study that found that one-third of internet users access Amazon servers at least once a day, thanks to the gargantuan reach of Amazon Web Services. The cloud computing service provides data storage and computing power without users having to build their own server farms-a lucrative service that accounted for 71 percent of Amazon's $1.3 billion operating income by Q4 2016, as reports. The number that DeepField Networks landed on has likely only increased in the following five years-something that internet users discovered much to their chagrin on February 28, when one Amazon employee's typo sent the Amazon S3 storage service crashing for five hours, taking down giant swaths of the web-some 150,000 websites and services-in a "digital snow day." Among them: Netflix, Venmo, iCloud, BuzzFeed, Expedia, Slack, Medium, Giphy, Quora, Imgur, SoundCloud and Business Insider. Even Amazon's own status page that provides updates when there are hiccups in the cloud went down. "I had to turn my light out with the switch instead of Alexa :-(" BuzzFeed's books editor Jarry Lee tweeted out on the day of the crash, which ended up costing $150 million in lost revenue for S&P 500 companies.

Four years before Amazon Web Services' crash revealed the vast reach of its invisible tendrils, AWS was fighting IBM for what would become one of its biggest, most groundbreaking contracts to date-a $600 million deal with the CIA. Reports of the deal bubbled to the surface in mid-March of 2013, though Amazon and the CIA wouldn't initially confirm them. A few months later, Amazon Web Services confirmed the existence of the contract to online tech publication The Register. By the summer of 2014, an Amazon-built cloud that services all 17 agencies in the United States Intelligence Community (among them the FBI and the NSA) went operational. Not long before the cloud launch, on June 24, Doug Wolfe, the CIA's chief information officer, showed up for a 15-minute speech at an Amazon Web Services sales event in Washington, D.C.

"This is not something [that] in my 30 years we have traditionally done," Wolfe told the 3,000-plus crowd. "It's been a pretty interesting clash of cultures here," he said of the dialogue between Amazon and the agency during the development of the cloud. "We've had some interesting conversations and debates on security. We're working through that, and I think we're going to end up with a good product, a secure product."

The decision to switch to the cloud marked a significant break for the United States Intelligence Community, which until then had exclusively used government servers to process intelligence data. But doing so was getting expensive. As the Edward Snowden leaks in 2013 showed, the Intelligence Community was harvesting unprecedented amounts of user data and communications records from companies like Google, YouTube, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft through the NSA's secret PRISM surveillance program.

By 2013, the IT cost for the United States Intelligence Community, to store and analyze the billions of trillions of metadata chunks on its own self-built servers, had reached $8 billion. Even though cloud computing is sometimes seen as less secure than operating on local servers, the CIA and the Intelligence Community decided to change direction.

"We decided we needed to buy innovation," an anonymous former intelligence official told Government Executive, the government business news daily owned by Atlantic Media. "The goal was: 'Can we act like a large enterprise in the corporate world and buy the thing we don't have? Can we catch up to the commercial cycle?' " The cloud system would enable the 17 agencies to more quickly and securely share information across servers and collaborate, and the agency would only have to pay for "what you consume," Wolfe later said in a CIA.gov interview. "It's that kind of business model that we're trying to bring to the CIA and the Intelligence Community." In effect, the $600 million contract meant that the Intelligence Community would get considerably more powerful and scalable computing and analytic capabilities, and for billions of dollars less.

But for privacy advocates, the CIA teaming up with Amazon opens up a can of worms when it comes to conflicts of interest. The Snowden leaks showed that even prior to the Amazon contract, the Intelligence Community had a disturbing amount of access to Americans' online data. For example, the PRISM program operated under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which, as The Register explained, "specifically authorizes intelligence agencies to monitor the phone, email and other communications of U.S. citizens for up to a week without obtaining a warrant." Private tech companies that cooperated with the collection were offered immunity from legal action under the George W. Bush administration, an arrangement that was extended through December 2017 by Barack Obama. An anonymous White House official told Reuters in early March that Donald Trump's administration fully intends to reauthorize the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Upon the leak of the program details, the New York Times criticized the opaque legal dealings as "a perversion of the American justice system."

With the Vault 7 revelations, is there cause for concern when a massive CIA contractor is selling internet-connected microphones to millions of consumers? While Vault 7 didn't reveal anything on Amazon, Weeping Angel's targeting of Samsung smart TVs proves that the CIA was developing hacking methods to breach devices, like Alexa, that listen to and record your speech. If PRISM granted legal immunity to private companies that cooperated with warrantless government data collection, what's the incentive for Amazon, which has a huge moneyed interest in the CIA, to protect you?

Or perhaps the more interesting question is: Do you really care?

"Data are the new oil," writes former Amazon chief scientist Andreas Weigend in his new book, Data for the People: How to Make Our Post-Privacy Economy Work for You. "Today, the capacity to transform raw data into products and services is transforming our lives in ways that will rival the industrial revolution."

Engineers at the largest, most powerful companies in the world-tech goliaths like Amazon, Google and Facebook-may build the technological framework to extract that data, and product development departments may devise new ways of monetizing it. But the actual labor of generating valuable data, our data, in the form of searches, clicks, posts, locations, likes, shares, preferences, beliefs, habits, attitudes and personal info, is done for free, by us. The social data that you give up in exchange for convenient services, whether you realize it or not, is a massive invisible industry, one that has completely reshaped the face of marketing and media.

Amazon, which did not respond to a Seattle Weekly interview request, was one of the earliest companies to recognize the value and power of social data collection. As recounted in a 2014 New Yorker article, an independent Kansas City bookseller at the 1995 BookExpo America conference, Roger Doren, relayed a conversation he had with Jeff Bezos about his then-startup company. Bezos told Doren that he primarily "intended to sell books as a way of gathering data on affluent, educated shoppers. The books would be priced close to cost, in order to increase sales volume. After collecting data on millions of customers, Amazon could figure out how to sell everything else dirt cheap on the internet." As Weigend writes in his book, "When I arrived at Amazon in 2002, one of our goals was to move beyond analyses at the level of ZIP code and make full use of every user interaction our customers had with the site. My team and I identified five hundred personal attributes for each user [...] What set Amazon apart was its commitment to refining data in ways that help customers decide what to buy based on their own interests, preferences and current situation." This business model would be replicated by many in the tech industry, most effectively by Facebook and Google.

Since those early days, Amazon's obsession with data and the efficiency it brings has spawned truly bizarre initiatives and practices. There was the late 2013 patent for its "anticipatory package shipping," which would begin delivering items to customers before they even bought them. Then there's its dystopian, data-driven employee-monitoring management system. The 2015 New York Times investigation that detailed this treatment of the company's workers in its white-collar offices and blue-collar shipping warehouses was so brutal, it prompted Bezos to respond in a company-wide memo.

Weigend takes this data-driven ideology to its logical extreme in his book, imagining social data's potential role in determining who receives organ transplants: "Will we someday use social data to estimate the value of each patient's life, predicting with precision how much an additional year of life is worth to her family and society, and use it as an input for our algorithms?"

Weigend argues that, of course, people want the convenience and efficiency that comes with massive corporate data collection. "For the past hundred years we've cherished privacy, but the time has come to recognize that privacy is now only an illusion. We want tools for managing attention, belonging and communication."

Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a nonprofit public research center that pursues legal avenues to "protect privacy, freedom of expression and democratic values in the information age," has a fairly blunt assessment of Weigend's thesis. "Dumb argument. He doesn't really know what he's talking about. We need privacy laws to regulate collection and use of personal data. I've testified in Congress dozens of times on that issue." He's also not satisfied with the CIA's response to the WikiLeaks revelations. "It is CIA's job to be innovative, cutting-edge and the first line of defense in protecting this country from enemies abroad. America deserves nothing less," the agency wrote in a statement the day following the leak, along with assurances that it is legally prohibited from spying on domestic targets.

"'We spy on you to keep you safe' is never a sufficient explanation," Rotenberg says.

Rotenberg's relationship with Amazon through EPIC extends back 20 years, to the company's earliest days. Amazon listed EPIC as an affiliate in its privacy policy, "which [Amazon] considered an endorsement," Rotenberg says-that is, until the year 2000. That's when Amazon amended its privacy policy, writing that customers' personal information would now be considered a "transferable asset," allowing the company to pass that information along to corporate allies. "We made a big deal of that," Rotenberg says, "and subsequently unaffiliated ourselves from Amazon."

In 2015, two years before the details of Weeping Angel came to light, Rotenberg went to the Federal Trade Commission and urged it, along with the Department of Justice, to investigate Samsung smart TVs.

"We said these 'always-on' and 'smart' devices, like the Samsung TV and Alexa, put people at risk of remote monitoring. We thought that the FTC and DOJ-because it seemed in violation of the Wiretap Act-both had a responsibility to investigate the risk to consumers of those products that American companies were offering for sale. They didn't do anything."

There's a particular distinction between the Samsung TV and Alexa, however. Buried in Samsung's privacy policy was an upfront admission of what Samsung was doing with its voice recognition feature: recording you and sending it to a third party. "Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition," the policy read. Amazon insists this is not the case with Alexa. The Echo does in fact record what you say-in order for the deep neural networks the Alexa AI operates on to work, it has to send recordings of your commands back to Amazon's servers. The difference is that Amazon claims Alexa only starts recording once you say the "wake word," which, as a default, is set to "Alexa."

"I'm not satisfied by that at all," Rotenberg says. "Do they have a keyword that automates the speech processing? Yes, they have a keyword. Does the user always know when the keyword is triggered? No. Other people may use the keyword. It may come off the internet, TV, the radio. Someone may be able to hack it. I'm just not impressed by those assurances."

In a particularly meta-example of just that concern, in January of this year, six-year-old Brooke Neitzel accidentally ordered a $160 KidKraft Sparkle Mansion dollhouse and four pounds of sugar cookies to her parents' home while talking to Alexa. In a subsequent newscast about the incident, at the end of the segment, anchor Jim Patton said, "I love the little girl saying, 'Alexa ordered me a dollhouse.'" CW6 San Diego later reported that it had received complaints from other households. Some who were tuned to the broadcast discovered that their Amazon Echoes, triggered by Patton's quip, had inadvertently ordered dollhouses for their owners as well.

For the time being, Rotenberg says consumers need to remain highly skeptical of the Echo. "The contract is with the CIA, so presumably, if your client-your 'customer,' the CIA-asks Amazon to help with an investigation, that's a risk the consumer is going to need to investigate more closely," he says. "People can always make the choice if they wish to have their private communication leave their home and be processed on private servers like Amazon's, but I still don't think we fully understand the risks of that, and if nothing else, the WikiLeaks disclosure of the CIA hacking techniques made clear that, at least for intelligence communities, it's a vulnerability that they can exploit."

Emily McReynolds, program director of the Tech Policy Lab at the University of Washington, has a different take on the situation. She says that if you're going to buy a smart home assistant that listens to you, you're probably better off buying it from a major company like Amazon, and her reasoning for that assertion lines up with that of Weigend's in Data for the People: money.

"I got into the privacy and security field, because 10 years ago, I looked around said, 'Wow, they're collecting lots of data. A lot of data. What are they using it for? Who has access to it?'" McReynolds says. "It turns out that 10 years later, the economic incentive is there for companies to protect your data."

The Tech Policy Lab, a joint effort between the University of Washington School of Law and the university's Paul G. Allen Center for Computer Science & Engineering, was created with the goal of helping policymakers make better-informed tech policy on emerging consumer technology through research. While she admits that "putting a microphone in the home creates a different kind of security and privacy issue" than we're used to, she is also upfront about the reality of public perception's effect on business. "When you look at these companies, who would buy one of these devices if you knew they were just going to hand over your data at the first request?"

Indeed, profit appears to have been a motivating factor thus far for Amazon, which has a fairly decent record of litigating for consumer privacy. It successfully fought a 2010 request from the North Carolina Department of Revenue to disclose customer information that could be linked to specific purchases on Amazon. Alexa got its first big legal test in late 2016, when a prosecutor for the police department in Bentonville, Arkansas, asked Amazon to hand over the recordings from the Echo belonging to James Bates, the suspect in a 2015 murder of a former Georgia police officer who was found dead in Bates' hot tub after a party. The prosecutor believed the Echo might contain recordings from the incident that could implicate Bates in the death. Amazon refused, insisting that Alexa was protected under the First Amendment -although it did say that if the police had access to Bates' phone, and if Bates had connected his Echo to its mobile app, they could have easily extracted the recordings themselves.

In the end, it didn't matter. On March 7, Bates' lawyer Kathleen Zellner, who also represented Steve Avery from Making a Murderer, voluntarily handed the Echo recordings over to police, insisting her client had nothing to hide. The case is one of the first instances of a smart home speaker being used as evidence in a court of law.

"The thing about privacy is: It means something different to everyone," McReynolds says. "You often run into that 'I have nothing to hide' argument. So why would I care? Well, the people who are looking at that data today might not be the same people looking at it in 10 years-10 years from now, there might be a different government, a different company owning that data. And so I think we have a need to protect it."

Pauline Cook, for one, says she has nothing to hide. She is keeping her Echo. "I don't think the FBI is monitoring me. I'll leave it in the house. It doesn't really bother me," she says. "Let's be honest, most of our privacy is gone in the present day anyway. Either we go off the grid, or we accept that in order to be on the grid, to be in the technology world, you're going to lose some of your privacy."

McReynolds says she believes things aren't quite that far gone yet. She sees promise in a proposal from former FTC commissioner Julie Brill that would impose limitations on data brokers that are similar to the ones imposed on consumer reporting agencies through the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This would allow consumers to see what information the data brokers have on you, and to correct it if you so choose. But if that's going to happen, it likely won't come under our current leadership. On Tuesday, Congress voted to repeal five-month-old FCC privacy protections, which will now allow internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon to sell your information without your consent or notice.

As far as Alexa goes, Amazon may need to make another patch soon. Although "Alexa, are you connected to the CIA?" is now answered with "No, I work for Amazon," new online videos posted after Cook's are asking the next logical question: "Alexa, does Amazon work for the CIA?"

Again, the chime, the blue light ring turning gray, and silence.

ksears@seattleweekly.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alexa and the Dawn of So-What Surveillance | Seattle Weekly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2017: A Surveillance Odyssey. Illustration by Tim Durning Amazon, the biggest retailer of web-connected microphones, works for the CIA. Should that bother you? For the most part, suburban Maryland grandmother Pauline Cook just teased her Amazon Echo. Before leaving for work in the morning, she might ask the Echo's onboard AI, Alexa, for basic information: the weather, traffic updates.

# data[].attributes.headline
Body 1 - What limits do you think should be placed on the use of technology to avoid the kind of totalitarian excesses represented in 1984?

# data[].attributes.subject
Body 1 - What limits do you think should be placed on the use of technology to avoid the kind of totalitarian excesses represented in 1984?

# data[].attributes.body
However, far fewer (63%) feel it is important to be able to “go around in public without always being identified.” Only 34% believe being able to go unnoticed in public is “very important” and 29% say it is “somewhat important.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Contrary to assertions that people " don't care" about privacy in the digital age, this survey suggests that Americans hold a range of strong views about the importance of control over their personal information and freedom from surveillance in daily life. As earlier studies in this series have illustrated, Americans' perceptions of privacy are varied in important ways and often overlap with concerns about personal information security and government surveillance. In practice, information scholars have noted that privacy is not something one can simply "have," but rather is something people seek to "achieve" through an ongoing process of negotiation of all the ways that information flows across different contexts in daily life.

The data from the new Pew Research surveys suggest that Americans consider a wide array of privacy-related values to be deeply important in their lives, particularly when it comes to having a sense of control over who collects information and when and where activities can be observed.

When they are asked to think about all of their daily interactions - both online and offline - and the extent to which certain privacy-related values are important to them, clear majorities believe every dimension below is at least "somewhat important" and many express the view that these aspects of personal information control are "very important." The full range of their views is captured in the chart below and more detailed analysis is explored after that.

Nine-in-ten adults feel various dimensions of control over personal information collection are "very important" to them.

The issue of who is gathering information and what information is being gathered is considered to be an important dimension of privacy control by nearly all American adults. In all, 93% of adults say that being in control of who can get information about them is important; 74% feel this is "very important," while 19% say it is "somewhat important."

At the same time, 90% say that controlling what information is collected about them is important- 65% think it is "very important" and 25% say it is "somewhat important." There are no significant age- or gender-based differences for either of these questions.

As earlier surveys have demonstrated, the sensitivity level of various types of information varies considerably, with social security numbers topping the list of the most sensitive pieces of information and basic purchasing habits being viewed as the least sensitive kind of data.

Americans value having the ability to share confidential matters with another trusted person.

While public c0nfidence in the security of various communications channels is low, Americans continue to value the ability to share confidential information with others in their lives. Nine-in-ten (93%) adults say that this is important to them, with 72% saying it is "very important" and 21% saying it is "somewhat important" to have this ability to share confidential information with trusted parties. Men, women and adults of all ages are equally likely to hold these views.

Permission and publicness are key features that influence views on surveillance.

Americans say they do not wish to be observed without their approval; 88% say that it is important that they not have someone watch or listen to them without permission (67% feel this is "very important" and 20% say it is "somewhat important" to them).

However, far fewer (63%) feel it is important to be able to "go around in public without always being identified." Only 34% believe being able to go unnoticed in public is "very important" and 29% say it is "somewhat important." In both cases, all adults, regardless of age or gender, express comparable views.

For many, homes really are "do not disturb" zones.

Americans do not appreciate being bothered at home. Fully 85% say that not being disturbed at home is important to them. Some 56% say it is very important they not be bothered at home and another 29% say it is "somewhat important" they be free from disturbances at home.

Americans treasure the ability to be alone at times and they do not appreciate intrusive inquiries about personal matters.

Some 85% of adults say it is important to be able to have times when they are completely alone, away from anyone else. Fully 55% say this is "very important" to them and another 30% say this is somewhat important. These with high school educations or less are not as likely as those with at least some college experience or college graduates to say that being alone matters to them. Women and men show no difference in their answer on this question, nor do those in different age groups.

On a separate question, 79% say that it "very" or "somewhat" important to them not to have people at work or social situations ask them about things that are "highly personal." Some 44% say that avoiding prying acquaintances is "very important" to them and another 36% say this is "somewhat important."

The ability to avoid "highly personal" questions is an especially important virtue to those over age 50. Some 52% say it is very important to them not to be asked about highly personal matters, compared with 37% of those ages 18-49 who feel that level of sensitivity. In addition, women (84%) are more likely than men (74%) to say that it is important to them not to have people ask them highly personal questions in work and social situations.

By a 2-to-1 margin, people think it is important not to be monitored at work.

Some 56% of Americans say it is important to them not to be monitored at work, compared with 27% who say it is not very or not at all important. Another 15% of adults say they do not know or this issue does not apply to them. Twenty-eight percent say it is "very important" not to be monitored at work and another 28% say it is "somewhat important."

Even as they value the ability to be free from observation, Americans feel it is hard to avoid surveillance in public.

While the patterns of one's digital communications and behaviors have been the focus of much of the recent public discussion about surveillance, Americans also have a pervasive sense that their physical activities may be recorded when they are moving about their daily lives. In the first survey in this series, Americans were asked whether or not they agree that "it is hard to avoid surveillance cameras when I am out in public." The vast majority - 81% - agree that surveillance cameras are hard to avoid; 36% say they "strongly agree" and 45% "agree."

Majorities of every demographic group said they feel this way, with relatively minor variation in the responses. For instance, the oldest adults in the sample were somewhat more likely than those under the age of 50 to feel that surveillance cameras are hard to avoid when they are out in public; 90% of adults ages 65 and older agree that surveillance cameras are hard to avoid in public, compared with 76% of those ages 18-29 and 80% of those ages 30-49 who feel that way.

Similarly, in online focus groups conducted for this report, respondents were prompted to think about specific examples of the kinds of data and information that might be recorded or collected about them. When asked about the kinds of observation that might happen as they are walking down the street, many mentioned the presence of cameras of various kinds. And while most cast these observations in a negative light, some noted that they can be a boon to public safety:
When you are walking down the street, do you ever think that you are being observed in a way that would create a kind of record about where you've been that could be accessed later? "CCTV Cameras are all over the place plus there [are] satellites. All kind[s of] stuff." "We are always on video. We leave [an] imprint as soon as we leave our house." "I'm frightened by high resolution satellite cameras." "Sites visited, purchases made. You are always being filmed on cameras ... which can be a good thing if you are assaulted." "Big Bro is always watching."
Few feel they have "a lot" of control over how much information is collected about them in daily life.

While Americans clearly value having control over their personal information, few feel they have the ability to exert that control. Beyond surveillance cameras, there are many other forms of daily data collection and use that they do not feel they can avoid. When asked how much control they feel they have over how much information is collected about them and how it is used in their everyday lives, only a small minority of Americans say they have "a lot" of control.

Our question on this subject went as follows: Respondents were asked to think about a typical day in their lives as they spend time at home, outside their home, and getting from place to place. They were asked to consider that they might use their cellphone, landline phones or credit cards. They might go online and buy things, use search engines, watch videos or check in on social media. When thinking about all of these activities that might take place on a typical day, just 9% say they feel they have "a lot" of control over how much information is collected about them and how it is used, while 38% say they have "some control." Another 37% assert they have "not much control," and 13% feel they personally have "no control at all" over the way their data is gathered and used.

While there are some minor variations across socioeconomic groups, men, women and adults of all ages report similar views.

In keeping with other research on technology use and perceptions of control, social media users are more likely than non-users to believe they have "a lot" of control over how much information is collected about them and how it is used; 11% feel this way vs. 4% of non-users. However, it is still the case that about half of all social media users feel they have "not much" or "no control at all" over personal data collection and use in daily life.

Those who are more aware of government surveillance efforts feel they have less control over the way their information is collected and used on a typical day.

At the time of this survey, 81% of adults had at least some low level of awareness about the government collecting information about telephone calls, emails and other online communications. One-in-three (32%) said they had heard "a lot" about the programs and almost half (48%) said they had heard "a little." Those who were among the most likely to hear "a lot" about the programs include adults ages 50 and older (40%) and those with a college degree (44%).

Those who are more aware of government surveillance efforts say they have less control over the way their information is collected and used on a typical day; 60% of those who have heard "a lot" about the government collecting information about communications said they feel they have "not much" or "no control at all" over the way their data is gathered and used compared with 47% of those who have heard only "a little" about the monitoring programs.

Focus group discussions suggest that many want more transparency in who collects information about them, but some don't care or don't worry.

In the online focus group discussions, a subset of the survey respondents was asked whether or not they feel as though they "know enough" about who collects data about them and why it is being collected. Among those who felt they don't know enough, respondents noted multiple dimensions of unknowing, including where the data is stored, who has access to it and how it might be used:
Do you feel as though you know enough about who collects information about you and your activities or would you like to know more about who is doing the collecting and the reasons for it? "No we don't know who is always collecting it and the bigger question is where does it go and who also gets to see it." "No. Once it is collected, it has no expiration date ... things collected 10 years ago about my daily patterns are relevant to what I do today? There is a great unknown to it all." "I would like to know more. I feel there is too much secrecy and perhaps the government wants there to be secrecy precisely so that they can monitor what people think they are not being monitored for!" "I would like to know more about who is collecting information and for what reasons." "I would like to know everyone who is collecting data on me and what they are doing with it." "I know from personal experience that we don't (and probably will never) know enough about who is collecting information and why. If people knew how much the Government knew about their day-to-day activities, we wouldn't be so carefree with our lives." "Definitely would like to know who's collecting information about me. What if you're suspected of something unjustly."
At the same time, another group of participants voiced the view that they "don't care" or "don't worry" about who might be collecting data about them and why:
"If I find out, fine. But I'm certainly not going to waste any time on it... too many other things to enjoy in life." "I do not care. I feel I don't do anything wrong so I don't have to worry." "I don't worry too much about this. But I just wonder if the United States is still a free country that we all are looking for." "I lead a very placid life. I don't know of any activity I could be doing that could track me for anything."
When asked about the length of time that data should be retained by various institutions, most Americans feel that "a few months" or less is long enough to store most records of their activity.

Various organizations and companies often are required to retain information about customers or users for legal reasons or as part of their business operations. The length of time varies considerably across different organizations and according to the type of information being retained. Groups that set standards for records management and retention state that one of the core principles of the practice is to determine what is "an appropriate time, taking into account all operational, legal, regulatory and fiscal requirements, and those of all relevant binding authorities."

In this survey there is both wide variation across the length of time that respondents feel is reasonable to store their data, and considerable variance depending on the kind of organization that retains the records of the activity. In general, and even though it may be necessary to provide certain functionality, people are less comfortable with certain online service providers-such as search engine providers and social media sites-storing records and archives of their activity. For instance, 50% of adults think that online advertisers who place ads on the websites they visit should not save any information about their activity.

At the other end of the spectrum, the vast majority of adults are comfortable with the idea that credit card companies might retain records or archives of their activity. However, the length of time that people feel is reasonable varies significantly. While few think that data about their credit card activity should only be stored for a few weeks (6%) or a few months (14%), many more consider a few years (28%) a reasonable length of time. Another 22% think credit card companies should store the information "as long as they need to" and just 13% think that credit card companies "shouldn't save any information."

The notable demographic variances across these questions include:

Women are more likely than men to say that government agencies should retain their records "as long as they need to" (34% vs. 23%).

Women are more likely than men to say that credit card companies should retain their records "as long as they need to" (27% vs. 17%).

Large numbers (24%) of those under age 50 said that the question about landline telephone companies did not apply to them. By contrast, large numbers (30%) of those ages 50 and older said that the question about social media sites didn't apply to them. A slightly smaller number (26%) of older adults said the same about online video sites.

Those who have greater awareness of the government monitoring programs are more likely to believe that certain records should not be saved for any length of time.

Those who have had the most exposure to information about the government surveillance programs also have some of the strongest views about data retention limits for certain kinds of organizations. These differences are particularly notable when considering social media sites; among those who have heard "a lot" about the government collecting communications data as part of anti-terrorism efforts, 55% say that the social media sites they use should not save any information regarding their activity, compared with 35% of those who have heard "a little" about the government monitoring programs.

Focus group discussions highlight some of the public's assumptions and concerns about data collection and surveillance in daily life.

In focus group conversations, panelists noted various ways that they assume information might be collected about them. Expansive government data collection efforts were cited by many respondents and several noted the ways in which hackers might access records that were gathered for other purposes.
Just off the top of your head, what kind of information about you and your activities do you think is being collected and who is collecting it? "Anything digital can record, even a car today tells everything, your cellphone even when it is off is still sending info to the towers." "I have a cousin that was involved in the government. I believe that they try collecting as much information as they possibly can, especially after 9/11. They pretty much know when we sleep, eat, watch, t.v., make calls (and to whom), what videos we rent, and what we like to eat." "I think the NSA does most of the collecting. What they would get from me is location and site address I am accessing, I guess." "I believe that my search and order history on websites is being collected by companies that I order from." "Hackers ... are trying to find out your credit card and other identity information." "Name, address, everybody in my family, my interests, anything I may want to purchase. I think it is collected by the government, and anybody who has great computer knowledge ... can hack." "Web browsing (businesses, govt, hackers), credit card transactions (businesses, govt, hackers), cellphone texts and calls (govt)" "I'm sure the government has buzz words that they take from texts or emails or blogs that they keep an eye on." "I think Facebook can be used as a key tool in getting info by the government & our cellphones." "I think even so-called "private" browsing could be explored by the government if they wanted access...not sure about Snap Chats-does anyone know?"
Americans have little confidence that their data will remain private and secure-particularly when it comes to data collected by online advertisers.

When they consider the various companies and organizations that maintain records of their activity, very few express confidence that the data records held by these institutions would remain private and secure. For all of the 11 entities we asked about - from government agencies to credit card companies to social media sites - only small minorities say they are "very confident" that the records maintained by these organizations will remain private and secure.

However, there are notable variations in Americans' confidence levels according to the type of organization being considered. For instance, just 6% of adults say they are very confident that government agencies can keep their records private and secure, while another 25% say they are somewhat confident.

Credit card companies appear to instill a marginally higher level of confidence when compared with other entities, but they still garner only 9% of respondents saying they are "very confident" and 29% saying they are "somewhat confident" that their data will stay private and secure.

Landline phone companies and cellphone companies are more trusted than digital communications providers, but neither instills great levels of confidence. For instance, just 6% of respondents say they are "very confident" that landline telephone companies will be able to protect their data and 25% say they are "somewhat confident" that the records of their activities will remain private and secure.

In keeping with the findings about the length of time various organizations might store records and archives of activity, online service providers are among the least trusted entities when it comes to keeping information private and secure. When asked about search engine providers, online video sites, social media sites and online advertisers, the majority felt "not too confident" or "not at all confident" that these entities could protect their data:

76% of adults say they are "not too confident" or "not at all confident" that records of their activity maintained by the online advertisers who place ads on the websites they visit will remain private and secure.

69% of adults say they are not confident that records of their activity maintained by the social media sites they use will remain private and secure.

66% of adults say they are not confident that records of their activity maintained by search engine providers will remain private and secure.

66% say they are not confident that records of their activity collected by the online video sites they use will remain private and secure.

Those who have heard "a lot" about the government monitoring programs are less confident in the privacy and security of their data.

Those who have heard "a lot" about the government monitoring programs are less confident in the privacy and security of their data across an array of scenarios. This is true when we ask questions about records maintained by a wide variety of institutions including government agencies, communications companies, landline telephone companies and various online service providers.

The share of Americans who disapprove of the government collection of telephone and internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts continues to outweigh the number who approve.

Four-in-ten (40%) adults say they disapprove of the government's collection of telephone and internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts, while one-in-three (32%) say they approve. At the same time, more than one-in-four (26%) say they don't know if they approve or disapprove. Adults ages 50 and older are considerably more likely to approve of the programs when compared with those under age 50 (42% vs. 24%). Younger adults under age 50 express more uncertainty when compared with older adults; 32% say they "don't know" if they approve or disapprove of the programs, compared with 19% of those ages 50 and older.

Those who have heard "a lot" about the government monitoring programs are far more likely to disapprove of them: 60% disapprove of the programs compared with just 36% of those who have heard only "a little."

However, as other surveys have indicated, Americans' views vary substantially when they consider the idea of monitoring of U.S. citizens vs. foreign citizens. While only a minority of Americans feels it is acceptable for the government to monitor ordinary American citizens, many think it is acceptable to monitor others in a variety of other situations. Americans generally support monitoring foreign citizens and support the use of surveillance to investigate specific scenarios such as those involving criminal activity or suspected involvement with terrorism.

65% of American adults believe there are not adequate limits on the telephone and internet data that the government collects.

The survey also reveals a broadly-held view that there should be greater restrictions on the kinds of information that the government is allowed to collect. When asked to think about the data the government collects as part of anti-terrorism efforts, 65% of Americans say there are not adequate limits on "what telephone and internet data the government can collect." Just 31% say they believe that there are adequate limits on the kinds of data gathered for these programs.

The majority view that there are not sufficient limits on what data the government gathers is consistent across all demographic groups with one modest variation. Those in the highest-income households are somewhat more likely than those in the lowest-income groups to say that the limits on government data collection are sufficient; 36% of adults living in households earning $75,000 or more per year think the limits on these programs are adequate, compared with 21% of those in households earning $30,000 or less per year.

Notably, those who are more aware of the government surveillance efforts are more likely to feel there are not adequate safeguards in place; 74% of those who have heard "a lot" about the programs say that there are not adequate limits, compared with 62% who have heard only "a little" about the monitoring programs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Americans' Views About Data Collection and Security

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Contrary to assertions that people " don't care" about privacy in the digital age, this survey suggests that Americans hold a range of strong views about the importance of control over their personal information and freedom from surveillance in daily life.