# data[].attributes.headline
What are governments afraid of? How do these fears affect how they govern?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are governments afraid of? How do these fears affect how they govern?

# data[].attributes.headline
What are citizens afraid of? How doe those fears affect how they interact with government?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are citizens afraid of? How doe those fears affect how they interact with government?

# data[].attributes.headline
Students will be able to compare the world portrayed in 1984 with the world around them. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Students will be able to compare the world portrayed in 1984 with the world around them. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Students will be able to think critically about government and citizenship, determining their personal beliefs about the roles and responsibilities of each institution. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Students will be able to think critically about government and citizenship, determining their personal beliefs about the roles and responsibilities of each institution. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Students will be able to make connections between the fears of citizens and the fears of government and determine how those fears affect society.

# data[].attributes.subject
Students will be able to make connections between the fears of citizens and the fears of government and determine how those fears affect society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Daisy Girl" Rare 1964 Lyndon Johnson Political Ad -aired only once- 9/7/64

# data[].attributes.headline
"Apple's FaceID Could Be a Powerful Tool for Mass Spying"

# data[].attributes.subject
"Apple's FaceID Could Be a Powerful Tool for Mass Spying"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This Tuesday Apple unveiled a new line of phones to much fanfare, but one feature immediately fell under scrutiny: FaceID, a tool that would use facial recognition to identify individuals and unlock their phones.

WIRED OPINION

ABOUT

Jake Laperruque (@jakelaperruque) is senior counsel for privacy and security issues at The Constitution Project. He previously served as a fellow for New America's Open Technology Institute and The Center for Democracy and Technology.

Unsurprisingly, this raised major anxiety about consumer privacy given its profound ramifications: Retailers already crave facial recognition to monitor consumers, and without legally binding terms, Apple could use FaceID to track consumer patterns at its stores, or develop and sell data to others. It's also possible that police would be able to more easily unlock phones without consent by simply holding an individual's phone up to his or her face.

But FaceID should create fear about another form of government surveillance: mass scans to identify individuals based on face profiles. Law enforcement is rapidly increasing use of facial recognition; one in two American adults are already enrolled in a law enforcement facial recognition network, and at least one in four police departments have the capacity to run face recognition searches . But until now, co-opting consumer platforms hasn't been an option. While Facebook has a powerful facial recognition system, it doesn't maintain the operating systems that control the cameras on phones, tablets, and laptops that stare at us every day. Apple's new system changes that. For the first time, a company will have a facial recognition system with millions of profiles, and the hardware to scan and identify faces throughout the world.

And this could in theory make Apple an irresistible target for a new type of mass surveillance order. The government could issue an order to Apple with a set of targets and instructions to scan iPhones, iPads, and Macs to search for specific targets based on FaceID, and then provide the government with those targets' location based on the GPS data of devices' that receive a match. Apple has a good record of fighting for user privacy, but there's only so much the company could do if its objections to an order are turned down by the courts. (On Wednesday Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) released a letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook, asking how the company will handle the technology's security and private implications.)

Over the last decade the government has increasingly embraced this type of mass scan method. Edward Snowden's disclosures revealed the existence of Upstream, a program under FISA Section 702 (set to expire in just a few months). With Upstream, the NSA scans all internet communications going into and out of the United States for surveillance targets' emails, as well as IP addresses and what the agency has called cybersignatures. And last year Reuters revealed that Yahoo, in compliance with a government order, built custom software to scan hundreds of millions of email accounts for content that contained a digital signature used by surveillance targets.

To many these mass scans are unconstitutional and unlawful, but that has not stopped the government from pursing them. Nor have those concerns prevented the secretive FISA Court from approving the government's requests, all too often with the public totally unaware that mass scans continue to sift through millions of Americans' private communications.

Until now text has been the focus of mass scan surveillance, but Apple and FaceID could change that. By generating millions of face prints while simultaneously controlling the cameras that can scan and identify them, Apple might soon face a government order to turn its new unlocking system into the killer app for mass surveillance.

What should Apple-and the rest of us-do to respond to this risk? First, Apple should take every step possible to insulate itself from an overly broad government order to conduct mass scans for faces. Face prints developed through FaceID should be stored only locally on devices, and should be fully encrypted so that the company cannot access them remotely, even if legally compelled to surreptitiously take control of an iPhone.

However, the unresolved fight between Apple and the FBI over encryption makes this an unreliable remedy. Therefore, Apple should also update its Transparency Reports to include data on whether it receives orders to turn over facial recognition profiles, or to conduct facial recognition scans, leaving a so-called warrant canary to serve as an alarm bell if it receives a troubling order related to FaceID in the future.

Finally, and more broadly, the public should demand that Congress rein in government's ever-growing affinity for mass scan surveillance. Limiting or outlawing the controversial Upstream program when the authority it's based on expires this December would be an excellent start, but facial recognition scans may soon be as big a component of mass surveillance, and the public need to be ready.

WIRED Opinion publishes pieces written by outside contributors and represents a wide range of viewpoints. Read more opinions here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Apple's FaceID Could Be a Powerful Tool for Mass Spying

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Tuesday Apple unveiled a new line of phones to much fanfare, but one feature immediately fell under scrutiny: FaceID, a tool that would use facial recognition to identify individuals and unlock their phones. WIRED OPINION ABOUT Jake Laperruque (@jakelaperruque) is senior counsel for privacy and security issues at The Constitution Project.

# data[].attributes.headline
"1984 and our modern surveillance society"

# data[].attributes.subject
"1984 and our modern surveillance society"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mass surveillance is now a part of our social, economic and political lives-governments and companies snoop on us like never before. But are we really heading toward an Orwellian future? Antony Funnell investigates.
When George Orwell finished work on 1984 he was already a man without a future. Fading rapidly from tuberculosis, his most celebrated novel was to be his last.

He died shortly after its publication.

Yet more than half a century later, his dystopian vision of the future is alive and in rude good health.

The Shake & Stir theatre company is just completing a national tour of Australia with an adaptation overseen by noted director and dramaturge Michael Futcher.

We look the other way when Google is watching us, but when the government is watching us it makes our blood run cold, and in this last year, more and more people have had that moment of blood running cold.

Mark Pesce, author and futurist, University of Sydney

The play wasn't originally meant to tour, but for Futcher, its popularity with a contemporary audience is entirely understandable.

'The world of 1984 is a perfect metaphor for today,' he says. 'People want to understand the nature of the type of power which is wielded in this story and how it relates to our own society. I think the audience just get it, they get the parallels very clearly, because they are so obvious these days.'

'When we did the show here originally in 2012 we had packed houses pretty much every night and it was sold out almost before opening night. The whole season was sold out.'

As Futcher points out, sales of the novel on Amazon.com increased last year by nearly 9,000 per cent following the revelation by US whistleblower Edward Snowden that US security organisations-in particular the NSA-were engaged in global mass surveillance on an unprecedented scale.

'All of this space that we thought was open to us and was free for us to express ourselves in, suddenly seems very closed,' says futurist and digital culture analyst Mark Pesce, who believes the Snowden expose has not only made 1984 more relevant, but also caused many people to reassess the nature and direction of our digital world.

'For 29 years after 1984 we really thought we'd dodged a bullet, that western democracies were safe, powerful and we were all living in freedom. Then last year when the Snowden revelations came out it started to become clearer and clearer that in fact 1984 wasn't far off the mark; that the NSA and its associated organisations were all colluding in massive wide-scale surveillance of populations and specific targeted surveillance of world leaders.'
Read more: Why Facebook and Twitter are the Panopticons of our time

More troubling still, according to Pesce, is the fact that the governments cooperating with the United States in wholesale global surveillance include Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia-all nations with strong democratic and anti-totalitarian traditions.

'Everything that we projected onto the Stasi in East Germany as being this ultimate totalitarian state with its monitoring of the population has in fact become reflected back to us in the scale of what the NSA is doing.'

Complicating matters further, Pesce says, is the fact that the economic and social basis for much of our modern digital existence is now centred firmly around some form of surveillance; a social media platform like Facebook, for instance, only works the way it does because its users allow the company to trawl their personal data in return for recommendation-based services.

We may not always recognise this more benign form of surveillance for what it is, but Pesce believes its prevalence complicates our understanding of the difference between healthy data-tracking and unhealthy surveillance.

'Younger people share and share freely because this is the culture they've grown up in. Folks who are a little bit older, they're new to it and they do it, but it's something that they learned when they were a little older and they maybe have a bit more critical distance around it.'

'That critical distance can range from wide open "yes, I'm going to share everything" all the way to tinfoil: "I don't even own a mobile phone". You meet people like this, who are really that scared of the surveillance aspects that they don't own a mobile. You can't say that there's any one right reaction to this. This is all still very new. In some ways we are all learning together.'

'What we haven't really had is that moment of critical distancing. We look the other way when Google is watching us, but when the government is watching us it makes our blood run cold, and in this last year, more and more people have had that moment of blood running cold.'

However, Pesce sees a growing tension developing between those involved in surveillance for commercial reasons and those conducting surveillance on people's digital lives on the grounds of state security.

'This is a big dilemma, because surveillance for Google has a strong commercial component and that places them at loggerheads with the government where there's a security component ... So there's a fundamental tension there between the needs of commerce and the needs of state security.'

'You could imagine in some weird science fiction future that the NSA will be getting its data feed from Google. Oh actually, it turns out that the NSA was tapping Google's data feed, that's right! Or you could imagine a different science-fiction future where Google would be getting the NSA data feed in order to provide you with better products and services. Already half of that very weird science-fiction future has been proven to be the case. So you do have this situation where, although their aims are very different, it's possible for the state to subvert the aims of commerce for its own ends.'

There are clear signs of pushback from social networks and communications providers against being co-opted into an Orwellian security apparatus, however.

In June this year global communications company Vodafone went public with its disquiet over the encroaching nature of state surveillance. The organisation released what it called a Law Enforcement Disclosure Report accusing governments of all persuasions of pressuring online service providers into surveillance cooperation.

Speaking in London, Vodafone's Group Privacy Officer, Stephen Deadman, called on governments to be more open and transparent in their dealings with telecommunications operators; he also confirmed long-held suspicions that some governments operated on a 'direct access' basis when dealing with telcos. That is, they've set-up covert systems which allow them to access the communications data of citizens without first seeking a court order or warrant, and without even notifying the telco in question when the harvesting of personal communications data is taking place.
Listen: Future of drone strikes could see execution by algorithm
For legal reasons, Vodafone refused to name those governments involved in such a practice, but said at least six were employing the direct access approach.

'Technology companies don't want to be the proxy for government and then to take the blame for whatever surveillance is occurring, no matter how legitimate it is,' says data specialist Rob Hillard, a managing partner with Deloitte Consulting Australia.

Hillard speaks of increasing levels of frustration among social networks over the restrictions they face which prevent them from informing their users/customers about the nature of government surveillance activity.

He argues that in order to fully understand the true drivers of the 21 st century surveillance society, you have to focus not just on the tracking, but on what's being tracked.

'Data is all around us and we are constantly looking for ways to join it together. While we aren't being monitored visually, we are increasingly giving away large amounts of personal information in terms of our location,' he says 'This isn't a new phenomenon. The thing that's changed is that the volume of information that we are putting out about ourselves has created new opportunities. Then the question is "where is the balance?"'

While describing himself as a digital optimist, Hillard admits feeling troubled by last year's Snowden/NSA revelations and the implications they present for the future of personal privacy and freedom.

To better understand just how intermeshed our modern lives are with tracking and big data, Hillard recently set himself a unique task: to try and live for an entire day without leaving a data footprint. It was an exercise he dubbed his 1984 challenge.

'My life is so integrated with the digital world, and I really wanted to see whether it was possible for me to completely disconnect and still live a productive life,' he says.

'I very much benefit from the digital world in which I live, it makes me more productive. I believe that my data is used overwhelmingly for the purposes for which I want it to be used-to my benefit and to society's benefit. But I also want to know that it's in my control. So I set out to live for a day creating the smallest possible footprint that I could.'

Problems began to arise almost immediately: 'One of the things I got caught out on was when I logged in to work. I initially avoided using services that touched the internet,' he says. 'But, of course, like most people, my PC is connected to a whole lot of cloud services and automatically just the act of logging on left a digital crumb of when I logged on and what I did.'

For Hillard, the clear message is that it isn't all about government, that citizens need to develop a better understanding of their own digital behaviour and the importance of the data they generate.

'Many of George Orwell's fears are coming true,' he argued in a recent blog post, before adding: 'The cause is not an oppressive government but rather an eagerness by the population as a whole to move services onto new platforms without demanding the same level of protection that their previous custodians have provided for a couple of centuries or more.'

'There are a lot of benefits from connected culture, but what I think is becoming more clear to us is what the costs are,' agrees Mark Pesce. 'I don't think we are quite there yet but I think we are on that road.'

'I think as part of that journey people will learn how to modulate their own level of privacy and sharing. Right now it's hard to do that. There isn't a lot of opportunity in the marketplace or in human understanding for how you actually modulate your privacy in public. I think that as that demand increases we will develop cultural techniques and we will also develop tools that will allow us to modulate our privacy.'

Despite the global uproar which followed last year's Snowden spying scandal, governments all around the world are showing little interest in scaling back on their spying and tracking activities.

On the contrary, the Australian Government, with the agreement of the Labor Opposition, is currently pushing for increased surveillance powers for Australia's security services, including a foreshadowed requirement that telcos retain their customers' call data for up to two years, just in case that data is required for reasons of state security.

While there's bipartisan agreement in Australia on the need for an increase in state surveillance capabilities, in the United States, however, it's a different story.

Over the past year, many legislators have broken ranks with their parties to speak out against government snooping. That said, their attempts to curtail the surveillance state have so far proven less than effective.

Take the USA Freedom Act, for example: introduced in October 2013, the Act's sole purpose was to bring the NSA to heel. After months of negotiation, the bill finally passed the US House of Representatives in May this year, but not before being disowned by some of its original sponsors including California Representative Zoe Lofgren, who complained that the act had been so severely watered-down during the committee process it was no longer a protection against the mass surveillance of American citizens.

'Many members of Congress may not have realised that what they thought was a vote to end unwarranted spying against Americans with the USA Freedom Act was actually a vote to reauthorise the Patriot Act,' Lofgren was quoted as saying immediately after the bill's passage.

Listen to this episode of Future Tense to find out more.

More

This [series episode segment] has image, and transcript

The American Civil Liberties Union, however, has welcomed the act as a necessary 'first step', though they too say it has lost much of its bite.

Neema Singh Guliani from the ACLU agrees with Lofgren that the language used in the Bill is too elastic. It still allows for the mass collection of data by the NSA and affiliated agencies. She also says civil libertarians were disappointed that provisions aimed at forcing greater transparency were removed

'One of the key things that I think citizens felt and members of both parties felt was that we were shocked by the Snowden revelations, and that there needed to be increased transparency about what the secret intelligence courts were doing and what they were authorising,' she says.

'The original act had provisions that would have required some of these opinions to be declassified so that Congress and the American people could really look at what the government was doing and assess whether it was consistent with the law; and also consistent with what we as a country want to be done. Those provisions were severely weakened in the bill that emerged.'

The impact of state surveillance is not theoretical, says Guliani, who warns that its effects are already being felt by average citizens. As a consequence, behavioural change within society is underway.

'We see studies that have come out that say almost half of people are changing the way they use the internet because they think the government is watching them,' she says. 'We see journalists who speak to it and say, look, I'm no longer wanting to write about certain things or I'm no longer wanting to speak about certain things because I'm afraid that the government is watching me or that that's going to put me on a target list.'

'That type of change in behaviour really strikes fundamentally at the values of our society. So I think the companies pushing back on data retention, pushing back on efforts to facilitate government surveillance is really a part of a broader understanding and a broader push-back from the country to say that this authority has gone too far, we are sacrificing too much.'
Exploring new ideas, new approaches, new technologies-the edge of change. Future Tense analyses the social, cultural and economic fault lines arising from rapid transformation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
1984 and our modern surveillance society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mass surveillance is now a part of our social, economic and political lives-governments and companies snoop on us like never before. But are we really heading toward an Orwellian future? Antony Funnell investigates. When George Orwell finished work on 1984 he was already a man without a future.

# data[].attributes.body
Students will create a presentation where they give an in depth portrait of what the government will look like in the dystopian future of 2057.
This presentation is also where students will answer the unit's essential questions.

# data[].attributes.body
Students will create a short pamphlet where they will write from the perspective of the 2057 government, persuading the public their regime is positive.

# data[].attributes.body
Students will write a short story from the perspective of an average citizen protagonist. In this short story, they will explore the fears of citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
Monday, March 19th - The 4 Ministries Lesson

Tuesday, March 20th - Modern Connections (“1984” commercial, surveillance articles)

Wednesday, March 21st - Future Predictions (Excerpts from Who Fears Death)

Thursday, March 22nd - What Are Governments Afraid Of?

Friday, March 23rd - 2057 Government Proposal

Monday, March 26th - Workshop Day for Presentation Draft

Tuesday, March 27th - Propaganda Lesson (“Daisy”)

Wednesday, March 28th - Workshop Day for Pamphlets

Thursday, March 29th - What Are Citizens Afraid Of? (“The Patriot Act” CRF)

Friday, March 30th - HOLIDAY

Monday, April 2nd - Close Reading Lesson

Tuesday, April 3rd - Character Creation (“The Girl,” Who Fears Death)

Wednesday, April 4th - Organizing and Outlining Lesson

Thursday, April 5th - Workshop Day for Final Presentation

Friday, April 6th - Workshop Day for Final Presentation

Monday, April 9th - Presentations

Tuesday, April 10th - Presentations