(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
"What do you feel when a police car drives right behind you? Imagine living your whole life with that feeling, ”says Ben Wizner. He tries to explain Snowden's concept turnkey tyranny for the assembly at the Technology and the Human Future conference. Wizner is head of freedom of expression, privacy and technology at The American Civil Liberties Union, and has been Edward Snowden's lawyer since the whistleblower appeared three years ago. To Ny Tid, he tells how the future can look like if we continue to expand the infrastructure for monitoring.
Turnkey tyranny. The most dramatic scenario is well known: If we build a surveillance apparatus that gives the authorities access to in-depth information about the lives of citizens – what happens on the day a tyrant comes to power? The scenario may have seemed distant to many, but in the wake of the US election campaign, Snowden himself has expressed concern that Donald Trump may be just such a tyrant. Would Trump use the NSA's ability to pursue his personal enemies if he could? Snowden's point is, at least, that the capacity of the surveillance machinery the United States has built up is so far-reaching that if one were to remove the statutory restrictions and exploit the machinery to its full capacity, it would be like a fit complete totalitarian dictatorship right out of the box – a turnkey tyranny.
To Ny Tid, Wizner explains that he is equally concerned that surveillance measures that would prevent terrorism end up being used for completely trivial purposes – regardless of who sits as president. "The term we use is 'mission creep,'" Wizner says. It has its Norwegian parallel in the concept of «purpose slippage». "Mission creep is not a conspiracy theory. There is a common tendency for technology developed for a limited purpose to migrate and eventually be used for broader purposes. " We find the same tendency again in connection with protests on the streets of Ferguson, Baton Rouge, and last in line, Standing Rock. In many places, the police are now equipped with military equipment – a side effect of the enormous rearmament of the war on terror.
Intelligence or investigation? Since the twin towers in Manhattan fell 15 years ago, new surveillance capabilities have been sold as a solution to prevent terrorism. Wizner tells an anecdote, first cited by Foreign Policy News magazine, about how former NSA chief Keith Alexander worked to influence politicians to support his plans to collect everything that can be collected. "He had set up a headquarters he called 'The Information Dominance Center'. It was designed by a Hollywood set designer to mimic The Bridge of The Starship Enterprise from Star Trek – complete with chrome panels, computer stations, a large front-facing TV screen and doors that made a vouchsound as they slide up and down. Parliamentarians and other key officials sat in the captain's leather chair in the middle of the room in turn, while Alexander displayed his big-screen computer tools. "
After the recent terrorist attacks in France, the development of new surveillance capabilities and new police and intelligence powers has also accelerated in Europe. According to Wizner, it is far from certain that these opportunities will cause more terrorist plans to be stopped. "These massive surveillance databases have a very limited ability to predict incidents, at least when it comes to terrorism, but they can have tremendous investigative value. Terrorism is still a very rare occurrence, ”says Wizner. Thus, it will be relatively easy to draw a straight line through the information that is in the light of hindsight, and thus find the guilty, but that does not mean that it will be as easy to predict a terrorist attack based on the same information. This is precisely why Wizner sees it as very likely that the use of these databases will migrate from intelligence organizations to police organizations. Once you have all this information, why not use it for what it is most suitable for?
"I hope people realize that if all the cops knew what the NSA knows, our society would have looked completely different, and we would feel much less free."
Little brother sees you. Ny Tid asks Wizner why it should be a problem if the police get access to the surveillance databases. Is it so much worse than the NSA having access? "I think there are several reasons why we should be concerned. One is the social and democratic aspect. We may be afraid to participate in demonstrations. We may want to avoid being associated with certain people if we know that everything is always registered, "says Wizner. The other aspect Wizner is concerned about is access abuse. We know that public officials have already abused this to, for example, spy on and prosecute their exes. "They use the information in all sorts of ways that we do not call big brother, but little brother. It is an enormous power to release, when there are not only a handful of people operating under strict rules, but hundreds of thousands of police officers around the country, "Wizner explains. "I hope people realize that if all cops knew what the NSA knows, our society would have looked completely different, and we would feel much less free."
From the police's perspective, it might make life much easier. If everything was filmed and recorded, you would drop words against words. You could rewind and see what happened and who did the deed in each case. “Imagine you were sent a fine every time you drove a mile an hour over the speed limit. We could send a fine every time someone throws garbage on the street or does not recycle a plastic bottle if we wish. We have the technology for it, but we don't want to live in a society where we are always observed and where every offense, no matter how small, is recorded and automatically punished. ” For Wizner, the concept of "national security" is especially dangerous. It brings together two things that should be separate: to defend the country from external threats, and to fight crime. "National security" strikes me as a formless term that can include anything. Then you end up giving the authorities special powers against threats that are completely ordinary. ”
