INTERNET USERS SHOULDN''T EXPECT PRIVACY, EXPERT SAYS

By defence and national security correspondent Michael Brissenden

Updated Wed 9 Oct 2013

 

Photo: Inmarsat's Andy Start says it is surprising that people would be surprised that their internet traffic could be intercepted. (Nic MacBean, file photo: ABC News)

Internet and mobile technology is developing with such pace that it is impossible to guarantee electronic privacy and nobody should expect it, according to an industry expert.

The development of any type of technology has nothing at all to do with whether an employee of a government, or government agency chooses to respect your privacy. 

So why is this 'development of technology speed' nonsense being pushed onto the public, particularly without proof, and, at the top of the story? 

Because they are trying to program you so you will accept government employees spying on you. 

Would they accept the premise promulgated in this articles opening paragraph, if, you presented it as a defence, in a court case whereby you had been charged with spying on them? 

Revelations of the US government's mass surveillance program, PRISM, have alarmed many and led to calls for greater transparency from government intelligence agencies.

Although the Australian Government will not confirm it "for reasons of national security", –how precisely does a 'yes' or a 'no' constitute a problem for national security, given that these politicians are happy to bug the phone calls of foreign nations like Indonesia & China?– it is widely believed that Australia's long-standing intelligence relationship with the US means electronic surveillance collected here is shared with the US National Security Agency and the PRISM network.

Documents obtained by the ABC under Freedom of Information laws show the Federal Government knew about the secret US internet spying program PRISM months before a whistleblower made details public. Only months?

Andy Start, the president of global government business for Inmarsat - the largest mobile satellite service in the world - says the only way to ensure a conversation remains private is to have it face to face.

Unless one of the parties has one of these devices that violates privacy. Of course, it is in this blokes interest to be able to spy on users willy nilly so he is hardly going to offer an independent appraisal. 

Mr Start says rapid developments in technology mean any thought of internet privacy is irrelevant.

Notice that he is back with the technology lie? One feature of programming is 'repetition'. Lets see if the article is employing this programming instrument, this is the second attempt at repeated an obvious fallacy.

Already any government agency that wants to know what an individual is doing has the ability to track them.

"It's true to say that you shouldn't be doing anything in cyberspace that you wouldn't do in public. If you're ashamed to do it in front of your grandma you probably don't want to do it on the internet," he said.

Here is another fallacy, another piece of programming, presented in accordance with the repetition instrument, this being the idea, that the only reason people want privacy is so that they can go on and do something 'bad'.

The reality is different.


We want to make the choice about whether we share or don't share with others, and what conditions govern these things that we share. 


What we certainly don't want is to have a body of people that we do not trust, and, who like to take things down to use against you, accessing your private actions covertly or openly.

The point is that we like all like and value our privacy, not just those who are 'bad'. 

Mr Start says "it's a surprise that people would be surprised" that their internet and phone traffic could be intercepted and tracked.

He is surprised that we are surprised that free governments are spying on its own people.

This infers that we are naive if we don't accept this as a natural way of life.

Does this mean that tv presenters & politicians are being naive when they protest that governments would never harm or poison its own people with acts of terrorism, poisons in our food & water etc? 

'Greater collaboration among governments'

Inmarsat is one of more than 400 defence and security corporations who have descended on the Sydney convention centre for the 2013 international maritime exposition, a forum for the maritime and naval defence industries to show case their wares, network and win valuable Australian and international contracts.

The company has contracts with intelligence and defence services in many countries, including the US and Australia, and while not commenting on specific operations.

Mr Start says governments are collaborating on electronic surveillance more and more and the old intelligence networks are stronger than ever.

i wonder how he knows this. Is he from the intelligence community originally?

"I think we're seeing greater and greater collaboration among many governments and not just the traditional ones," he said.

Here is some more Orwellian, marketing jargon; "the traditional ones" as in 'traditional governments'.

What is a traditional government and a non-traditional government? 

"As we see global insecurity increasing –a presumption tendered without evidence– and we see greater terrorist activity –another presumption tendered without evidence–the need or cooperation between governments is increasing."

Presuming that the governments are NOT the terrorists themselves. 

And as the pace of the technology explosion intensifies, –here is the third employment of the repetition program albeit in a less obvious, minimalist employment, fundamentally operating as a reminder and primer for what is coming further into the story, think of this statement as being Pavlov's whistle– governments are finding it a challenge to stay on top of the changes.

If governments are incompetent, then we need to get rid of them.
 
"Technology is moving at just a phenomenal rate and if you look at any graphs on innovation you'll see we're innovating more now than at any time in human history," he said.

–here is the fourth employment of the repetition program, which has nothing to do with whether someone chooses to respect or not respect your privacy–

Mr Smart says no-one really knows where the technology is heading precisely, but it is clear there will be more speed and more mobility and mobile applications for everyone.

–here is the fifth employment of the repetition program albeit masked in a completely irrelevant statement–

"If you read any science fiction book of 20 years ago about what was going to be happening in the far future, well all of that is happening already," he said.

Reading a fictional book from 1993 is supposed to be relevant, somehow, to whether it is appropriate for your privacy not to be respected.

Of course, if these issues are as predictable as to be previewed 20 years ago by fictional authors, then, either, these authors should be our politicians, or, these overwhelming technological changes that apparently require governments to have no choice but to spy on us are not that overwhelming after all.....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-09/dont-expect-internet-privacy-expert-warns/5010314