Capítulo 4
Encryption: Essential Protection, Not Criminal Tool
Law enforcement and intelligence agencies equate encryption and online privacy tools with criminal activity, claiming that disguising one's identity must mean hiding something nefarious. This myth facilitates mass surveillance and pressures tech companies to build "backdoors" for police access. In reality, only about three percent of users connecting to hidden services are engaged in illicit activities, while most use privacy tools for legitimate reasons.
Encryption protects government systems, including those used by intelligence and law enforcement agencies themselves. The "Crypto Wars" emerged as academics, researchers, and privacy advocates sought to protect user data while intelligence agencies wanted access limitations to thwart foreign intelligence. Financial institutions led the push for strong encryption, followed by tech companies and social media platforms.
Two cases highlight ongoing tensions: After the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, the FBI sought court orders to force Apple to decrypt a shooter's iPhone, which Apple refused before a cybersecurity firm eventually unlocked it. Similarly, after the 2019 Pensacola Naval Air Station shooting, the FBI again requested Apple's help with a newer, more secure iPhone. Attorney General William Barr criticized encryption as creating "law-free zones," while a Washington Post investigation revealed the FBI had exaggerated claims about inaccessible devices by at least four times, undermining their "going dark" narrative.
When Homeland Security pressured a New Hampshire library to stop using Tor, public protest quickly forced restoration of the anonymity software. IT librarian Chuck McAndrew emphasizes the need for technical competency among politicians who legislate these matters, noting that poor computer literacy in government leads to dangerous laws that "weaken security and endanger the average citizen while claiming to do the opposite."
Security experts consistently maintain that an internet resilient against fraud and espionage is incompatible with government backdoors. Tor remains "critical infrastructure for internet freedom," enabling activists worldwide to communicate safely under authoritarian regimes. As McAndrew points out, anonymity has historical precedent: "When Thomas Paine published Common Sense he did so anonymously," allowing him to create "one of the most influential works in American history."
Capítulo 5
Corporate Surveillance: The Invisible Data Harvesters
While government mass surveillance seems ominous, corporations conduct equally massive surveillance both as government contractors and for their own profit. They gather consumer information through an expanding network of "smart" devices, including home assistants, security cameras, fitness trackers, and even household appliances. Corporate espionage operations deploy sophisticated tools to prevent trade secret theft, while dedicated teams monitor activists, journalists, and whistleblowers who criticize corporate wrongdoing. A Washington Post investigation revealed approximately 1,931 private security companies and 1,271 government organizations engaged in intelligence gathering under counterterrorism justifications, creating a vast surveillance-industrial complex.
As contractors, corporations circumvent constitutional protections that constrain government agencies, operating in a legal gray zone with minimal oversight. Privacy has become monetized-"not as a right but as a luxury good"-with companies offering premium products like VPNs, encrypted messaging services, and secure email platforms to protect browsing history while the less affluent remain exposed. This creates a "data tax for participating in democracy," disproportionately affecting low-income communities where automated surveillance equipment performs control functions similar to historical monitoring of marginalized groups. For example, facial recognition systems are deployed more heavily in low-income neighborhoods, and data brokers specifically target vulnerable populations with predatory financial products.
The NSA's mission evolved from code-making and breaking to monitoring Americans' electronic communications under the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, establishing a framework for private sector collaboration. Edward Snowden's 2013 revelations exposed how private contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton conduct surveillance for government agencies, abusing mandates to collect vast amounts of domestic information including email metadata, phone records, and internet browsing histories.
Private contractors openly acknowledge they operate without constitutional constraints, creating concerning precedents for accountability. As legal scholar Kimberly Wehle notes regarding Eric Prince's proposal for private mercenaries in Afghanistan, "The Bill of Rights would not constrain Prince's army" and "nefarious activity could occur in the name of the U.S. Government" with little public recourse. This same principle applies to domestic surveillance contractors who collect data with minimal restrictions.
Corporate surveillance threatens both privacy and dissent through specialized "risk mitigation" companies that conduct domestic surveillance of activists and organizations. These firms produce detailed briefing documents identifying "threats"-not to safety or health, but to corporate profits and reputation. They monitor social media, infiltrate activist groups, and create databases of individuals deemed threatening to corporate interests. SeaWorld exemplifies this practice, having infiltrated PETA by sending employees to pose as activists while encouraging illegal sabotage to discredit the organization. When exposed, corporations typically downplay their infiltration while characterizing legitimate activism as "credible threats," using their surveillance capabilities to suppress criticism and maintain control over public narratives.
Capítulo 6
National ID Systems: The Semantic Sleight-of-Hand
The myth that America lacks national ID numbers persists through semantic games rather than reality. Like the politically expedient rebranding of "torture" as "enhanced interrogation" or "global warming" as "climate change," avoiding the term "national ID number" allows leaders to maintain the illusion of American exceptionalism while implementing comprehensive identification systems.
America actually has two de facto national ID systems: Social Security Numbers and REAL ID. Though technically "non-compulsory," both are practically mandatory for full participation in modern society. The Social Security Number has experienced significant mission creep from its original purpose. As Carolyn Puckett of the Social Security Administration notes, it "has become a number assigned at birth and used by many government agencies to identify individuals and by private industry to track an individual's financial history"-the "one unique tag that follows an individual throughout life."
After 9/11, advocates like Alan Dershowitz promoted national ID systems as anti-terrorism measures. Proponents claim such systems enhance security, reduce racial profiling, increase law enforcement accountability, and prevent identity theft through forgery-resistant credentials.
The security benefits of national ID systems are largely mythical. A 2004 Privacy International study found no correlation between national ID cards and terrorism prevention-80% of countries experiencing terrorist attacks between 1986-2004 used national ID cards. Identity verification does nothing to predict terrorist tendencies, as demonstrated by US Army veteran Wade Michael Page's 2002 attack on a Sikh temple.
Rather than enhancing security, mandatory IDs may incentivize identity theft. While features like holograms complicate forgery, the Electronic Frontier Foundation warns that biometric databases create "honeypots" vulnerable to exploitation. ID programs outsourced to private companies lack public accountability, creating interconnected vulnerabilities across multiple databases.
Electronic IDs (eIDs) appear to be the inevitable evolution of REAL ID cards, with over 80% of countries with national ID systems already using them as of 2017. These cards contain microprocessors enabling stronger document verification, online authentication, digital signatures, and often biometric identification through stored fingerprints.
While authorities claim these systems help secure borders, verify employment status, prosecute criminals, and combat fraud and terrorism, citizens in the "Five Eyes" countries have strongly opposed biometric national ID schemes. Their concerns are well-founded: biometric systems have significant weaknesses, and unlike passwords or signatures, compromised biometric data cannot be reissued.
Capítulo 7
Surveillance Drones: From Battlefield to Backyard
Drones have numerous civilian applications beyond warfare, from lifesaving rescues to photography. In 2017, Australian lifeguards used a drone to drop a float to two distressed teenagers swimming far offshore, enabling their safe return through powerful surf. Unmanned aerial vehicles can access dangerous locations without risking human lives, aid search and rescue missions, help firefighters with gas and infrared sensors, gather air samples, and map remote areas affordably.
While unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have military origins dating back to 1849 when Austria dropped explosives from hot-air balloons over Venice, their evolution into surveillance tools accelerated when the US military first used them for photographic reconnaissance in the mid-1950s. Video capabilities transformed their utility, with remote-controlled "Gnat" gliders (later renamed Predators) first deployed in Hungary in 1995, capable of detecting movement from 60 miles away.
Surveillance drones have now become fixtures in civilian life, offering perfect surveillance platforms that can remain airborne for extended periods, often fly undetected, and carry sophisticated cameras and tracking software. In May 2020, a military-grade MQ-9 Reaper drone from US Customs and Border Protection circled 20,000 feet above Minneapolis during George Floyd protests, potentially using facial recognition to catalog protesters.
Baltimore's controversial aerial surveillance program launched in May 2020 demonstrates the evolution from public safety to mass surveillance. Though using Cessna aircraft rather than drones, the $4 million contract with Persistent Surveillance Systems employed sophisticated wide-angle cameras covering one-third of the city in each frame, with resolution sufficient to distinguish individuals. Three planes flying 12 hours daily covered 90% of Baltimore's area, creating what ACLU attorney David Rocah calls "a virtual time machine" allowing police to trace anyone's movements.
This technology represents an unprecedented surveillance capability-"the technological equivalent of having a police officer follow you every time you walk out the door." The 2018 Supreme Court decision in Carpenter v. United States recognized that new technologies require preserving privacy from government intrusion, with Chief Justice Roberts noting surveillance tools have enhanced government's ability to "encroach on areas normally guarded from inquisitive eyes."
The affordability of drones dramatically increases their surveillance potential. At under $20,000 for infrared-equipped models (compared to $3 million for police helicopters), departments can deploy hundreds of drones instead of a single helicopter. These drone fleets can watch individuals unnoticed from thousands of feet away, use automated identification software, and follow targets without human pilots.
Capítulo 8
The False Promise of Safety Through Surveillance
The myth that surveillance makes the nation safer emerged after 9/11 to justify widespread spying on citizens. Despite billions spent on counterterrorism, the results have been disappointing. As Dana Priest and William Arkin noted in "Top Secret America," taxpayers funded massive surveillance without questioning what they were getting for their money. The US Army War College's own assessment is blunt: "U.S. efforts in the war on terror have been largely ineffective." In fact, since 9/11, more Americans have been killed by terrorist acts than before, and the number of extremist organizations has increased nearly four-fold to 230,000 Salafi jihadists across 70 nations.
Throughout American history, surveillance justified by national security has repeatedly trampled civil liberties while failing to make us safer. These initiatives have stigmatized entire communities with devastating consequences and no security benefits.
Following World War I and Russia's Bolshevik Revolution, America began enforcing the Sedition and Espionage Acts to prevent communism's spread. In the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy's anti-communist crusade gained 50% public support as he targeted supposed infiltrators in government. McCarthy also deemed homosexuals security threats, claiming "The pervert is easy prey to the blackmailer." President Eisenhower's 1952 executive order authorized investigations of "sexual perversion" in government, resulting in 1,456 employees fired or forced to resign in just four months. The "Lavender Scare" ultimately ruined up to 10,000 lives and careers, with many victims driven to suicide.
From 1956 until 1971, the FBI conducted covert surveillance programs called COINTELPRO, using secret informants, wiretaps, mail opening, break-ins, and bugs to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" domestic movements. Director J. Edgar Hoover targeted Vietnam War opponents, feminist organizations, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez, the American Indian Movement, and the Black Panthers.
After 9/11, George W. Bush declared a "war on terrorism" targeting Sunni Islamist groups like al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists allowed force against anyone deemed connected to the attacks. Critics note this shifted law enforcement from responding to crimes to preemptive policing with increased surveillance. With limited resources to track global terrorists, police expanded their capabilities by partnering with private companies to gather personal data and conduct public surveillance.
Edward Snowden's 2013 revelations in The Guardian exposed the NSA's vast surveillance programs monitoring Americans' internet and phone communications, assisted by the FBI, DOJ, and corporations like Google, Facebook, and Verizon. Snowden noted, "The government and corporate sector preyed on our ignorance. But now we know." His disclosures prompted lawsuits challenging mass surveillance and some reforms, including the 2015 Freedom Act reducing mass phone data collection.
Capítulo 9
Reclaiming Our Privacy: Actions Against Surveillance
When artist Hasan Elahi was mistakenly placed on a terrorist watch list in 2002, his response was radical transparency. Rather than fight the surveillance, he flooded the system by documenting his entire life online-uploading thousands of photographs of everything from meals to bedrooms to travel logs. "FBI, here I am!" he proclaimed in his 2011 TED Talk, demonstrating how individuals might reclaim control of their digital identity by overwhelming the system that seeks to monitor them.
Many Americans remain passive about controlling their data, believing the myth that resistance is futile against surveillance giants. This inertia feeds all other surveillance myths. Privacy in the digital age is fundamentally about control over disclosure. While power inequities between corporations and individuals are real, mavericks like Elahi prove that meaningful resistance is possible.
Austrian law student Max Schrems took on Facebook at age twenty-three after receiving 1,200 pages of his personal data. His complaints to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner led to landmark rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union, invalidating the "safe harbor" agreement and questioning the adequacy of US data protection. These rulings forced significant reconsideration of US surveillance practices and privacy protections.
Surveillance whistleblowers have exposed covert government programs at great personal risk. From Perry Fellwock revealing ECHELON in 1971, to Russell Tice exposing wiretap activity, to the ThinThread NSA whistleblowers challenging the Trailblazer project, to AT&T technician Mark Klein revealing telecommunications surveillance, these individuals have shed light on hidden surveillance apparatus. Edward Snowden's 2013 revelations about PRISM and other programs may be the century's most impactful, halting at least some illegal surveillance practices.
Privacy requires both individual and societal action. Practical steps include: conducting a privacy audit of your devices; using Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS); recognizing that "free" services often harvest your data; choosing privacy-focused tools like Signal, DuckDuckGo, and Firefox; strengthening passwords; encrypting devices and communications; implementing two-factor authentication; embracing "no knowledge" systems that don't retain your data; and organizing "crypto parties" where people help each other implement privacy protections.
Magistrate Judge James Orenstein, a former federal prosecutor, refuses to rubber-stamp surveillance requests, understanding that with no adversarial process, judges must be vigilant guardians of privacy. He notes that outdated laws fail to address modern surveillance technologies, leaving prosecutors to decide privacy boundaries.
Congress must enact meaningful privacy reforms, including ending the artificial distinction between metadata and content data. Market solutions could include taxes on targeted digital advertising to discourage data harvesting, as proposed by economist Paul Romer and endorsed by Tristan Harris, who compares data monetization to fossil fuel extraction: "the most profitable business models but also the most polluting."
Louis Brandeis recognized technology's threat to privacy long before the digital age, co-authoring the first article urging a legal right to privacy in 1890. As Judge Orenstein notes, "As the pace of technological advancement increases, the need becomes more urgent for society to balance those interests in a coherent, fair and democratic way." All four "branches"-the three government branches plus individual citizens-must participate in rebalancing privacy protections.
The stakes couldn't be higher. Our privacy-and with it, our autonomy, our freedom of expression, and ultimately our democracy-depends on our willingness to challenge the myths that enable surveillance. As Boghosian makes clear, the first step is recognizing that we do, in fact, have something to hide: our fundamental right to determine what parts of ourselves we share with the world.
