To view the full article, please visit: The FBI’s New Wiretapping Plan Is Great News for Criminals
US technology is designed for ‘exceptions’ and ‘outliers’, i.e., ‘worst-case’ scenarios like terrorists and unconscious patients.
Bruce Schneier concludes his May 29th essay:
“Finally there’s a general principle at work that’s worth explicitly stating. All tools can be used by the good guys and the bad guys. Cars have enormous societal value, even though bank robbers can use them as getaway cars. Cash is no different. Both good guys and bad guys send e-mails, use Skype, and eat at all-night restaurants. But because society consists overwhelmingly of good guys, the good uses of these dual-use technologies greatly outweigh the bad uses. Strong Internet security makes us all safer, even though it helps the bad guys as well. And it makes no sense to harm all of us in an attempt to harm a small subset of us.”
Fear-driven technology harms Democracy and health:
- Example #1: FBI
Bruce Schneier’s essay (below) tells how US-created security flaws help the wrong people (criminals and terrorists) and harm the rest of us (law-abiding citizens).
- Giving the government access (via back doors, brute force decryption, etc) to everyone’s data to find terrorists is the ‘worst-case’ scenario used to justify destroying strong data security protections.
- But law-abiding people, businesses, and government really NEED strong data security protections to function everyday online.
- Criminals and terrorists can exploit the security flaws created to catch them to steal information and harm governments, individuals, and corporations; but ordinary citizens and businesses can’t build or afford security technology to protect their own data.
- WORST CONSEQUENCES: people will not trust technology and governments, and cyber-wars can destroy people, governments, and corporations.
- Example #2: US health technology systems
The US eliminated data privacy in health technology systems, helping the wrong people (government and corporations) and harming patients.
- Government and corporations control the use of the nation’s health data. Medical emergencies are the ‘worst-case’ scenario used to justify this technology: if you are unconscious in an emergency room (a one-in-a-million), you can’t give consent to share your data.
- But the 299,999, 700 million US patients who are awake expect to control use of personal health data in order to trust doctors and technology.
- Government and industry control use of the nation’s data for various purposes without the knowledge of the public, there is no ‘chain of custody’ for health data and no data map to track uses. Some hidden uses may be beneficial and some may harm patients. Patients can’t buy or use privacy technology to protect health data.
- WORST CONSEQUENCES: 40-50 million people/year avoid or delay treatment, or hide information to protect the privacy of health information, risking their lives and health. Technology causes tens of millions of people who need treatment to suffer bad health outcomes.
In a Democracy, judges should approve spying on suspected criminals or terrorists. In a Democracy patients should be asked for consent to use personal health data. Advance directives or break-the-glass technology can permit access to health data when patients are unconscious.
In a Democracy, shouldn’t technology support ‘best-case’ scenarios , i.e., citizens’ freedoms and human and civil rights to privacy and health?