The age of naked transparency

The age of naked transparency

From The Statesman
Narain D. Batra
11 December 2010

A few weeks ago, secretary of state Hillary Clinton, when asked about the physical pat-down at the airport for security check, told CBS News’ Bob Schieffer in “Face the Nation” that, if she could, she would avoid it. But the sari-clad Indian Ambassador to the United States, Meera Shankar, could not escape the degrading body search at Jackson-Ever International Airport when she was returning to Washington DC after a guest visit at the Mississippi State University on 4 December. Ambassador Shankar was cherry-picked from a group of 30 passengers for the “special treatment” even when the electronic screening set off no alarms and despite asserting her diplomatic status and request for a private check.
This might happen to foreign secretary Nirupama Rao when she visits the United States next time unless external affairs minister SM Krishna means what he said: “Let me be frank, this is unacceptable to India. We are going to take it up with the government of US that such unpleasant incidents do not recur." Ah! But this has happened a second time in three months. Indians protest too much and do nothing. I wonder how China would have reacted to this kind of humiliation. Perhaps that is the difference between a rising power and a country that is dreaming of becoming a global power.
Not that “Mississippi is burning” with racism. After all, neighbouring Louisiana has an Indian American Governor Bobby Jindal and South Carolina has elected another Indian Nikki Haley (Namrata “Nikki” Randhawa Haley) as its next governor. But saris, hijabs and unusual appearances (Did I say un-American?) do raise suspicion, though David Headley who has pleaded guilty for aiding the 26/11 Mumbai terrorists attacks, would have easily passed muster as a gentleman traveller.
Since before the Thanksgiving vacations, air travellers in the US have been protesting against the humiliating choices they have to make: full body electronic strip searches that leave nothing to imagination; or bodily pat-downs by security agents that some feel amount to sexual assaults. Even people with orthopedic shoes, appliances or medical device such as insulin pump, feeding tube, ostomy or urine bag, or exterior component of cochlear implant have not been spared from the screening or pat-downs.
Whether you live in New York, Amsterdam or Kolkata, the fear contagion is everywhere. Fear has become a constant travel companion, thanks to newer and more ingenious methods terrorists have been using lately. Experts say that eventually we will become used to newer physical intrusions into our privacy as it has happened in other aspects of our lives. In fact, we have been slipping into a variable low-high intensity surveillance society since the 9/11 terrorists attacks. Our sense of insecurity, both physical and economic, has increased manifold and we have been quietly submitting to whatever brings us a feeling of certainty, though we keep protesting. It is not only the government that has become too nosey; the businesses are also culpable. They want to know everything about us albeit for different reasons.
It is fair to say that protests against intrusiveness by employers and businesses into our personal lives have in fact become muted, perhaps because we have no choice. So our employers keep watching us all the time, clandestinely of course. Since most office workers use the Internet and communicate via e-mail, companies watch closely how their employees use office electronic resources, including whatever they save on their laptops, iPads or access through their smart phones. Several court decisions regarding workplace privacy confirm that in the United States employees have very few privacy rights if information is stored in the company’s system.
Employers do have legitimate concerns especially regarding the confidentiality of trade secrets; on-going contractual negotiations; sexual harassment messages exchanged among employees that might lead to legal liabilities for the company; and whistle blowing activities that may affect the reputation of the company or expose their wrong doings. These concerns are not new but the speed with which transactions are done on the Internet has created a state of constant mistrust, paranoia, especially in the age of multitasking.
There has always been some multi-tasking in the workplace but mobile web has created new avenues for multi-tasking, which is now becoming a common occurrence. With continuous restructuring and layoffs, many working people keep networking and looking for new opportunities. Companies, especially in the field of information and communications technology, fear brain-drain and are watching who is applying for jobs; and if anyone is trying to cross over to a competitor, he should not expect the boss to be sympathetic. Some contend that subjecting employees to digital surveillance generates coercive environment and might eventually affect productivity negatively. If monitoring is being done for preventing frauds, protecting intellectual property and trade secrets, or maintaining harmonious workplace environment, the rational must be explained to employees and the policy clearly stated. But who cares? Bugs are everywhere.
Web bugs and other online surveillance devices are being increasingly used by businesses to track users when they surf their websites. Advertisers surreptitiously place small software programmes called cookies on our hard drives to track where we surf so that they can customize the most appropriate advertising message for us. It’s called target marketing, reaching the right person with the right message. But web bugs are different, more sinister. They can be programmed to collect data without the knowledge of the user. For example, a web bug can be programmed to look at a data file on a networked desktop without leaving a trace that the data has been touched at all. When you look at your bank balance online, the web bug too could be monitoring it.
Some companies use web beacon, a single-pixel picture, to identify users. A beacon can track whether a particular message, including junk mail, has been opened, acted upon or not. Any electronic image that is part of a webpage, including an ad, can be programmed to act as a beacon and spy on the user. Companies claim that the information enables them to personalize the surfing experience when a frequent user visits their portal, but they assure us that no personally identifiable information gathered from the beacon research is shared with the clients. Unfortunately, that is not always true. It’s a liar’s poker.
Technology keeps growing and our privacy keeps shrinking. Consider this: Some companies are using biometrics, face recognition, radio frequency identification (RFID) and global positioning system (GPS) technologies to keep a watch on their properties and track clients. Car rental companies in the United States use GPS to keep track of their rental cars. If a car is stolen or is involved in an accident, the company would know the exact location of the car. On the other hand, a speedy reckless driver may be denied a rental next time.
Do you see the future? We are under a candid camera forever. Along with our luggage, we too might have to wear RFID tags so that we can be monitored via GPS as we move from one airport to another, from country to country. Perhaps it would enhance security but surely it is going to be a multi-billion dollar business for some. Homeland security and global corporations are determining how much privacy we are going to have whether at airports, offices, parks and public rest areas, mobile devices or our own homes. Should we blame Al Qaeda for everything?

The writer, the author of Digital Freedom, is professor of
communication and diplomacy
at Norwich University