Innocent victims: NSA gathered data about more ordinary web users than targets

We already knew that the dragnet style of data collection employed by the NSA resulted in a huge level of collateral damage. As revealed by whistle-blower Edward Snowden the agency had been intercepting huge amounts of web traffic — often with the assistance of web firms — on an almost unbelievable scale. The NSA has tried to improve its public image by playing the national security card, as well as releasing a “transparency report” but there’s no getting away from the fact that countless innocent web users got caught up in the net. But an investigation by the Washington Post reveals the true extent of the impact on the average internet users — and it’s far worse than many thought.

A four-month investigation by the newspaper found that the number of average internet users who had their data intercepted far outweighs the data of targeted individuals. And not just by a bit — by a factor of nine. Data provided to the Washington Post by Edward Snowden shows that an astonishing 900 percent more innocent users than intended targets fell victim to the NSA’s surveillance. (For the purposes of accuracy the exact figures are closer to an 11 to 89 percent split). These are staggering revelations. There has already been very vocal opposition to the NSA’s activities but these were essentially “blind” complaints. Without knowing the scale of operations, it was difficult to know just how upset to be. Nine out of ten people who had their data collected were nothing more than collateral damage caught in the extremely wide net cast by the agency.

It has been said that if individuals have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. This misses the point entirely. If this argument was valid, it would be acceptable to have a policeman knock at your front door in the morning and rifle through your underwear drawer on the off-chance that you might be hiding bomb-making equipment there. You know you’re not concealing anything like that anywhere in your house, so this kind of search is not a problem, right? Just as with the NSA’s activity, this would rightly be seen as a huge invasion of privacy.

This is not to say that the NSA’s surveillance was entirely without merit. Among the “legitimate targets” was a bomb manufacturer linked to a terrorist bombing, as well as information about network attackers, secret nuclear projects, and other on-going cases the Post was not able to detail.  But included in the cache of collected data is a huge stash of immensely personal information. The Post describes private photographs of the innocently surveilled: “Scores of pictures show infants and toddlers in bathtubs, on swings, sprawled on their backs and kissed by their mothers. In some photos, men show off their physiques. In others, women model lingerie, leaning suggestively into a webcam or striking risque poses in shorts and bikini tops.” But these people had nothing to hide, so the fact that these most intimate of moments was “intercepted” is just fine, isn’t it?

When talking about the NSA, it’s easy to take the moral high ground merely on principle; it’s worrying easy to forget that there are real, innocent people involved. People who sent private messages, personal images, sensitive documents, and more online under the impression that no one other than the intended recipient would ever cast eyes on them. This is not an unreasonable assumption to have made. Snowden, talking to the Washington Post, explained that he has taken the decision to release this data  to help people engage in informed debate about the surveillance, saying that it was impossible to understand what had taken place “without being able to review some of that surveillance, both the justified and unjustified”. He is not just concerned about what has happened, but also what will come of the collected data. “Even if one could conceivably justify the initial, inadvertent interception of baby pictures and love letters of innocent bystanders,” he added, “their continued storage in government databases is both troubling and dangerous. Who knows how that information will be used in the future?”

Image Credit: Timof / Shutterstock

Share and Enjoy

Austin Lingerie Store Asks for Transwoman’s ID Before Service

An Austin, Texas lingerie store is coming under fire today after being accused of humiliating and discriminating against a transgender customer. Towleroad reports that transwoman Kylie Jack was shopping at Petticoat Fair when an employee asked for proof of gender before offering service.

“Today I went for a bra fitting at Petticoat Fair, where an employee humiliated me by asking for ID stating I was female and saying I needed bottom surgery in order to get a fitting,” wrote Jack on her Facebook page. “If you are in solidarity with trans women, please boycott Petticoat Fair until they remove their transphobic and cissexist policies.”

According to its website, “every woman [at Petticoat Fair] is treated with respect and given one-on-one attention and is helped to feel comfortable and confident in properly fitted undergarments.”

The store’s owner Kirk Andrews has since posted a lengthy apology. which reads in part, “There seems to be a misconception that Petticoat Fair has a policy of not working with the transgendered community. That is not the case. In fact, we have served the transgendered community for most of our 50 years in Austin. What we do have is a policy regarding who may or may not enter our fitting rooms.”

“The dressing room area is a particularly private and vulnerable place for many women and girls, so it’s a protected area. For that reason, we also have a completely separate dressing area for women who have undergone mastectomies and need post-surgical care,” wrote Andrews. “Just as a gym won’t allow men in a women’s dressing room for the comfort and safety of its patrons, we don’t allow men or boys above a certain age in our dressing area.”

In a response to Kirk’s apology, Jack replied, “Kirk is sincere in his efforts to do better, but only time and actual action will tell. I’ll consider the issue resolved when a formal public apology is issued to the Austin trans community along with the steps they’re taking to update their policies to be trans-friendly and trans-inclusive.”

Jack also thanked her supporters for lending their voices on Facebook, noting, “One thing I should mention is that it’s hard to tell if individual employees are doing their best to work with a shitty policy and just keeping their job, vs working by their own prejudices. So if you’re calling or leaving reviews, please focus on the business and their policies, not the employee herself.”

Kirk’s apology and Jack’s caveat didn’t stop folks from commenting on Petticoat Fair’s Facebook page. User Rachel Zellers wrote, “Transphobic. They will treat you like garbage unless your driver’s license proves you’re a ’real woman’ or you’ve had your bottom surgery. Speak with your wallet and never give your patronage to these sorry excuses for human beings. They can’t even render a proper apology. They disgust me and should disgust you too.”

And user Hingle McCringleberry drove the point home, stating, “Really? Comparing transgender women to boys and men at the gym?! And I thought that this debacle couldn’t get any worse.”

Share and Enjoy