The problem with the Tempora and GCHQ story – How do we communicate it?

We know we’re being watched by GCHQ.

We’ve found out, via a whistleblower, that in the past few years, mass surveillance, for the purposes of later analysis, has been turned into reality, in the US and in the UK.

The thing is, the general public is largely unphased. It’s barely scraped public opinion. The average person who doesn’t watch the news, might be aware that there was a guy called Snowdon, but would not be aware that the UK government knew who they’d phoned, who they’d emailed, and what the subject lines of those emails were.

Would you be happy to be filmed by faceless figures wherever you went?
Would you be happy to be filmed by faceless figures wherever you went?

The thing is, if I’d suggested this 6 months ago, it’d have sounded like a crazy conspiracy. Even today, it’s only information, pieced together – various sources correlating stories and confirming points, that give me the confidence to say it exists.

But the public doesn’t care, and apart from The Guardian, the UK media isn’t bothered in the surveillance story (perhaps due to this D-notice?) or more probably, due to various bias’s inherent to their organisations.

The problem is: we’ve not communicated it well enough.

We’ve so far not communicated how this means that the Government knows about you. How talking to your girlfriend via Facebook is a lot less private than you might think and that actually, your phone shares a lot more information about you than you think it does.

We have a system so far reaching, that a German ex-Stasi lieutenant said:
“You know, for us, this would have been a dream come true,”

What we need to do now is to work out:

How can we communicate this to people?

How do we communicate Tempora to the people?
How do we communicate Tempora to the people?

PRISM: What you won’t hear the Americans say (but what you should be very scared of).

The recent revelations from whistleblower Edward Snowden about the US’s PRISM program, have, in the US, mainly centered on how the NSA could be spying on American citizens which may or may not be against the constitution. The details seem to suggest that so long as the data collected is 51% or more, between non-Americans, then it’s all good. The EFF/ACLU are upset that American’s are being spied on.. and simultaneously missing the much larger point:

Since when did it become “OK” for the US to conduct surveillance on every foreign internet user?

The big thing the American constitutionalists are up in arms about is these discoveries in relation to their constitution’s 4th amendment – their protection again unreasonable searches and seizures – the oversight role of their judiciary and the requirement of ‘probable cause’.

It seems that whilst American foreign policy frequently talks up the virtues of their country’s bill of rights, they don’t feel this applies to “the rest of the world”.

The US disregards non-american's privacy in the name of it's own security.
The US disregards non-american's privacy in the name of it's own security.

Unfortunately, this means that for non-Americans, most of the world, we know that any traffic to/from the US is being spied on as a matter of course, and I think that is significant cause for concern.

The NSA director says:

“The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.”

The concept that one can lose one’s privacy, without oversight, in the name of “American Security” is something I find upsetting? Does unauthorised copyright usage also threaten US security?

Use Gmail? NSA seen it.

Use Facebook? NSA knows you.

etc.

William Hague, our esteemed foreign secretory” says: “law-biding members of the public had ‘nothing to fear'”.

Personally, I think he’s a bit of a bellend, and, more crucially, wrong.

Pet Shop Boys- Integral