"Rich Homie Quan, a 34-year-old rapper from Atlanta, passed away on Thursday, leaving fans and the music industry in mourning. Known for his collaboration with Young Thug on the hit song "Liefstyle," Quan was once a prominent figure in the rap group Rich Gang. Despite a falling out with Young Thug and subsequent legal troubles, his legacy as a key figure in the early 2010s Atlanta rap scene remains influencial."
"Young Thug and 27 others were indicted in 2022 for violating Georgia's RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) law and committing multiple violent crimes. Following the longest jury selection in history (10 months), the trial for Young Thug and several co-defendants began in November 2023."
-found after Googling: "is young thug case in georgia"
I would like to take a moment and have you listen to the following songs.
Rich Homie Quan - Type of Way
Young Thug - Anybody (ft. Nicki Minaj)
JEAN LOUIS - SCARED SLEEPY
The Charlie Daniels Band - The Devil Went Down to Georgia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBjPAqmnvGA
Collectively, all of this information brought my mind back to a classical argumentative essay that I wrote in Spring 2024 for an English Composition II class that I took. The essay is on government surveillance, and I would like to share it with you today.
Classical Argumentative Essay – Government Surveillance
I. Introduction
Printed work on the subject of surveillance being used to gain foreknowledge in conditions of war for the purpose of analysis dates back to 5000 B.C. Originally, men in the form of spies were employed to undertake this task, but with the ingenuity of technological advances over thousands of years has come an evolution of occupation from the physical into the cyber-world of remote access. Comprehending the current scope of data collection capabilities available commercially, the legislative history pertaining to privacy rights in the United States of America, and global threats such as communism, terrorism, and mobocracy will be imperative to assessing modern government surveillance in relation to the validity of one’s civil liberties. This leads to question, are governmental data collection practices harming or protecting the public?
II. Narration of the History of the Subject
Secrecy surrounding the technologies and tactics of government intelligence agencies began dissolving at an accelerated pace concurrently alongside a newly awakened private sector of motivated marketing geniuses and criminal minds on a quest for power through the digital realm. According to the Encyclopedia of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, “Technology transfer and the internet has also put what was once expensive technology available only to authorized personnel and detectives into the hands of ordinary citizens and skilled hobbyists” (O'Connor 1). The original “internet” was a networking experiment called, Advanced Research Projects Agency Net (ARPANET), conducted by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) in 1969. The project was intended to link the DoD with military contractors and individuals actively participating in military-funded research at various universities. The technology was so successful that everyone in these lines of work wanted access to it, and by 1993 it was released for public use.
With the internet available for anyone to use, came the evolution of computer and cell phone software with the ability to further the original intended communication exchange. Steve Gibson, an internet software developer, believes that, “any application that surreptitiously uses a computer’s internet ‘back channel’ to communicate with an external server should be considered a case of spyware, since the application opens a secret communications channel from the computer to the outside world” (Stafford and Urbaczewski 3). Spyware is generally included in something downloadable from the internet that an individual wants; such as a game. This can be disclosed in the user agreement upon download or hidden within the software architecture unbeknownst to the downloader.
As quickly as the internet and spyware were invented and spread, so have the advancements of probe and extraction methods in which data is obtained using these original technologies as the basis. “Israeli cyber intelligence firm NSO Group created a spyware known as Pegasus that can be used to covertly track even encrypted data on cellphones” (Jaffe 7). Any individual possessing this technology and your cell phone number has the power to remotely access all of your data without your knowledge, permission, and without you clicking, opening, or answering anything.
Readily accessible data collection technology has become antecedent to citizens of the United States of America questioning the soundness of their Fourth Amendment jurisprudence as it pertains to government surveillance and one’s right to privacy, resulting in ratifications for specified change throughout the years. In 1928, Olmstead v. United States elicited national attention towards the subject of audio surveillance. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately labeled electronic eavesdropping a “dirty business,” and mandated a “place-based” order in support of the Fourth Amendment to prohibit warrantless electronic invasion of privacy within one’s household (O'Connor 3). With this in place, the public was given assurance that any phone conversation had in one’s own home could not be used against them in court. Furthermore, in 1967, Katz v. United States ordered the establishment of additional privacy protections by enacting a “person-based” modification, forerunning creation of the Title III warrant or eavesdropping order under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which would require federal approval of “probable cause” to target and surveil an individual in public spaces (O'Connor 3-4). The “person-based” modification to the law guaranteed civilians the ability to have private conversations with others in public spaces without the fear of what was said being held against them in a court of law on the condition that one was not drawing unreasonable attention to themselves. If one was to be surveilled by law enforcement to this degree, the “probable cause” had to have been already submitted to a judge for approval prior to using any information gathered in this manner.
However, different rules apply when managing and monitoring foreign affairs and security. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), reauthorized in 2023, permits surveillance of “foreign persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States” and “communications of U.S. citizens who communicate with foreign individuals” through warrantless wiretapping (Jaffe 12, 29). As the internet, gaming devices, and cell phone applications are worldwide, it creates an environment of cross contamination legally.
As a collective, legislative acclimation to technological advancements in relation to government surveillance suggests proportionality and public safety until one considers the data collection capabilities of third parties both inside and outside of the United States. Sean Vitka, who serves as policy counsel for the nonprofit Demand Progress, reveals, “Intelligence agencies are flouting the law and buying information about Americans that Congress and the Supreme Court have made clear the government should not have” (Jaffe 11). The program “Fog Reveal” is an example of software commercially available to local law enforcement which provides the purchasing agency with warrantless information on users of cell phone applications such as Starbucks and Waze (Jaffe 42). However, one must take into account that many individuals have these American applications downloaded to the same device foreign applications are downloaded to, creating an indirect line of communication with a foreign entity. In June 2022, Buzzfeed released information on employees of Byte Dance, the Chinese parent company of the popular social media app TikTok, reportedly accessing data on U.S. users of the application remotely. Glenn Gerstell, a former general counsel of the National Security Agency (NSA), states, “They have massive numbers of people that they devote to cyber espionage, including trying to access U.S. national security systems for purposes of gaining strategic advantage, understanding how our weapons work and what our plans are” (Jaffe 6).
III. Confutation
Leading with the understanding that most cell phone applications are configured to operate by the definition of spyware, and an estimated 85% of individuals have a form of this remote monitoring installed on their electronics, placing the accusation of “harm" on the government in regards to surveillance on civilians would be an unfair stance. Many instances of private data collection occurs the moment one clicks “ok” or “accept” on a digital user agreement upon program installation that may or may not have been thoroughly read beforehand. The general public actively exists in an internationally connected environment with most being ignorant to the level of connectivity they are residing within.
Contrarily, civil liberties advocates maintain concerns regarding the misuse of broad-based government surveillance as it pertains to discrimination and inequality (Jaffe 5, 10). In regards to legitimate use of racial bias, government agencies such as the U.S. Military have led successful anti-terrorism surveillance operations overseas reliant on the location data purchased from Muslim prayer apps (Jaffe 13). Furthermore, the Department of Homeland Security continues to uphold a set of 2014 guidelines restricting law enforcement agencies to the authorized use of race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, sexuality or gender identity in the case of a crime only if these essential qualities can be reasonably linked (Jaffe 10).
In June 2013, the extent of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) eavesdropping unraveled as a former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, illegally revealed the surveillance habits of the organization (McCutcheon 5). Creating the largest scandal to date regarding national security, the stolen documents revealed that the NSA had collected bulk data from internet companies, online gamers, iPhone apps, invested resources into encryption cracking, and invaded the privacy of unbeknownst love interests. Although Edward Snowden committed theft, an appeals court provided validation that it was not in vain by ruling the bulk collection of private data by the NSA illegal (Jaffe 31). Comparatively, the U.S. Department of Justice relies on a certain level of invasive data collection for analysis in order to detect patterns and identify cybergangs. Once enough information has been collected, a warrant can be granted. These Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) operations involve undercover secret agents disrupting the cybercrime by first becoming an affiliate of the gang and gaining access to the innerworkings of the illegal organization. Regarded as a “hack the hacker” strategy, the criminal ransomware group, ALPHV/BlackCat, was able to be taken down through one of these confidential government informants (Bracken). Regarding the NSA case over classified materials stolen and released by Edward Snowden, President Obama responded with empathy towards the intelligence community, stating, “in our rush to respond to a very real and novel set of threats, the risk of government overreach – the possibility that we lose some of our core liberties in pursuit of security – also became more pronounced,” defending the NSA in their surveillance practices to maintain public safety since the occurrence of the 9/11 attacks (Jaffe 12).
Advocates with a concern for consumer safety assert that many computer applications have secretly operating spyware collecting data on the owner of the device regardless if one opted in or out of sharing said data, and going so far as to share or sell the unauthorized private data with either law enforcement or a private sector because the value is so high. According to the Center for Democracy and Technology, “common among these applications is a lack of transparency and an absence of respect for users’ ability to control their own computer and Internet connections” (Stafford and Urbaczewski 295). Surveillance tech is evolving at such rapid speeds that within a short period of time mass data collection bypassing the user’s knowledge completely could be a parasitic problem if found present in the wrong hands. Israel, specifically, is gaining worldwide attention for a spyware called “Pegasus” produced within their borders by a cyber intelligence firm called the NSO Group. According to a report made by Amnesty International, “it has been used in at least 11 countries to target politicians, human rights activists, and journalists” (Jaffe 7). The most unsettling idea about the way Pegasus unencrypts and extracts all data from a device is the delivery method for example; a phone call either missed or answered. With this information in mind, if civil liberties are to remain a concept at all, as a nation there must be an understanding that government agencies need flexibility to detect, research, and analyze any threats to the United States of America from the inside and outside as advanced technology and the internet now internationally connects the globe. As stated in the conference paper, Spyware: The Ghost in the Machine, “Expect that the true cost of ‘free’ online is counted in the loss of privacy” (Stafford and Urbaczewski 298).
V. Proof
In support of the arguments, experts in the fields of business, research, and intelligence analytics have the following views on data collection. According to the Business Software Alliance (BSA), “the characterization of the spyware problem is more behavioral than technological and applications often characterized as spyware are often used for business purposes by numerous companies seeking to provide more effective service to customers” (Stafford and Urbaczewski 295) (McCutcheon). For example, software updates on one’s electronic device is a form of data communication with the manufacturing company. The Vice President of Research and Data at Domain Tools, Sean M. McNee, states, “Strong partnerships and collaborations between industry and law enforcement are the most critical ways to take down cybercrime groups before they grow” (McNee par. 1). Ultimately, if one is not committing a crime, the imminent concern should be public safety over personal privacy. Aaron Walton, Threat Intel Analyst at Expel, informs, “Governments are eager to work with private organizations. In the US, organizations can join the fight against ransomware by collaborating with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which formed the Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative (JCDC) to build partnerships globally to share critical and timely information. The JCDC facilitates bidirectional information-sharing between government agencies and public organizations” (Walton par. 12)
IV. Proposal
Collectively, understanding the current scope of advanced data collection technology and the lack of public education on the issue is imperative to accept the need for government involvement. After investigating a broader view of government surveillance as it pertains to the public, the conclusion supports proactive data collection by the government as helpful in preventing disastrous crimes and countering threats to the United States. Licensing for internet usage could be a viable solution to the current mass dilemma of the digital naivety of civilians. Just as an individual must go through a driver’s education program to qualify for a driver’s license and gain access to the roads, similarly, a tier program could be developed giving civilians more internet capabilities as more government issued tests are passed. An uneducated civilian on the internet has the potential not only be a danger to themselves, but a gateway for international threats, and it turn a danger to others. Expanding on the idea of mass education and reflecting on the practices of ransomware networks, I propose mass “hacking” operations by the government on the public. However, instead of infecting a citizen’s computer with the intention of destruction for financial gain, one is forced to pass a test pertaining to internet safety at random as a reminder of the dangers in the digital realm. This tactic would ideally be communicated to the public prior to the execution in an effort to build trust with the community instead of instilling a fear of compromised civil liberties. Similarly, a notable case of stakeholder trust was built between the Mountain View Police Department (MVPD) in Silicon Valley, California and the town’s citizens by sharing on social media where law enforcement officers were hiding their speed traps. The open communication gave the public reassurance that the government run agency was not after financial gain, but rather safety for their community (Agnes 24-25). Moving towards the future with a clear plan for public cyber awareness combined with harsher punishment for the illegal collection and sale of private data could curb the urge to commit surveillance crimes that one wouldn’t normally commit because the punishment outweighs the profit. The “surveillance state” is an idea that as a collective, the country as well as the globe are entering a new era of cyber existence. The technology that has been created and released cannot be undone. As soon as one accepts that nothing will be as it once was and the need to acclimate to the data collection climate is imminent, one can realize that the government is here to help and not to harm. As researched, amendments and laws are actively created as toxic situations arise and as readily as the public welcomes them.
VII. Closing Remarks
In reflection of the argument at hand, contemplate for a moment the saying, “Knowledge is power.” An entity knowing every little detail about an individual without their knowledge has the ability to use that knowledge for good or evil. The 1999 release of the movie “Matrix” portrays Morpheus giving Neo a choice upon being newly awakened, “This is your last chance. After this there is no turning back. You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember, all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more” (Wachowski and Wachowski). Contrarily, in the 2008 film “One Missed Call” individuals receive calls from their future selves and are eventually found dead with a red candy in their mouths as their phone dials the next victim (Valette). Symbolically linking the red pill and candy as what knowledge is capable of, and being aware of the emerging software “Pegasus” it leads one to question, has this been in existence for years and is anything actually harmful or is that an internal choice one makes themselves?
Works Cited
Agnes, Melissa. Crisis Ready. Herndon: Mascot Books, 2018.
Bracken, Becky. "Feds Snarl ALPHV/BlackCat Ransomware Operation." 19 December 2023. Dark Reading. 4 July 2024.
Jaffe, Alexandra. "Global Surveillance." CQ Press 33 (2023): 1-57.
McCutcheon, Chuck. "Privacy." CQ Researcher (2014): 1-14.
McNee, Sean M. "How Cybercrime Empires Are Built." 13 June 2024. Dark Reading. 4 July 2024.
O'Connor, Thomas, R. "Surveillance." Carlisle, Rodney P. Encyclopedia of Intelligence and Counterintelligence. Routledge, 2005.
One Missed Call. Dir. Eric Valette. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2008.
Stafford, Thomas F and Andrew Urbaczewski. "Spyware: The Ghost in the Machine." Communications of the Association for Information Systems 14. Research Gate, 2004. 291-306.
The Matrix. Dirs. Lana Wachowski and Lilly Wachowski. Warner Bros. 1999.
Tzu, Sun. The Art of War. Coppell: Filiquarian Publishing, 2006.
Walton, Aaron. "Lessons From the LockBit Takedown." 29 March 2024. Dark Reading. 4 July 2024.
Comments