Signing Off-- My Final Blog!

Photo credit of CNET

"We can't un-rely on this stuff."

This a quote I pulled from a technology analyst in an article on CNET. He was commenting on the increased reliance on our phones and social media in the midst of COVID 19. While some of these major tech companies have faced financial losses, at the end of the day, we are all heavily relying on their products.

An event like COVID 19 is like an excuse to ignore the attachment I have to my phone. I remember the first time that an adult pointed out that I never let my phone out of my sight. I was in 7th grade, clutching my recently-gifted AT&T slide phone, and this old man at church made a passive aggressive comment about teenagers and their phones. I was annoyed, but it also made me immediately aware of how I always had my phone in my hand. Not my pocket or purse, but my hand.

Of course, I grew up a lot. And that brought maturity and self-control, but it also brought my first iPhone, my instagram account, my snapchat. I got an apple computer. I had multiple email accounts that I actually paid attention to.

My junior year, my English teacher offered a significant amount of extra credit if we went without technology for a week. Essential texts and phone calls only, and even that communication was limited to a certain amount of minutes each day. He thought that the experiment would make every kid realize that they're too addicted to their phones. My reflection essay was an argument on why going without technology had caused me to miss multiple events that I could've spent with my friends. We communicate over technology, and when I went without it, I missed parts of my life. His logic, I argued, was flawed. Because the world had changed, and I believed there could be technology in used moderation. I don't think he was happy with me, but I still got the extra credit.

I came to college and became the busiest I've ever been in my life. Being an involved student felt like a full-time job. There were professors and organizations and bosses and friends that I needed to answer to. And my email, my calendar, my phone, my texts were the only connection to them. I was (and sometimes still am) completely overwhelmed by my inbox and wiped out with dealing with people over technology. And I numbed that stress with social media, which only increased the time spent on my phone.

COVID-19 has upped my screen time, no doubt. It has for everyone, I would imagine. But now, my phone is the link to my friends. My laptop is my classroom. I can't un-rely on my technology.

Truly, I'm thankful for it. And my relationship with technology has come a long way in the last few years. Social media is something that brings me joy; staying in touch with my friends isn't an obligation or an addiction, it's a blessing. And while I can still admit that I give technology too much of my time, it doesn't change how I view it's vital role in my life and society. I don't think that technology is the enemy. I think that we are our own enemies. I think that we're sometimes obsessive or greedy or prideful or cruel or numb or careless. I think that we abuse this tool because we sometimes don't know or understand the right way to use it.

I think that at the end of the day, I'm better because of technology. And while twitter or instagram has misled me, or news sites have fed me unreliable information, I only come out of those situations with a stronger sense of truth; I'm quicker to spot a lie, and quicker to demand evidence to a claim.

To make a claim on the good of technology is too ambiguous. I can't truly say what my life would look like without it. I was born in '99 and I've literally watched the age of technology play out in front of me. I do think I've accepted it as part of my life, but I don't think it's a bad thing. Especially now, when my technology is what keeps me plugged in and engaged with the world.

And that's that on that.

The First Amendment & Me

There's a lot to be learned studying the First Amendment.

I feel that we could've spent several days a week unpacking the constitutionality of a number of laws, government programs, and especially how the First Amendment functions in news media.

Because I someday hope to be working in the film and television industry, I decided to explore how the first amendment affects films. After a quick google search, the answer that kept on coming up was the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). This is the same organization which determines ratings of films, but in the 1920's they were founded as a defense against mounting government censorship.

Filmmakers have the right to free speech and free expression-- just as the rest of us. But the amount of exposure that films gain often made filmmakers a target for censorship. Films are often intimate, and they expose parts of us or our society that are not comfortable. The right to do so is protected under the First Amendment, and the MPAA set out to ensure that filmmakers would always be protected. That led to the rating system, which helped protect younger ages or minds from seeing films meant for different audiences.

I found this to be extremely interesting research, and a meaningful last blog post as I consider how this class will factor into my career. As a writer and someday-filmmaker, I hope to challenge people, to make them think, and to create positive societal changes. That can't happen without taking a few risks; creating content that challenges people will not always be easy. It is reassuring to know that in any future endeavors, I am protected by the First Amendment.

For more on what the MPAA does to protect free speech,  Click here.

EOTO - Total Information Awareness Program

The Total Information Awareness Program is a government program that has taken many forms since it's inception in the 1990's. Coined as the Total Information Awareness Program because of it's purpose to collect electronic data on U.S. Citizens, the program faced backlash in years following 9/11 when privacy became a primary concern. The program was headed at first by John Poindexter, Director of the Information Awareness Office. The program was designed to keep track of citizen's habits and lifestyles, allowing the government to keep tabs of illegal activities or movements. This is Big Brother. 

Of course, when this program gained exposure in the media, there was extreme public pushback. That led to the Senate cutting all funding for it in the early 2000's, although there is proof that the the program continued to operate under secret funding from the NSA. Activist groups such as the ACLU have led extensive campaigns meant to scare citizens of what could happen with such a program in existence. While these campaigns have been criticized as fear-mongering, there is truth in their argument: such a conglomeration of data would be absolutely terrifying. For more of a history on the TIA program, click here. 

The implications of such a program are vastly complicated-- while the "Total Information Awareness" was later changed to "Terrorism Information Awareness"-- many still see a problem with data mining, even if it is to protect citizens from acts of terror. Looking into the future, or even analyzing what we know know about privacy and our digital footprint, ti could be extremely dangerous fo re gov foment to be collection data that we publish on the internet, or even data about our traveling, our medical records, and our shopping habits. While it's quite a violation for the government to have access, there is a greater risk that it could be abused by those in power or by hackers. Having that much consolidated power is dangerous. 

Of course, it goes without saying that we all want this country protected from international and domestic acts of terror. And while this program is designed to defend against that, it comes at much too high a cost. As a whole, society would face the effects of massive data mining; living in fear that some unknown entity potentially had unlimited access to any and all private information. This also presents an issue when it comes to marginalized or minority groups. If the government has unlimited access to our information that they are able to utilize upon threat of "terrorism," then many groups, ethnicities, races, genders, or people of varying sexual orientations could fall under attack from their own government. Abuse takes it shape in many different forms, as does prejudice, racism, and homophobia. We must protect ourselves and each other, and not allow our personal information to be mishandled or abused in any way. 

My generation certainly has contributed to the problem-- born into a world that was shaped by the changing technologies, we have never known a life that is different from this onslaught of data mining and privacy wars. I think that on many levels we've grown numb to it. But it's incredibly important to remain aware, and remain active in voting according to our freedoms and fighting for what is right. And while I believe that my generation has left much to be desired, we fight for what is right. And right now, this is a worthy fight.  

For a look at the ACLU’s research and subsequent campaign, click here. 

For a consolidated list of documents released regarding TIA,click here.

How Real is Privacy?

Our phones are wired for surveillance. There are cameras on our streets that photograph our cars. Our social media and digital footprint tell an intimate story that is easily sold by companies. 

There is an alarming lack of legislation that keeps the government away from my information. While I’m comfortable with what I’ve chosen to reveal online, much what is actually invasive is not within my control; where I spend my days, where I travel, where I shop, what I endorse or what religion I follow are all up to grabs when the government has access to my digital footprint. And while I’m a law-abiding citizen, and the government doesn’t have much reason to access my information, the fact that it’s accessible to them means that it’s accessible to hackers, and that is the danger. 

Anyone intending to do harm— be it another government or just an individual—can hack into the systems that are already monitoring my information, and gain access to it. And that leads me to another scary blind spot in legislation.

There is not much beyond filing civil suits that protect me against privacy violations. This is a developing abuse—20 years ago, the internet was not like it was today, and 20 years from now the internet will look completely different. It is changing constantly, which makes current legislation hard to pass, but still necessary. Understanding more of how much of my privacy is out of my control is driving me to support and vote politicians who will pass laws that do protect me. Any way that I can regain some control is a worthwhile. 

The ACLU has a number of articles on surveillance legislation that can be found here. We need to be doing more to ensure that our elected officials are guaranteeing our privacy. 

My Online Footprint

Time to evaluate my online footprint: under my name is an Instagram account, Snapchat account, Facebook profile, and a Linked In profile. I don’t have a personal website, but it’s next on my quarantine to-do list. 

Most prominently used, and therefore most likely dangerous to me, is Instagram. I’ve had an Instagram since I was twelve years old, and I’ve been posting on in regularly ever since. For the first six years it was a private account, but more recently I’ve been oscillating between private and public depending on my mood. I use Instagram all the time—to keep up with friends and family, to check in on trends pushed by my favorite bloggers or influencers, or to stay plugged into pop culture through memes and humor accounts. A scroll through my Instagram will tell you who I hang out, where I live, where I go to school, who my family is (and all of their linked accounts), the music I listen to and the movies I watch. I don’t hold anything back.

And I rarely, rarely think about the consequences. 

Instagram has my email and my phone number; so does Snapchat, and so does Facebook. I’ve always justified it because if I were ever logged out, I could prove that those accounts belong to me. However, if I was ever hacked, that personal information would be fair game. 

It’s scary. Even as I read the article “I’m 14 and I Quit Social Media,” I picked up my phone, went to my Instagram settings, and switched to private. I like to pretend that I am in control of my online presence—that because I am not a celebrity, I would never be targeted by creeps or hackers—but that’s a naïve sentiment. 

Researching what companies like Facebook are doing is a good reminder that I have to take action to ensure my online safety. I can’t be too careful. 

Coronavirus and Fake News

Would you get advice about a Pandemic from an Instagram live? Would you believe that Coronavirus is caused by 5G mobile phone masts? No? Well there are people who do—and that’s the issue with fake news in the time of all this uncertainty and fear. 

Actors, celebrities, and influencers have hundreds of thousands—even millions—of followers; the very same followers who go to these platforms for fashion and lifestyle inspiration are going there for updates on COVID-19. 

This is obviously problematic; you can’t earn a medical degree by the millions of followers on Instagram or Facebook, but that is very easy to forget when celebrities ACT like they have the correct information. 

Thus has begun the spread of fake news in the age of the Coronavirus. Celebrities Woody Harrelson and MIA faced pushback when they posted about a supposed link between the spread of corona virus and 5G. This is baseless, but when disseminated by a popular source, people don’t question it. 

It’s one of the problems of getting our news off of social media; obviously, due to rights protected by the First Amendment, people can say whatever they want on their personal pages. While this is a protected and valued freedom, it means that we as consumers have to guard ourselves against opinions or misinformation being branded as fact. 

News sources are struggling to combat the trust that has already been established when someone has been following their favorite celebrity for years and then they post information about Coronavirus; it’s like taking advice from a friend. 

We gotta learn who our friends are, though. For right now, let’s count on the news networks, not the latest on our Instagram feeds. 

For more on the subject, check out this article on The Guardian. 

Here's to the Watchdog

The value of Free Expression cannot be understated; our right to free speech is a right that enriches our lives, as well as ensures our freedom and democracy. In studying the eight values of free expression, I found that the check on governmental power—considered the Watchdog Role—is arguably one of the most important values. The Watchdog Role means that “freedom of the press enables citizens to learn about the abuses of power—and then do something about the abuse at the ballot box.” (http://medlawlit.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_9.html) Essentially, the press’s freedom of expression guarantees that when the government messes up, we know about it; once we know about, we can do something about it. 

In comparison to the other values, I find this one to be the most important because of what it promotes: the idea that no one is above the law, not even the government. We have put laws in place to ensure that power is not abused, and those laws also allow us to openly monitor the government to make sure they never overextend. Essentially, the other values of free speech don’t matter if no one is watching the government to make sure that power is not being abused. 

The checks-and-balance system is one of the most integral parts of our democracy; our country was founded on the ideas of limited government— that the people had a right to elect representatives and officials that represented our interests, and that there was a limit on the amount of power that any one individual or any one institution has. That can only happen if the government has been specifically restricted on powers that are granted unto them, and if we as a nation and as a press are making sure that the people we elect into office are honest people. 

Of course, it’s worth mentioning that in the modern era, we must be diligent in guarding ourselves against “fake news.” A phrase made popular in the beginning of Trump’s administration, fake news implies that media outlets publish or report false information, or very biased information that frames the opposing party in a negative light. While it’s freedom of speech that enables news outlets to critique the government, that also can lead to an unfair portrayal of either party. Here’s a video on what Fake News is and how to spot it.  Ultimately, it is up to us, the average citizens, to make sure that our government is not abusing their powers and the press is not abusing theirs, either.