Edward Snowden, Net Neutrality, and the Risk of our Personal Privacy: Who?
Net neutrality, surveillance, and internet privacy are, frankly, scary subjects. They are things that are simply easier not to talk about. They get messy. They run around in circles until you think that you might not ever catch them, that there will never be hope, never an end. And the reality is there may not be.
After watching these sets of documentaries, videos, and essays, I felt like a loaded spring, waiting to launch up and say something, do something. I have learned so much about something that I now know I should have already been much more informed about. But, it’s strange: I think I’ve learned more after the documentaries than during them. Let me explain.
So, imagine me, loaded spring, going about my week, just waiting to talk about what I’ve been learning. Then, someone asks me what I’ve been up to, how my week is going. Naturally, I say that I’ve had the opportunity to watch some really interesting and shocking material involving Edward Snowden. To which, they respond: who?
It is in this response that I have understood more about this topic that I expected. The truth is horrible and simple; many people have already forgotten Edward Snowden, Wikileaks, and their respective consequences. They may remember the name, say that it sounds familiar or pretend that they remember, but when you ask them more about it, it’s clear that for the most part they have no idea. They let you tell them a few things about it. Then, out of pride, fear, or apathy, politely and seamlessly change the subject.
When looking collectively at all the different sources that I’ve had the chance to review on the subject, it seems to me that their uniting factor is their desperate desire to inform. This may seem obvious but, it is so only superficially. Of course, a PBS documentary or a panel of experts at a conference is meant to inform. The difference with this topic is that, for all the information we are capable of grasping or generating, we have so little on subjects like these. And the fact that we have so little is the essential problem of it all. I think Snowden conveyed this idea very well at the Moment of Truth event in New Zealand. He stressed that it was not necessarily the fact that the government was doing these things. It was the fact that the objects of these actions, the public, knew nothing about it.
The desire to disseminate this information to the public is their problem, their cause, and their solution. I see it in the way that these influential people try to convey the information. If you get a chance, go watch the Last Week Tonight’s segment on Net Neutrality or The United States of Secrets. It’s in the tone of John Oliver’s voice, the way he looks at the camera. He’s begging people to care. Pay special attention to the whistleblowers they interviewed in the PBS documentary. You’ll see the same desperation, the same frustration — if not more so.
It begs the question of why such intensity. The answer is simply. The only weapon we have against this problem, its nature being what it is, is the mass public. In a representative democracy, the government is held, to a certain extent, at will by the public due to elections. If the public knows, the public votes accordingly. If all other methods — lobbying, petitions, public commentary — are proven useless, the public can still vote a different politician into office. As powerful and as immense as our government may be, it is still, in the end, held to the will of its people.
That’s why there are whistle blowers. They want to try and make the public aware of these issues so that they can change them, because doing it any other way would have no effect on the problem. The government has overstepped its boundaries and the power struggle between the government and the governed must be balanced. If our screens are, essentially, “one way mirrors” as one PBS commentator called them, then we have to know about it. It is only through an active and informed populous that we can ever expect to hold the government accountable.
But, all of this I learned from the source material. What about the after? What about my father, behind the wheel of his truck moving his gaze from the road to me, and asking the simple question of: who?
There has been such a large dissemination of this information. Just take a look at the reading list from last week. They’re in a variety of different formats from different sources and networks, targeting various, diverse audiences. The person who watched that PBS documentary would probably not be the same person listening to John Oliver’s satire. And an entirely different type of person would be reading a New Yorker column or listening to a podcast. The information has gotten out to the public and to various groups of the public in various ways. That’s not the problem.
The real problem is that we forget. Sometimes unwillingly. Most times willingly. In a modern world where we come into contact with copious amounts of data just on a daily basis, if those data sources are not constantly reminding us that we should care about it, we don’t. And that works to the advantage of those in charge. They spin the story, twist the facts to suit them, and hold press conferences to convince the American public that they have done nothing wrong, have not overstepped boundaries, and if they have it’s only been to protect you from the big, bad T-word.
So, consider the viewer. Shocking information has been made public. The media is saying one thing. The government is saying another and we want to believe that our government is doing things in our best interest. The viewer may believe the information, they may be confused or conflicted, or they may not believe the media at all. Those who are confused or convinced, slowly stop seeing it in the media. It stops being a topic present and pertinent in their life. It blows over. And because the viewer can’t see or feel it as a tangible, every-day crisis — however much it may be that in actuality — they begin to ignore it and then, eventually, forget it or place it in the past with something that has happened, something finished.
But, it hasn’t finished. I go through these sources and I see no change anywhere. Just political asylums and ruined lives. We hail whistleblowers as heroes, grant them awards, and pat ourselves on the back, saying that it’s done now. It’s not done.
As a public, we find these topics scary because we don’t see a way out. We don’t see a solution to the problem. And because of this, we don’t discuss anymore. But, in doing this, we are our own greatest enemies. If we would continue to talk, to continue to pressure our governments and hold them accountable about these issues instead of letting them grow cold and stale on the back-burner, we would begin to take by our freedoms and powers at democratic citizens. This is why all of these information disseminators have the same look on their faces. Because they too understand this. And now I have the same look on my face. And I’m determined to that the next person to ask me ‘who?’ will too.
