Results tagged “privacy” from Six Hours A Week: Adventures in American Exile

Insights don’t usually come from obvious places. I certainly never expected counter-surveillance strategizing to provide a new level of awareness of the wastefulness of our everyday approach to electricity use. Since all of us are trying to save money during the Bush Recession, I thought it was worth writing about.

A couple of years ago I wrote a series of articles about how average U.S. Americans could save energy and money in their daily lives. During that process, our household dutifully switched to CFL light bulbs, used power strips for the entertainment and computer centers, and unplugged “vampire” electronics like toasters that are only used a few times per day.

I’m sure I’m slow and lots of tech-savvy people have thought about this, but from a lay, consumer perspective, it never occurred to me how wasteful it is to have electricity pulsing to all areas of a residence all of the time. After all, a garage door opener may only be used once or twice per day, and the garage lights not at all. Outdoor lights need only have wattage supplied to them at night. Some people rarely use their basements.

We don’t understand exactly how the extensive sound/visual surveillance system in our house works. A contractor (who conspired to foreclose on my mother’s home as part of a drug entrapment scheme) seems to have arranged for his subs to change the wiring (either only for the surveillance or also as part of an overall effort to devalue the home for the foreclosure). Now multiple disparate rooms, as well as outdoor lights, are on the same breaker.  

In April, as part of an ongoing effort to reclaim our privacy, our household innovated a counter surveillance-inspired energy and money-saving strategy: flipping off non-essential breakers. Since so many of the rooms are on the same one, it means that we’re using electricity in only a few rooms. We turn on the garage only when we need to come or go. At night, we use flashlights in most of the house or light from the refrigerator in the kitchen.

On May’s bill we cut the electricity usage almost by half of the previous year’s and so prevented about 370 lbs of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. Just our one household! (There was an extra person for part of last year’s bill, and we weren’t here for part of it – but still!)

Much of the writing and activity I did in relation to mainstreaming environmentalism had to do with making a difference without really changing or sacrificing. Sacrifice was boring and ugly. The fact that we have so quickly adapted to not having electricity everywhere in the house, and to cooking in the daylight, makes me hopeful. Throughout my entire life I had electricity in the kitchen all the time and now I don't. I probably won’t do it for the rest of my life but I know that I can and still feel happy and abundant (as much as possible under the current circumstances). 

There's a certain amount of strength and comfort that comes from knowing you can let go of what you take for granted. The recession gives us all an opportunity to experiment with feeling content without consuming in the manner some call the “American Way of Life.” My grandparents were very American throughout the depression. Maybe we can all just feel lucky that as bad as things are, for most of us doing without is still a choice.

People complain about environmentalists wanting to curtail their freedoms through planet-saving restrictions. I look forward to the day when my American Way of Life doesn't mean needing to choose between enjoying privacy in my own home and using my appliances whenever I feel like it.

~~

Update: Since writing this, I have discovered that a certain set of Republican/Religious Right operatives is somewhat obsessed with my sexual habits, and seems to have shared them with their foot soldiers. God bless hidden cameras and chatty therapists! (If the harassment continues, you'll get to know all about some of these folks.)

Since puberty I've struggled with two major sexuality-related themes: how to be both smart and happily sexual, and how to get out from under the culturally-ingrained notion of my sexuality as some sort of commodity.

Ironically, my sexuality seems to have literally become a commodity in the form of tape(s) purchased by government contractors. The reason? My environmentally- and rights-preoccupied brain.

While all of this surveillance/harassment has been happening in the last year, I've constantly tried to piece together why. Now a number of events have made clear that at least part of it was an aspect of the $250 million anti-environmental PR industry that was trying to recruit me. This makes so much more sense than a variety of other explanations, and actually makes me feel a lot more hopeful about the dismal state of civil liberties in the U.S. I wasn't targeted just because of my political beliefs, but because of my very specific theory/activism/PR skill set, and the fact that my course of study had the potential to do great damage to anti-environmental PR efforts.

Now it has. After circumventing Herculean efforts to prevent me from filing my thesis for May graduation, I released a shortened version of it to a variety of journalists. The work exposes Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus as very likely funded by anti-environmental industries (there's a link to it at the bottom of this post). After their work is investigated, I have very little doubt that they and others will be discredited. Of course, this means that I must be discredited too.

Since efforts to frame me as a would-be assassin or entrap me using drugs have failed, I do expect that some day the compromising images I've been taunted with repeatedly over the last year will make their way onto the Internet.

The most "radical" act I have ever taken part in is one I organized. It was a miserable failure, and I was embarrassed by it. I write about it now not out of pride, but as a way of letting readers know what it takes to get "on the list."

You may remember the lead-up to the Iraq war as a frustrating, heartbreaking time. Many of us believed that preemptive aggression was a way to further agitate people who hated the U.S. and would only make future terrorist attacks more likely. We could see right through all of the pretextual explanations for war. At the same time, as I wrote last fall, the anti-war movement seemed frustratingly ineffectual.

So -- what was my brilliant response to the impending bloodshed and the lackluster antiwar movement? To dress up like Jackie Kennedy and carry around shopping bags with Jesus on them. Though this may seem a bit off, I think history will prove this brand of "radicalism" much more sane than Dick Cheney's. Why the Jackie Kennedy imagery?

Will the now-more-politicized-than-ever intelligence infrastructure, or the legal system, get to weigh in on the legality of surveillance targeting? With the House and Senate negotiating this week over how to amend the the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), it's more important than ever to understand the issues.

The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) tells us that although Telecom immunity has gotten all the press (certainly I've been fixated on it), judicial supervision is most important:

The House bill, as noted, puts judicial approval where it belongs - at the beginning of the process. In a huge concession to the government's arguments, the House bill does not require judicial approval of individual targets, even if they might communicate with someone in the U.S. Instead, the House bill creates a system of "program warrants" or "basket orders," under which the government can designate the individual targets on its own discretion.

The House bill also takes significant steps to cut off an argument used by the Administration to justify post 9-11 warrantless surveillance outside the requirements of FISA. The House bill's "exclusivity" provision indicates that a Congressional authorization of the use of military force should not be construed to authorize surveillance unless it does so explicitly. The Senate bill, in contrast, merely repeats current law. It therefore invites the argument that Congress might implicitly authorize warrantless surveillance in the future when it authorizes the use of military force.

Yikes! The CDT provides an excellent overview, clearly breaking down what the issues are with the different bills, and what's at stake.

Send support to House leaders! Let them know you want legislation that maintains the rule of law.

~~ Center for Democracy and Technology

Giving up privacy has been normalized to a paradoxical degree.

On the one hand, few Americans seem to know that relative to most of the developed world, ours is a surveillance society nearing the level of Russia or China. On the other hand, we have come to accept daily incursions on our privacy and other basic rights for the sake of convenience or "safety."

For someone like me, in her early thirties, there has been a gradual and bumpy trajectory from an expectation of privacy at my jr. hight locker, to getting used to being filmed at the ATM, to feeling like an out-of-touch old lady because I want my emails to be private.

What about kids marinating in the camera-filled, reality TV existence we've created for them? As Allison Orr of Australia's EDemocracy notes:

Yes, the FISA debate is still upon us and I hope you've written like mad to your Senators.

But we must not forget about S1959, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. (Too much of a mouthful? Follow ReasonableCitizen's lead and call it the AQ (or Anti-Quaker) Bill.) Below you'll find all the latest news as well as highlights of oppositional outcry from Sacramento to Atlanta.
 
Remarkably, in an apparent reaction to vast and sustained criticism, the Committee on Homeland Security released this Fact Sheet in December. (The Center for Constitutional Rights has a Fact sheet of its own here.  After reading it you can sign the anti- petition if it will make you feel better.)

Some folks seemed to think the bill was dead, but it clearly is not. I do think we have some time before it hits the Senate floor, however. My Senator, who is on the Homeland Security Committee, wasn't familiar with it when we spoke last week. If your Senator is also on that Committee, The Bill of Rights Defense Committee is asking you to meet with his or her aides.

And now, many smart reasons to fight this bill as though our Constitutional rights depended on it (Oh wait... They do...):

Naturally-colored teeth. Inappropriate eye contact and personal space allowances. There are enough stigmas dictating our grooming habits and everyday interactions.

Now we're supposed to feel lame for paying cash. Thanks, Visa.

You've likely seen the "Life Takes Visa" campaign ads. A flashback to Breakin' 2: Electric Bugaloo, cast from a United Colors of Benetton poster, shows a now vintage Visa scene of choreographed and carefree consumption. Some lame-ass trips up the funk by using cash for a transaction. Not even the most perfectly wrinkled of parachute pants could distract from the shame.

For over a year, this campaign has targeted a variety of audiences in order to castigate the cash-o-philes among us. Why?

Visa says cash and checks represent a $21 trillion opportunity for itself, and for other card companies able to convince customers that charging is preferable to handing over actual dollars and cents.

We knew that it wasn't about fighting global warming or feeding the hungry. We are used to being targeted and manipulated by advertising. But this is just shameless.

Yes credit cards are convenient, but we know their drawbacks. Most folks swiping their cards these days are in debt. Credit card fees drive up prices. Also, each credit or debit card transaction you make is recorded so that profiles of your consumer behavior can be bought and sold. Soon, law enforcement will be able to monitor us in real time as we make credit transactions (great in the case of Amber Alerts, not-so-great for the rest of us who like to move about freely).

Others have raged against the Visa machine. I'm asking you to give the giant a virtual ear-full: Contact Visa to say "Shame on You." Shame on you Visa, for trying to plant insidious seeds of nervousness and social pressure that will germinate as we try to give the cashier exact change.

You could even call or write a letter if you want to be all slow and cumbersome.

~~

Pass the Freedom Fries!  The French are still filmed, monitored and intercepted less than we are, but barely. Their status also "deteriorated" in 2007.

The U.S. has been downgraded from "Extensive Surveillance Society" to "Endemic Surveillance Society," according to Privacy International's 2007 International Privacy Ranking released on Friday. We now share the "Endemic" distinction with China, Russia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan, and the UK. I should have expected the following, really, after recently letting go of my email privacy delusions:

In terms of statutory protections and privacy enforcement, the US is the worst ranking country in the democratic world. In terms of overall privacy protection the United States has performed very poorly, being out-ranked by both India and the Philippines.

It's worth noting that Canadian and EU papers have reported on this, but I have yet to find coverage in a U.S. newspaper. It's up to you and me to let our friends and family and presidential candidates know that we rank at the bottom when it comes to:

Now is an essential time to let your Senators know (here are their contact forms) that they don't have to pass another frightening bill to seem tough on terror. If you haven't heard about the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, please see the links at the bottom of this post to understand how it could further curtail our freedoms and criminalize dissent. It's already passed in the House!

None of us wants to see more horrific acts of violence. On the other hand, we don't want to waste our time with redundant measures that likely won't prevent them, but will threaten the First Amendment.

I sent this to Sens. Tester and Baucus today. Adapt it as you wish!

Dear Senator Baucus,

I am gravely concerned about S 1959, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. I am troubled by the overly vague language and worried that in practice it will criminalize non-violent forms of dissent and stifle freedom of speech.

S 1959 has the potential to be used to target citizens who disagree with whichever administration is currently in power or who oppose powerful corporate interests. Most of the "home grown" terror we have seen has originated from white, Christian anti-abortionists. However, we know from the FOIA documents released so far that most of those targeted for surveillance by the current administration have been anti-war activists. Additionally, we have seen concerted efforts to label property destroying/anti-development extremists "terrorists" and tie mainstream environmental groups to them.

Surveillance is endemic in our society -- we have been labeled one of the world's top surveillance societies by Privacy International. Do we need to set up another commission to decide who to watch?

I look forward to hearing your position on this bill.

Thank you,


CNET
Huffington Post
NYC Indypendent 

~~

Finding out that my Hushmail messages aren't as private as I thought they were makes me nostalgic (and pissed, of course).

When I studied abroad in Thailand as an undergrad I began to realize what made me U.S. American. Though I was full of youthful certainty about everything that was wrong with the U.S., and expected that my time in Prothet Thai would only reveal the ways our foreign policy and globalization generally had damaged the country, I unexpectedly came face to face with my own Americanness.

"Surprise radical, young know-it-all," nearly all of my experiences seemed to say. "Most of what you value dearly is ingrained in your culture! American Culture! Ha!" The ensuing identity crisis was long and ugly.