Did Edward Snowden Change the World — One Year Later

It's been a year since Edward Snowden revealed the the documents that uncovered the NSA programs to spy on Americans, and the tech companies who are complicit in that surveillance. Efforts to reign in the government have stalled, Snowden is exiled in Russia, and the NSA continues to spy on Americans. Has anything really changed?

This collection of links looks at the Snowden saga from the perspective of a year after the revelations. It comes from Bookforum's Omnivore blog.

One year after Snowden

Jun 16 2014
9:00AM

• Evan Selinger (RIT) and Woodrow Hartzog (Samford): Obscurity and Privacy. 
• From Boston Review, a forum on saving privacy, including an opening essay by Reed Hundt on how framing surveillance as a tradeoff between privacy and security is a dead end for democracy. 
• Neil M. Richards on how privacy is not dead — it's inevitable. 
• The empire strikes back: Andrew O’Hehir on how Brandeis foreshadowed Snowden and Greenwald. 
• What are the boundaries of “legitimate” espionage? Robert Farley on how using espionage for gain in negotiations is an age-old tactic. 
• Cindy Cohn and Nadia Kayyali on the top 5 claims that defenders of the NSA have to stop making to remain credible. 
• Al Gore on Edward Snowden: “What he revealed in the course of violating important laws included violations of the Constitution that were way more serious than the crimes he committed”. 
• One year after Snowden, surveillance reform has stalled. 
• Trevor Timm on four ways Edward Snowden changed the world — and why the fight's not over. 
• Did Russia identify Snowden as a defector six years before leaks? 
• In New York, a team of activists and lawyers is working for Edward Snowden — and on the 19th floor of their office he is always there in the form of a robot with a camera “eye” which Snowden controls remotely from Moscow. 
• Meet Micah Lee, the man hired to make sure the Snowden docs aren't hacked. 
• New York Times editor: Losing Snowden scoop was “really painful”. 
• Aaron Sankin on on the media genius of Edward Snowden. 
• Michael Albert interviews Glenn Greenwald on adversarial journalism in a corporate world. 
• Casting call: Who should play Snowden and Greenwald?

Is DNA Collection the New Fingerprinting?

On Monday, June 3rd, the Supreme Court ruled that it is permissible to collect DNA sample from suspects who are under arrest. In their 5-4 ruling, the Justices decided that swabbing a person’s cheek (primary method of DNA collection) prior to the conviction does not constitute an unreasonable search. The only qualifiers given were that the person is under arrest “for a serious offense” and had been brought “to the station to be detained in custody.”

So what determines a "serious offense"?

I can see this ruling being misused in a multitude of ways, not least of which is arresting suspects as a "fishing expedition" to charge them with previous crimes or suspected crimes.

Once the DNA is collected, where does it go, who takes possession of it? Does it get entered into the national database? Does it get destroyed if the person is innocent? There a lot of issues with this ruling, and this article from Pacific Standard looks at the slippery slope this ruling entails.

DNA Collection Is the New Fingerprinting

What will it mean for crime suspects—and for victims?

June 3, 2013 • By Lauren Kirchner

(ILLUSTRATION: JEZPER/SHUTTERSTOCK) 

On Monday, the Supreme Court gave the OK to the controversial practice of cops collecting DNA samples from crime suspects under arrest. In a 5-4 ruling, the justices decided that swabbing a person’s cheek prior to their conviction of any crime did not constitute an unreasonable search—so long as the suspect was under arrest “for a serious offense” and had been brought “to the station to be detained in custody.”

According to NBC News, 28 states and the federal government already adhere to this practice. This case dates back to the 2009 arrest of 26-year-old Alonzo King on assault charges. Maryland police swabbed his cheek after his arrest, and by running it through a DNA database, matched him to an unsolved rape case.

The slippery-slope argument here is a fitting one, of course. If cops can collect DNA without a conviction, without a warrant, then how soon will it be until they can collect it from anyone during routine traffic stops, or any time? Or until other institutions besides law enforcement can? Justice Scalia, writing in his dissent on Monday, addressed those concerns.

“Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes,” he wrote. “Then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane.”

Justices voting in the majority compared DNA collection to a more advanced version of fingerprinting. In his oral argument back in February, Judge Alito stressed the significance of this new technology, which has the potential to solve countless murders and rapes with “a very minimal intrusion on personal privacy.”

Is the DNA-fingerprint comparison an accurate one? In an age when an artist can pick up an old piece of chewing gum from the sidewalk and create a 3-D model of the gum-chewer’s face, it sounds a bit naïve.

Monday’s Supreme Court ruling is only one of many difficult cases that will arise, here and elsewhere, surrounding DNA sampling and sequencing technology. High-publicity instances of new DNA evidence freeing a wrongly-convicted prisoner may increase public support for DNA collection by law enforcement. At the same time, DNA-sequencing companies like 23AndMe and EasyDNA entering the mainstream may also make people feel more comfortable with the idea that something as private and complex as their genetic makeup can be mined for benefits both personal and societal. Canadian law enforcement officials are lobbying their government on the same issue now. In the U.K., a police commissioner is defending the right of cops to take samples from children under the age of 18 who are suspected of even minor offenses.

But what about non-criminal DNA databases? Privacy protection concerns should apply to victims of crime just as much, if not more, than they do to crime perpetrators and suspects. An article in Trends in Genetics out last month addressed the very tricky balance between identifying victims and protecting those victims’ privacy when DNA-collection is involved in the process.

According to the report’s authors, Joyce Kim and Sara H. Katsanis of Duke University, government agencies are increasingly using DNA databases specifically to identify victims of human trafficking and other human-rights violations. For instance, they write, “Routine, systematic databasing of family member profiles of missing persons” may help identify kidnapping or murder victims. Databases could also prevent children from being placed up for illegal adoptions. If there is ever a proper use for DNA in law enforcement, the authors argue, this is it—but there must be boundaries set, and soon.

“Scholars estimate that, globally, government-operated DNA databases will grow from approximately 30 million profiles in 2011 to 100 million profiles in 2015,” according to the report. Many of the existing collection programs, Katsanis and Kim note, “involve vulnerable populations, including children, sex workers, and persons whose legal or resident status may be questioned.”

The coordination and ownership of these databases is also at issue. “Government-held DNA databases can be readily monitored for quality and security, but less-secure private entities, such as NGOs or entities with diplomatic immunity, could minimize abuse of power,” the authors write. And the more centralized and internationally-accessible the databases get, the more security issues and legal complications will potentially arise.

Even outside of the law-enforcement and crime-prevention realms, the ownership of genetic information is an ongoing debate. California legislators are currently considering a new law to require genetic-testing firms like 23AndMe and EasyDNA to obtain a person’s permission before processing their information and putting it in their genetic database. Currently, it is perfectly legal to send someone else’s “genetic material” to one of these companies, for instance, for paternity information or, as one company puts it, “infidelity testing.” From the San Jose Mercury News: “‘We have privacy laws in place to protect health and financial information,’ said the bill’s author, Alex Padilla, D-Pacoima. ‘But arguably the most personal information about us—our own genetic profile—isn’t protected.’”

What’s more, a recent MIT study showed how easy it is for genetic databases to be hacked, making genome theft an actual, and frightening, possibility. “By means of your DNA, nature provides you with a security flaw that makes Microsoft Windows look like Fort Knox,” writes Michael White elsewhere on Pacific Standard today.

Having a not-quite-accurate 3-D model made of your face is one thing; putting detailed medical information in the hands of hackable Internet sites is quite another. Clearly, the security of these DNA databases should be just as pressing an issue as the collection of people’s DNA in the first place, criminals or no.

Ofer Zur, Ph.D. - The Google Factor: Therapists' Unwitting Self-Disclosures On The Net

I recently posted an article by Thomas G. Gutheil, MD - Ethical Aspects of Self-Disclosure in Psychotherapy - about the challenges of knowing how much to self-disclose as a therapist. In response to that post, Ofer Zur, Ph.D. left a comment suggesting that social networking in particular and the internet in general also constitutes a form of self-disclosure that therapists need to be aware of in their work.

Here is his article on that topic.

The Google Factor

Therapists' Unwitting Self-Disclosures On The Net

What can clients find out about their psychotherapists
and counselors with a click of the mouse?

What can psychotherapists and counselors do about
negative information posted online about them?

By Ofer Zur, Ph.D.

An earlier version of this article was published in the Independent Practitioner, V. 28/2, pp 83-85, 2008. For printable-pdf format, see reprint at: Zur, O. (2008). The Google Factor: Therapists' Unwitting Self-Disclosure On The Net. New Therapist, 57, September/October, p. 16-22.

Short paper on Therapists' Web Transparency - How to Respond to Clients' Facebook Friend Request - Online course on Self-Disclosure for CE credits

Table of Contents:

Introduction
Five Types of Self-Disclosure

1. Deliberate self-disclosure
2. Non-Deliberate self-disclosure
3. Accidental self-disclosure
4. Inappropriate or counter clinical self-disclosure
5. Self-disclosures that are initiated by clients' deliberate actions

Free Speech and The Right To Privacy (or lack thereof) On The Internet

1. Public Records
2. The Right to Free Speech
3. The Right to Privacy
4. The Right to Privacy vs. Freedom of Speech

Ways that Clients May Find Online Information About Their Therapists

1. Reviewing therapists' professional web sites and online resumes
2. Conducting a simple Google [Internet] search
3. Joining social networks or reading therapists' or others blogs
4. Paying for specialized online background checks
5. Reading therapists' postings on professional listservs and in chatrooms

On Clients' Curiosity, Due Diligence, Intrusion and Cyber-Stalking

• Level 1 – Curiosity
• Level 2 - Due diligence or thorough search:
• Level 3 - Intrusive search
• Level 4 - Illegal search or Cyber-stalking

General Guidelines Regarding Internet Transparencies

What Psychotherapists Can Do To Delete Negative or False Information From the Web

• Identify the nature Of The information
• Figure out The source
• Try to resolve it amicably
• Whom to contact
• Where to turn for help

Introduction

Psychotherapists are accustomed to viewing self-disclosure as something personal they intentionally and verbally reveal to their clients, often not realizing that self-disclosure encompasses a vast deal more. Therapists' self-disclosure can be deliberate, unintentional, or accidental, it can be verbal or non-verbal and, most relevant to this paper, it can be available to the client without the therapist's knowledge (Scarton, 2010; Zur, 2010) or approval. In the Internet era, the concept of disclosure of information about therapists has become even broader and more complex. Search engines, such as Google, and specialized for-fee background checks, have completely changed the way clients can obtain information about their therapists, what kinds of information are available to clients with the click of a mouse and, correspondingly, what therapists may inadvertently disclose online.

At its most basic, a therapist's self-disclosure may be defined as the revelation to the client of personal rather than professional information (Farber, 2006; Zur, 2007). Generally, when therapist disclosure goes beyond the standard professional disclosure of name, credentials, office address, fees, emergency contacts, cancellation policies, etc., it is considered self-disclosure (Stricker & Fisher, 1990). This paper discusses the various kinds of self-disclosure mentioned above, i.e., intentional and unintentional, witting and unwitting. All can be gathered under the umbrella of "therapist self-disclosure", as all disclose information about the "self" of the therapist regardless of how the information came to light. Similar to the issue of what one may call "forced transparency" – for instance, self-disclosure in small communities where therapists' lives are unavoidably quite transparent (Knox, Hess, Petersen, & Hill, 1997, Zur, 2006) - self-disclosure on the Internet creates an equivalent transparency. The only difference is the size of the "actual village" in comparison to the "global village."

Five Types of Self-Disclosure

There are five different types of self-disclosure: deliberate, unavoidable, accidental, inappropriate and client-initiated. Following are brief descriptions of these types, followed by a more detailed description of the last category, i.e. clients' search for information about their therapists.

1. Deliberate self-disclosure: Self-disclosure is often refers to therapists' intentional disclosure of personal information. This might be verbal and also could be other deliberate actions, such placing a certain family photo in the office, the choice of office décor or an empathic gesture, such as a touch or a sigh (Barnett, 1988; Farber, 2006; Zur, 2007). There are two types of deliberate self-disclosure. The first one is self-revealing, which is the disclosure of information by therapists about themselves. The second type has been called self-involving, which has to do with therapists' personal reactions to clients and to occurrences that take place during sessions (Knox, et al., 1997). Appropriate and clinically driven self-disclosures are carried out for the clinical benefit of the clients. Humanistic (Jourard, 1971), feminist (Greenspan, 1985) cognitive and group therapists, and those who work with children and minorities have generally embraced self-disclosure more readily than psychoanalytically oriented therapists (Williams, 1997).

2. Non-Deliberate self-disclosure: This form of self-disclosure includes a wide range of possibilities, such as a therapist's gender, age and distinctive physical attributes, such as pregnancy, visible tattoos, obesity, some forms of disability, etc. (Stricker & Fisher, 1990). Therapists reveal themselves also by their manner of dress, hairstyle, use of make-up, jewelry, perfume or aftershave, facial hair, wedding rings, or the wearing of a cross, Star of David or any other symbol (Barnett, 1998). Non-verbal cues or body language (e.g., a raised eyebrow, a frown) are also sources of self-disclosure that are not always under the therapist's full control. A therapist's announcement of an upcoming vacation, or other time to be spent away from the office, also constitutes unavoidable self-disclosure. The home office setup, when the therapy office is located at the therapist's home, always involves extensive self disclosures, such as economic status, information about the family and pets, sometimes information about hobbies, habits and much more. Therapists who practice in small or rural communities, on remote military bases or aircraft carriers, or those who work in intimate and interconnected spiritual, ethnic, underprivileged, disabled or college communities, must all contend with extensive self-disclosure and significant transparency of their personal lives simply because many aspects are often displayed in clear view of their clients by virtue of the setting. In many of these small community situations, a therapist's marital status, family details, religion or political affiliation, sexual orientation and other personal information may be readily available to clients (Farber, 2006; Zur, 2006).

3. Accidental self-disclosure: This form of self-disclosure occurs when there are spontaneous verbal or non-verbal reactions, incidental or unplanned encounters outside the office, or other planned and unplanned occurrences that happen to reveal therapists' personal information to their clients (Knox, Hess, Petersen, & Hill, 1997; Stricker & Fisher, 1990, Zur, 2007). This may include a therapist's unplanned strong, emotional, negative response to a client's announcement of a decision to get married, quit a job, etc. or it might be when a client unexpectedly witnesses the therapist's interaction with his/her family in a public place.

4. Inappropriate or counter clinical self-disclosure: These forms of self-disclosure include self-disclosures that are done for the benefit of the therapist, burdens the client with unnecessary information about the therapist or creates a role reversal where a client, inappropriately, takes care of the therapist (Knox, et al, 1997; Stricker & Fisher, 1990; Zur, 2006). One the most cited examples is when therapists inappropriately discuss their own sexual feelings or fantasies. Other examples are when therapists selfishly discuss their own hardships with their clients without any clinical rationale. Such inappropriate self-disclosures are often counter-clinical and unethical.

5. Self-disclosures that are initiated by clients' deliberate actions: This type of disclosure is the focus of this article. A therapist, in this case, may intentionally or unintentionally and wittingly or unwittingly reveal information about him or herself to clients who are conducting 'online-searches' for the specific purpose of gathering information about the therapist. Such searches can reveal a wide range of professional and personal information, such as family history, criminal records, family tree, volunteer activity, community and recreational involvement, political affiliations and much more. In the past, curious, obsessed or intrusive clients were known to have inquired about their therapists in the community; to have searched for and found their therapist's home address, marital status and similar details or to have criminally stalked their therapists (Barnett, 1998). However, the meaning of curiosity and stalking has radically altered since the introduction of Internet search engines such as Google, Yahoo, Lycos, Alta Vista, etc., as well as thousands of for-fee services that are able to find out almost anything a client might desire to know about their therapist (Zur, 2007). As the rest of the paper elaborates, the result of new web technologies is that therapists do not always have control over or knowledge of what is posted online about them, and consequently neither control over nor knowledge of what clients may find out or know about them.

Free Speech and The Right To Privacy (or lack thereof) On The Internet:

The issue of privacy is one of the biggest challenges posed by the Internet. New Internet Technologies have presented a very complicated and complex legal, ethical and moral tension between the right to privacy versus the First Amendment constitutional right to free speech. This question of privacy vs. free speech is currently being debated throughout the country among lay people, professionals, politicians, attorneys and courts. Some of the focus of the debate has been around concern with online data vendors such as, Intelius.com, PeopleFinder.com and ZabaSearch.com. These are companies that search public record databases, gather all sorts of information and, often for a fee, provide the information on the Internet.

In discussing these complexities there are several issues that need to be defined and attended to: The notion of Public Records. The First Amendment and the Right to Free Speech and the Right to Privacy. Following are short discussions of these issues . . .

Read more.

Tags: Ofer Zur Ph.D., The Google Factor, Therapists' Unwitting Self-Disclosures On The Net, Psychology, therapy, internet, information, privacy, therapists, clients, online information