As reported in this Forbes article in 2013, the SEC began to use so-called RoboCop to assist with their regulatory duties.
Who is RoboCop?
No, it's not that infamous crime-fighting cyborg from the late-80s (coincidentally remade in 2014). It is actually the Accounting Quality Model (AQM) - not quite as exciting I know. According to Forbes:
"AQM is an analytical tool which trawls corporate filings to flag high-risk activity for closer inspection by SEC enforcement teams. Use of the AQM, in conjunction with statements by recently-confirmed SEC Chairman Mary Jo White and the introduction of new initiatives announced July 2, 2013, indicates a renewed commitment by the SEC to seek out violations of financial reporting regulations. This pledge of substantial resources means it is more important than ever for corporate filers to understand SEC enforcement strategies, especially the AQM, in order to decrease the likelihood that their firm will be the subject of an expensive SEC audit."
Another interesting point raised by the Forbes article is the use of XBRL in this accounting model: "AQM relies on the newly-mandated XBRL data which is prone to mistakes by the inexperienced. Sloppy entries could land your company’s filing at the top of the list for close examination."
(On a side note: AICPA has published this study to assist XBRL filers ensure that they are preparing quality statements, given that there are many possible errors; as noted in this study).
Within this context, we should take note of how the SEC is hiring "quantitative analysts" (or "quants" for short). As noted in this WSJ article:
"And Wall Street firms, for their part, are able to offer quantitative analysts—or “quants”—far higher pay packages than the regulator. The SEC’s access to market data also remains limited. In 2012, it approved a massive new computer system to track markets, known as the Consolidated Audit Trail, but the system isn’t likely to come online for several years, experts say."
Could the SEC pull a fast one and become the source of innovation? Although the WSJ article seems to downplay the possibility that the SEC can outpace the firms, it is not something that the audit industry can ignore.
As noted in a previous post on Big Data, it was just this type of mindset that Mike Flowers of New York City looked to revolutionize how the NYC leveraged big data to improve its "audit" of illegal conversions. Perhaps the SEC may follow in his stead.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Time for Windows 10? I can't wait!
I have been overly optimistic about Windows in the past, but here me out!
Boy Genius published a post on the future Windows 10 that they are releasing next year. (Note Microsoft decided to skip Windows 9 altogether).
And does it looks good. As can be seen in this video, it will feature Cortana who is Microsoft's personal digital assistant that incorporates voice search, voice commands (i.e. you can get Cortana to set-up an appointment with you) and machine learning (i.e. it learns from your interactions.
Impressed?
It speaks to the overall move towards using natural language processing (NLP) and elements of Artificial Intelligence. Apple was arguably first to the scene with its Siri application. However, IBM's Watson is also a clearer example of where this technology is heading. Gartner refers to these types of technologies as "smart machines", which they claim has the following implications:
"Most business and thought leaders underestimate the potential of smart machines to take over millions of middle-class jobs in the coming decades," said Kenneth Brant, research director at Gartner. "Job destruction will happen at a faster pace, with machine-driven job elimination overwhelming the market's ability to create valuable new ones."
Will Cortana take your job? Well, let's just enjoy the possibility that Microsoft may build in some real cool NLP technology into your every-day computer and worry about that one a future post!
Boy Genius published a post on the future Windows 10 that they are releasing next year. (Note Microsoft decided to skip Windows 9 altogether).
And does it looks good. As can be seen in this video, it will feature Cortana who is Microsoft's personal digital assistant that incorporates voice search, voice commands (i.e. you can get Cortana to set-up an appointment with you) and machine learning (i.e. it learns from your interactions.
Impressed?
It speaks to the overall move towards using natural language processing (NLP) and elements of Artificial Intelligence. Apple was arguably first to the scene with its Siri application. However, IBM's Watson is also a clearer example of where this technology is heading. Gartner refers to these types of technologies as "smart machines", which they claim has the following implications:
"Most business and thought leaders underestimate the potential of smart machines to take over millions of middle-class jobs in the coming decades," said Kenneth Brant, research director at Gartner. "Job destruction will happen at a faster pace, with machine-driven job elimination overwhelming the market's ability to create valuable new ones."
Will Cortana take your job? Well, let's just enjoy the possibility that Microsoft may build in some real cool NLP technology into your every-day computer and worry about that one a future post!
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Europe vs Google et al: Long term ramifications of the Snowden Revelations?
Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece today where they discuss how the "clash that pits [European] governments against the new tech titans, established industries against upstart challengers, and freewheeling American business culture against a more regulated European framework". For example, "[t]he European Parliament in late October called on Internet companies operating in the region to “unbundle” its search engines from its other commercial properties". The obvious company that would be impacted by this is Google (and the WSJ article notes that Microsoft is aiding and abetting such calls to help boost its own profile).
However, the WSJ article notes: "And perhaps most fundamentally, it is about control of the Internet, the world’s common connection and crucial economic engine that is viewed as being under the sway of the U.S. This exploded following the revelations by Edward Snowden of widespread U.S. government surveillance of Americans and Europeans—sometimes via U.S. company data and telecommunications networks."
This would not be the first article to note that the Snowden revelations have put a chill on the move to the (US) cloud. However, it does highlight how far the revelations have gone to force the hand of European regulators to at least act in public like they are trying to do something to protect the data of their companies.
What the article did not into much detail is the likely reason that the Europeans are concerned. Although it may presented to be an issue of privacy or anti-surveillance, the likely real reason is industrial espionage. As per the Snowden revelations, governmental spy agencies are not just interested in obtaining information on matters relating to national security, but are also interested in obtaining data related to international trade or other business dealings. As noted by the CBC, “NSA does not limit itsespionage to issues of national security and he cited German engineering firm,Siemens as one target”. It is unfair just to single out the US for such actions, as other governments do it as well. For example, Canada’s CSEC is also alleged to be involved in similar activity. The Globe & Mail reporting that “Communications SecurityEstablishment Canada (CSEC) has spied on computers and smartphones affiliatedwith Brazil’s mining and energy ministry in a bid to gain economic intelligence.” Former Carleton University Professor Martin Rudner explains (in the same G&M article) that the objective of such surveillance is to give Canadian government a leg up during negotiations, such as NAFTA.
Although most have forgotten the commercial rivalries (see quote from then US president Woodrow Wilson about the roots of international conflict) that exist between the G8 Nations, it is important to understand the implications that this has for data security on the cloud. Anything that is sensitive and is relevant to business dealings should never be put on the cloud. Of course it is a matter of judgment of what constitutes "sensitive", but the criteria can effectively "reverse engineered" based on what was revealed.
However, the WSJ article notes: "And perhaps most fundamentally, it is about control of the Internet, the world’s common connection and crucial economic engine that is viewed as being under the sway of the U.S. This exploded following the revelations by Edward Snowden of widespread U.S. government surveillance of Americans and Europeans—sometimes via U.S. company data and telecommunications networks."
This would not be the first article to note that the Snowden revelations have put a chill on the move to the (US) cloud. However, it does highlight how far the revelations have gone to force the hand of European regulators to at least act in public like they are trying to do something to protect the data of their companies.
What the article did not into much detail is the likely reason that the Europeans are concerned. Although it may presented to be an issue of privacy or anti-surveillance, the likely real reason is industrial espionage. As per the Snowden revelations, governmental spy agencies are not just interested in obtaining information on matters relating to national security, but are also interested in obtaining data related to international trade or other business dealings. As noted by the CBC, “NSA does not limit itsespionage to issues of national security and he cited German engineering firm,Siemens as one target”. It is unfair just to single out the US for such actions, as other governments do it as well. For example, Canada’s CSEC is also alleged to be involved in similar activity. The Globe & Mail reporting that “Communications SecurityEstablishment Canada (CSEC) has spied on computers and smartphones affiliatedwith Brazil’s mining and energy ministry in a bid to gain economic intelligence.” Former Carleton University Professor Martin Rudner explains (in the same G&M article) that the objective of such surveillance is to give Canadian government a leg up during negotiations, such as NAFTA.
Although most have forgotten the commercial rivalries (see quote from then US president Woodrow Wilson about the roots of international conflict) that exist between the G8 Nations, it is important to understand the implications that this has for data security on the cloud. Anything that is sensitive and is relevant to business dealings should never be put on the cloud. Of course it is a matter of judgment of what constitutes "sensitive", but the criteria can effectively "reverse engineered" based on what was revealed.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Remembering those Blackberry days
The Globe and Mail reported on BlackBerry's latest approach in terms of rebuilding its mobile user base. The company is offering $400 trade + a $150 gift card for anyone who trades in their iPhone for the rather odd square shaped Passport. Here is the review from the Verge regarding the latest:
Coincidentally, I came across an BlackBerry of mine: the Torch. I remembered thinking that after using the device how it was the perfect compromise between the touch screen and the classic keyboard. However, that feeling faded quite quickly: the device was so under-powered compared to the competition and of course it lacked the apps that you could find in the Apple AppStore. But at the time I could never imagine giving up the physical QWERTY keyboard.
Since then I have moved onto Android and more specifically to the SwiftKey keyboard - to the point I can't go back to a physical keyboard!
How did BlackBerry fail to keep up with the times?
As noted in this article, Mike Lazaridis the founder of the CEO, was inspired to develop the BlackBerry when he recalled his teacher's advice while watching a presentation in 1987 - almost a decade before the Internet - on how Coke used wireless technology to manage the inventory at the vending machines. What was his teacher's advice? His teacher advised him not to get swept in the computer craze as the real boon lay in integrating wireless technology with computers.
BlackBerry caused a storm in the corporate introducing it's smartphones in 1998. It went on to dominate the corporate smartphone market as the gold standard in mobile communications. The following graphic from Bloomberg really captures the subsequent rise and fall quite well:
What happened how did the iPhone, unveiled in 2007, and the Android Operating System outflank the Blackberry? This article in the New Yorker larger blames BlackBerry's inability to understand the trend of "consumerization of IT": users wanted to use their latest iPhone or Android device instead of the BlackBerry in the corporate environment - and was it just a matter of technology to make this happen.
Although luminaries, such as Clay Christensen, have written extensively on the challenge of innovation. And there's always the problem of hindsight bias. However, is the problem more basic? When we look at the financial crisis, some people like to blame poor modeling. But I think that is more convenient than accepting the reality that people got swept up in the wave.
Isn’t it fair to say that people knew that house of cards was going to come down (and some of the investment banks were even betting on it falling apart), but were overly optimistic that they would get out before everyone else does?
But that’s the point.
When we are in a situation where we are surrounded by people who confirm our understanding of the world – we may believe them instead of trying to see if our understanding of the situation is correct. With the housing bubble, the key players wanted to believe that those models were correct – even though models have failed the infamous Long Term Capital Management. With BlackBerry what was it? Did they think their hold over the corporate IT? What I wonder is did they not even try to see within their families and those around them who were using the iPhone or Android devices? Weren’t they curious what “all the fuss was about”?
Although this is problem with many of us who want to believe that the present situation is going to continue indefinitely (especially when things are going our way), there are others who do stay on top of things. Most notably is the Encyclopedia Britannica that actually stopped issuing physical encyclopedias and moved to the digital channel instead.
Change is a challenge, but the key is to be prepared to admit that the current way of doing things can be done better, faster and in radically different way.
Coincidentally, I came across an BlackBerry of mine: the Torch. I remembered thinking that after using the device how it was the perfect compromise between the touch screen and the classic keyboard. However, that feeling faded quite quickly: the device was so under-powered compared to the competition and of course it lacked the apps that you could find in the Apple AppStore. But at the time I could never imagine giving up the physical QWERTY keyboard.
Since then I have moved onto Android and more specifically to the SwiftKey keyboard - to the point I can't go back to a physical keyboard!
How did BlackBerry fail to keep up with the times?
As noted in this article, Mike Lazaridis the founder of the CEO, was inspired to develop the BlackBerry when he recalled his teacher's advice while watching a presentation in 1987 - almost a decade before the Internet - on how Coke used wireless technology to manage the inventory at the vending machines. What was his teacher's advice? His teacher advised him not to get swept in the computer craze as the real boon lay in integrating wireless technology with computers.
BlackBerry caused a storm in the corporate introducing it's smartphones in 1998. It went on to dominate the corporate smartphone market as the gold standard in mobile communications. The following graphic from Bloomberg really captures the subsequent rise and fall quite well:
Although luminaries, such as Clay Christensen, have written extensively on the challenge of innovation. And there's always the problem of hindsight bias. However, is the problem more basic? When we look at the financial crisis, some people like to blame poor modeling. But I think that is more convenient than accepting the reality that people got swept up in the wave.
Isn’t it fair to say that people knew that house of cards was going to come down (and some of the investment banks were even betting on it falling apart), but were overly optimistic that they would get out before everyone else does?
But that’s the point.
When we are in a situation where we are surrounded by people who confirm our understanding of the world – we may believe them instead of trying to see if our understanding of the situation is correct. With the housing bubble, the key players wanted to believe that those models were correct – even though models have failed the infamous Long Term Capital Management. With BlackBerry what was it? Did they think their hold over the corporate IT? What I wonder is did they not even try to see within their families and those around them who were using the iPhone or Android devices? Weren’t they curious what “all the fuss was about”?
Although this is problem with many of us who want to believe that the present situation is going to continue indefinitely (especially when things are going our way), there are others who do stay on top of things. Most notably is the Encyclopedia Britannica that actually stopped issuing physical encyclopedias and moved to the digital channel instead.
Change is a challenge, but the key is to be prepared to admit that the current way of doing things can be done better, faster and in radically different way.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Financial Crisis: Why didn't they use analytics?
For the past while, I have been reviewing the aftermath of the 2007-2008 Financial Crisis. I came across an interesting piece that highlights the importance of using analytics and "dashboarding" to monitor risk within a company. To be specific, I came across this when going through Nomi Prins's book, It Takes a Pillage: An Epic Tale of Power, Deceit, and Untold Trillions. Nomi Prins was in charge of analytics at Goldman Sachs and other banks. The embedded video gives more information about her and the book she wrote:
While listening to her book, I came across a transcript from the hearings in the aftermath of the crisis. As can be seen in the following video, Representative Paul E. Kanjorski is questioning the now-former CEO of Country Wide financial, Angelo Mozilo about the sub-prime crisis.
The part to focus on is where he grills the CEO about why they didn't aggregate statistics to monitor the mounting losses from the sub-prime loans (click here for where the transcript was extracted from. Please note the italics and bold is mine):
"Mr. Kanjorski: How long did it take you to come up with the understanding that there was this type of an 18 percent failure rate before you sent the word down the line, "Check all of these loans or future loans for these characteristics so we don't have this horrendous failure?"
Mr. Mozilo. Yes, immediately--within the first--if we don't get payment the first month, we're contacting the borrower. And
that's part of what we do. And we are adjusting our----
Mr. Kanjorski. I understand you do to the mortgage holder. But don't you put all those together in statistics and say, "These packages we are selling now are failing at such a horrific rate that they'll never last and there will be total decimation of our business and of these mortgages?" "
In other word, the Congressman is wondering how the CEO could not know that his business was failings because it is only common sense to monitor the key metrics that measure the key risk indicators (KRIs) associated with his principal business activities.
I would be the first to argue that there was much bigger issues with the financial crisis, such as the 16 trillion dollar-bank-bailout, the failure to properly rate the bonds backed by the sub-prime mortgages, quantitative easing, and so on. That being said, organizations and companies need to be aware of the importance of measuring the KRIs associated with their business. Regulators, and others charged with oversight, will eventually question the insufficiency of such monitoring controls. Furthermore, as these regulators are more tech savvy - such as the judge in the Oracle vs Google trial - the more sophisticated dashboards they will expect.
While listening to her book, I came across a transcript from the hearings in the aftermath of the crisis. As can be seen in the following video, Representative Paul E. Kanjorski is questioning the now-former CEO of Country Wide financial, Angelo Mozilo about the sub-prime crisis.
The part to focus on is where he grills the CEO about why they didn't aggregate statistics to monitor the mounting losses from the sub-prime loans (click here for where the transcript was extracted from. Please note the italics and bold is mine):
"Mr. Kanjorski: How long did it take you to come up with the understanding that there was this type of an 18 percent failure rate before you sent the word down the line, "Check all of these loans or future loans for these characteristics so we don't have this horrendous failure?"
Mr. Mozilo. Yes, immediately--within the first--if we don't get payment the first month, we're contacting the borrower. And
that's part of what we do. And we are adjusting our----
Mr. Kanjorski. I understand you do to the mortgage holder. But don't you put all those together in statistics and say, "These packages we are selling now are failing at such a horrific rate that they'll never last and there will be total decimation of our business and of these mortgages?" "
In other word, the Congressman is wondering how the CEO could not know that his business was failings because it is only common sense to monitor the key metrics that measure the key risk indicators (KRIs) associated with his principal business activities.
I would be the first to argue that there was much bigger issues with the financial crisis, such as the 16 trillion dollar-bank-bailout, the failure to properly rate the bonds backed by the sub-prime mortgages, quantitative easing, and so on. That being said, organizations and companies need to be aware of the importance of measuring the KRIs associated with their business. Regulators, and others charged with oversight, will eventually question the insufficiency of such monitoring controls. Furthermore, as these regulators are more tech savvy - such as the judge in the Oracle vs Google trial - the more sophisticated dashboards they will expect.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Worth mentioning: KPMG's take on the state of tech in the audit profession
In a recent post (as in just this week) on Forbes, KPMG's James P. Liddy who is the Vice Chair, Audit and Regional Head of Audit, Americas put out a great post that summarizes the current state of analytics in financial audits.
He diplomatically summarizes the current state of the financial audit as "unchanged for more than 80 years since the advent of the classic audit" while stating "[a]dvances in technology and the massive proliferation of available information have created a new landscape for financial reporting. With investors now having access to a seemingly unlimited breadth and depth of information, the need has never been greater for the audit process to evolve by providing deeper and more relevant insights about an organization’s financial condition and performance –while maintaining and continually improving audit quality." [Emphasis added]
For those that have started off our careers in the world of financial audit as professional accountants and then moved to the world of audit analytics or IT risk management, we have always felt that technology could help us to get audits done more efficiently and effectively.
I was actually surprised that he stated that auditors "perform procedures over a relatively small sample of transactions – as few as 30 or 40 – and extrapolate conclusions across a much broader set of data". We usually don't see this kind of openness when it comes to discussing the inner-workings of the profession. However, I think that discussing such fundamentals is inevitable given those outside the profession are embracing big data analytics in "non-financial audits". For example, see this post where I discuss the New York City fire department's use of big data analytics to identify a better audit population when it comes to identifying illegal conversions that are a high risk and need to be evacuated.
For those that take comfort in the regulated nature of the profession as protection of disruption, we should take note of how the regulators are embracing big data analytics. Firstly, the SEC is using RoboCop to better target financial irregularities. Secondly, according to the Wall Street Journal, FINRA is eyeing an automated audit approach to monitoring to risk. The program is known as "Comprehensive Automated Risk Data System" (CARDS). As per FINRA:
"CARDS program will increase FINRA's ability to protect the investing public by utilizing automated analytics on brokerage data to identify problematic sales practice activity. FINRA plans to analyze CARDS data before examining firms on site, thereby identifying risks earlier and shifting work away from the on-site exam process". In the same post, Susan Axelrod, FINRA's Executive Vice President of Regulatory Operations, is quoted as saying "The information collected through CARDS will allow FINRA to run analytics that identify potential "red flags" of sales practice misconduct and help us identify potential business conduct problems with firms, branches and registered representatives".
As a result, I agree with Mr. Libby: sticking to the status quo is no longer a viable strategy for the profession.
He diplomatically summarizes the current state of the financial audit as "unchanged for more than 80 years since the advent of the classic audit" while stating "[a]dvances in technology and the massive proliferation of available information have created a new landscape for financial reporting. With investors now having access to a seemingly unlimited breadth and depth of information, the need has never been greater for the audit process to evolve by providing deeper and more relevant insights about an organization’s financial condition and performance –while maintaining and continually improving audit quality." [Emphasis added]
For those that have started off our careers in the world of financial audit as professional accountants and then moved to the world of audit analytics or IT risk management, we have always felt that technology could help us to get audits done more efficiently and effectively.
I was actually surprised that he stated that auditors "perform procedures over a relatively small sample of transactions – as few as 30 or 40 – and extrapolate conclusions across a much broader set of data". We usually don't see this kind of openness when it comes to discussing the inner-workings of the profession. However, I think that discussing such fundamentals is inevitable given those outside the profession are embracing big data analytics in "non-financial audits". For example, see this post where I discuss the New York City fire department's use of big data analytics to identify a better audit population when it comes to identifying illegal conversions that are a high risk and need to be evacuated.
For those that take comfort in the regulated nature of the profession as protection of disruption, we should take note of how the regulators are embracing big data analytics. Firstly, the SEC is using RoboCop to better target financial irregularities. Secondly, according to the Wall Street Journal, FINRA is eyeing an automated audit approach to monitoring to risk. The program is known as "Comprehensive Automated Risk Data System" (CARDS). As per FINRA:
"CARDS program will increase FINRA's ability to protect the investing public by utilizing automated analytics on brokerage data to identify problematic sales practice activity. FINRA plans to analyze CARDS data before examining firms on site, thereby identifying risks earlier and shifting work away from the on-site exam process". In the same post, Susan Axelrod, FINRA's Executive Vice President of Regulatory Operations, is quoted as saying "The information collected through CARDS will allow FINRA to run analytics that identify potential "red flags" of sales practice misconduct and help us identify potential business conduct problems with firms, branches and registered representatives".
As a result, I agree with Mr. Libby: sticking to the status quo is no longer a viable strategy for the profession.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Had the Red Coats monitored Paul Revere's Facebook, would America be independent today?
The Globe and Mail reported that Canadian intelligence captures private data without a warrant in its fight against Chinese hackers. As one would expect, the article discusses how there is calculation performed to determine whether the harm of invading privacy of Canadians is outweighed by preserving national security.
The privacy debate ranges between two camps. One camp, such as EPIC, work to shed light on how organizations and governments encroach on individual privacy and see encroachment as a threat to the individual's ability to express ideas and the like. The other camp is the likes of Jeff Jarvis, a professor at CUNY and self-admitted-Google-fanboy-extraordinaire, who often defends Google's encroachment on the lives of people by slamming people's fear of Google by forcing his opponents to quantify "what's the harm". He especially takes issue with the emotional response of how of people feel that Google's knowledge of them is "creepy".
In a sense, I understand where Professor Jarvis is coming from: consumers want more customized services and they don't want to pay cash for them, so companies have to resort to advertising revenues to be paid. Google, Facebook, et al, are profit making companies and they want to be paid.
To me this is not the real cost in terms of privacy.
The real cost is how the government uses that data it gathers directly, or indirectly via Facebook (according to RT the mood study FB was performing was part of a gov't contract to deal with "civil unrest") , Google, et al, to interact with the politically objectionable.
One way to look at the cost is being spied upon, deemed a threat to national security and then sent somewhere to be tortured. This is what happened to Maher Arar. He was allegedly fingered by 15-year old Omar Khadr to be a terrorist. Based on this information, the US sent him to Syria to be tortured. According to the Garvie Report, the RCMP gave sensitive information about Arar to the US government. Ultimately, Arar was exonerated and all charges were cleared. The Canadian government paid him 10.5 million + legal fees and apologized to him. But how do you put a price on torturing an innocent man?
And to be sure democratic government do actively monitor the political active within the countries. For example, this article in the New York Times goes to describe in great detail how the government captured this information. Ultimately, Occupy was defeated through by police actions resulting in 8,000 arrests as well as other means. If it hadn't, how would the government have used this information to interact with the protesters on a go-forward basis?
From another perspective, the harm is also political engagement. Although the Maher Arar case shows that the government can mishandle the data it gathers about people and put them in harms way, this happens to a few people (e.g. Ahmad El Maati, Muayyed Nureddin and Abdullah Almalki) and is not a commonly used approach with dealing with protesters. For example, it's not like the Occupy protesters were rounded in the 1,000s and sent to Syria.
But there is another cost. Such surveillance and the potential for being harmed, puts a chilling effect for those that want to speak out against the way things are running. Why protest when you will lose your job and can't pay the bills? Think about the American War of Independence. If the British were able to spy on the "facebook" pages, email accounts and cell phones of Sam Adams, Paul Revere and pro-separatist sympathizers in the colonial militias - would the British had been able to arrest these separatists in a timely manner? Or would have pre-colonial surveillance society taught the Founding Fathers to self-censor and tow the pro-British line? It is pure speculation, but I think the Union Jack would still be flying in the land we now call America.
The privacy debate ranges between two camps. One camp, such as EPIC, work to shed light on how organizations and governments encroach on individual privacy and see encroachment as a threat to the individual's ability to express ideas and the like. The other camp is the likes of Jeff Jarvis, a professor at CUNY and self-admitted-Google-fanboy-extraordinaire, who often defends Google's encroachment on the lives of people by slamming people's fear of Google by forcing his opponents to quantify "what's the harm". He especially takes issue with the emotional response of how of people feel that Google's knowledge of them is "creepy".
In a sense, I understand where Professor Jarvis is coming from: consumers want more customized services and they don't want to pay cash for them, so companies have to resort to advertising revenues to be paid. Google, Facebook, et al, are profit making companies and they want to be paid.
To me this is not the real cost in terms of privacy.
The real cost is how the government uses that data it gathers directly, or indirectly via Facebook (according to RT the mood study FB was performing was part of a gov't contract to deal with "civil unrest") , Google, et al, to interact with the politically objectionable.
One way to look at the cost is being spied upon, deemed a threat to national security and then sent somewhere to be tortured. This is what happened to Maher Arar. He was allegedly fingered by 15-year old Omar Khadr to be a terrorist. Based on this information, the US sent him to Syria to be tortured. According to the Garvie Report, the RCMP gave sensitive information about Arar to the US government. Ultimately, Arar was exonerated and all charges were cleared. The Canadian government paid him 10.5 million + legal fees and apologized to him. But how do you put a price on torturing an innocent man?
And to be sure democratic government do actively monitor the political active within the countries. For example, this article in the New York Times goes to describe in great detail how the government captured this information. Ultimately, Occupy was defeated through by police actions resulting in 8,000 arrests as well as other means. If it hadn't, how would the government have used this information to interact with the protesters on a go-forward basis?
From another perspective, the harm is also political engagement. Although the Maher Arar case shows that the government can mishandle the data it gathers about people and put them in harms way, this happens to a few people (e.g. Ahmad El Maati, Muayyed Nureddin and Abdullah Almalki) and is not a commonly used approach with dealing with protesters. For example, it's not like the Occupy protesters were rounded in the 1,000s and sent to Syria.
But there is another cost. Such surveillance and the potential for being harmed, puts a chilling effect for those that want to speak out against the way things are running. Why protest when you will lose your job and can't pay the bills? Think about the American War of Independence. If the British were able to spy on the "facebook" pages, email accounts and cell phones of Sam Adams, Paul Revere and pro-separatist sympathizers in the colonial militias - would the British had been able to arrest these separatists in a timely manner? Or would have pre-colonial surveillance society taught the Founding Fathers to self-censor and tow the pro-British line? It is pure speculation, but I think the Union Jack would still be flying in the land we now call America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)