Sunday, June 16, 2013

Private Lives



Over the last two weeks we've all been witnessing a full-out, big-ass, five alarm, National freak out! The cause of this new wave of hysteria was the revelation that the National Security Agency (NSA) was spying on the activities of Americans by examining our phone records and our Internet use. It started small with the news that Verizon Wireless was giving the government phone records under a warrant from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court. Within a few days the revelations included all the phone companies, then all the Internet search engine companies and social network sites. Finally, we knew that just about any digital footprint made by anyone was available to the NSA. This includes all phone calls, text messages, e-mails, Internet sites visited, and log-ons- In other words, the whole enchilada.


These revelations came into the public eye because a guy who worked for the government, with an NSA contracted company leaked the story to a British News agency. The leaker himself was one of the people who was doing the data gathering and apparently felt it was wrong. There’s a lot of hoopla about this guy in political circles and on the talk-radio waves. Is he a criminal or a hero? Should we extradite him and put in prison, or throw a parade. Frankly, I don’t care. The story isn’t about him. The story is about us.


I’m having a very hard time getting excited about these revelations. There is nothing in this story that strikes me as new. We have known forever that the government uses private information about our lives for its own purposes, and always has. Every technological advance in communications or information sharing has given rise to the opportunity to collect information secretly. The U.S. Postal Services was famous for this activity, as was the Internal Revenue Service. In the 70’s the NSA was intercepting telegrams illegally. J. Edgar Hoover became the most powerful man in the country because of the information he gathered . Now the digital age has created electronic systems that make it even easier to collect more information and collect it faster than ever before, with unlimited storage capacity.   


I admit there are differences now in the collection and use of private information than in years past. In the last 15 years two significant cultural events occurred simultaneously that put us square in the middle of this controversy today. The first event was the explosion of personal communications and data systems, and devices available to so many people. Who could have imagined, even one generation ago, that nearly all of us would have a device in our pocket that not only permits us to engage in global communication through the airwaves with no wired connection- but could also gives us instant access to nearly all the collected information known to man? We all have our “smart phones” and we love them. For many of us our whole lives on that phone. They contain our contact lists of everybody we know, we get e-mail, we have a list of every call we make or get, and we access the Internet with them. Of course, one feature of using the new cell phones is that the cell phone company has the same information about you that you have about you- and we knew this when we signed up.

The second great cultural event was the terrorist attack on 9-11-01. Our mainland had never been attacked in that fashion before in our history. Thousands dead within minutes, massive destruction and intense feelings of vulnerability- all from an unseen enemy. In the days following we were so frightened that another attack could come that there was some very "out-there" crazy-talk coming from the government. The fact that is was an act of terrorism and not a traditional military attack played havoc with our collective psyche. As a result we began grasping at straws to explain how this could happen and how we could prevent it from happening again. Because this attack came from a network of individuals and not a standing army of invaders we concluded the answer to preventing another attack should be  focused on information gathering. In fact, we had had plenty of information to warn us about 9-11, but the catch phrase used as an excuse for not stopping it was, “we didn’t connect the dots”. Remember that?

So, here are these two huge cultural events: the expansion of information and communications technology; and the national consensus that we needed to collect more of it to protect ourselves. Congress, in its wisdom, looks at these two phenomenon and gives us the Patriot Act. Republicans controlled the White House and the Congress, so passage of this law was not difficult, especially with Dick Cheney running around espousing his ridiculous “1% Doctrine”- pure fear mongering. Many Democrats even signed on because Democrats are always afraid to look “soft” on terror. Some Democrats voiced objections fearing that this would expand the government’s “legal” authority to violate the Constitutional rights of citizens. Nonetheless we were so stunned and fearful after 9-11 Congress willingly allowed government to violate our privacy in the most unprecedented ways in our history. Everything we’re talking about today stems from the passage of the Patriot Act. I know there are those who were instrumental in passing the original Patriot act who now claim it wasn’t intended for domestic surveillance, but it did actually allow it.

I must admit that I don’t know the right answers about the extent of government surveillance of its citizens. I just don’t know what is right on this issue. Given the nature of the threats against us and the current state of the technology, I sometimes think it is necessary and useful. At the same time, knowing that I have no privacy in the digital world we all live in seems very wrong. There are two things about the current controversy that strike me though. The first is that this is more of a political issue than it should be. There are those who want to blame President Obama for this excessive surveillance. It is another example of his opponents using any issue (even one they created) to denigrate him. In fact, any President living in the time of these cultural events would do the same thing. Those who are casting stones at him now are the same politicians who told us not to worry about the Patriot Act. Do you remember them telling us, “if you aren’t doing anything wrong- what do you have to hide?” It was a childish thing to say then- and their criticism of Obama on this issue is a hypocritical thing to say now. I can only imagine what his opponents would say if there was another attack. He would be blamed for the attack because he didn’t spy on us enough. (You know, connecting the dots) And let’s face facts, in order to catch foreign threats through digital surveillance you must include domestic data sources- it is a global issue. So this is not a partisan issue, it is not an Obama issue- it is an issue for all of us to decide based on what kind of country we want to be. The more freedom we have as a people the more we risk our security. That is the nature of an open, free society- and the nature of security. But that is the trade-off we grapple with.

The other issue in today’s debate is our evolving notions about our privacy- our own private lives. We have embraced a culture that reveres the Information Age. We relish in our digital networking and manage many of our relationships via all the tools of today’s technologies. (If you are reading this- you are engaged in it now. And a data base somewhere is recording that you are doing it!)  The communications and data technologies we use encompass nearly every aspect of our lives. For example, I might text message my family members about a family gathering we’re planning, or communicate with them via e-mail. That’s typical these days.  In doing so I have made a digital trail telling Verizon (or anyone they give the information to) where I’ll be, when I’ll be there, and who I will be with-plus I divulged the same information about every member of my family. Then, there’s Facebook and many other social networking sites. Our embrace of the technology has created an entirely new social reality. We post- we tweet- we are LinkedIn and we Instagram our lives to the world. We do credit applications on-line and buy millions of products and services over the Internet. We book our trips and go to college on our computers. We pay for things with debit and credit cards that are all transmitted via computers. Our banking records exist in cyberspace. And we do all these things because they make our lives easier, and in many ways more enjoyable. But to assume that we have any privacy is both naïve and ludicrous. We willingly have given up almost every bit of information about ourselves- and that information is bought and sold every day. Corporations have been “mining” this information for years and using it to make billions of dollars.

I’m somewhat amused at the level of indignity being expressed over these revelations because we have all given up our privacy a long time ago. We just don’t like it when “the Government” gets it. Somehow we have developed another cultural peculiarity: We claim to have the greatest country in the history of mankind-but we constantly promote fear and loathing of the same government that created it. That never made sense to me. So as I struggle with the issue of privacy and search for answers, I’m not focused on laying blame on one Party or one leader (the blame lies with all of us)- I’m focused on having a real conversation about us as a people and how we want to handle a future full of new technologies and ethical challenges that confront us. The issue of privacy (and our private lives) may be the central human rights issue of the future. I hope we have the wisdom to resolve it with all the human dignity we can muster.

Thanks for looking in.

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Going Postal

The term "going Postal" was pretty common some time ago and came into vogue based on a series of events that were happening in U.S. Postal Services offices in the early 1980's. The whole organization was under stress, they had a terrible reputation for customer service, and their employees were so stressed that several of them went totally crazy and ended up shooting up their work places, sometimes killing supervisors and Postmasters. The whole phenomenon got its own name: Going Postal; and any time something similar happened were workplace violence took place people just referred to the incidents as a another episode where someone has "gone Postal". Let's just say it was not exactly the way the USPS wanted to be characterized, and in spite of the violence that got the whole notion started, "going Postal" became something of a punchline.

This a short story about a personal experience I had with the Postal Service this week. Here's the background. It all starts with my daughter and her family deciding to buy a new house. They list their house for sale and are fortunate to sell it in fairly short order. Then they found a great new house to buy. The only small issue in this whole real estate transaction was that the new place wouldn't be available until about three weeks after the old house sale closed and they needed to be moved out. No big deal, they can move in with us for a short while. Of course they needed to do a Change of Address with the USPS having their mail come to our house until they can move to their new place. No problem, their mail comes to our address until their new house is ready and they move. When that time came, they did another Change of Address to their new place. The only problem was that when they did the second Change of Address (on-line) they inadvertently checked the box that said "whole family". It was innocent enough, my daughter thought it meant HER whole family. An easy mistake to make, but the result was that now my mail started going to her new home and mail service at my house just stopped.

Now I have do something to get this whole thing straightened out. I start with a call to the USPS and I got guy on the phone (in California) who patiently listened to my tale and told me the best thing to do is just go to my Post Office in person to deal with this. I follow the instructions and head to my postal annex station. I'm expecting the worst, based on all those stories and the old reputation of the Postal workers. I enter the building which is not a full-service Post Office, it is just the annex where the home delivery for my zip code originates. All I see is a large solid door with a peep hole and a buzzer to get service. I know now that I have entered bureaucratic hell and brace myself for the experience.

After a few seconds a woman came to the door to help me. From this point on everything changes. This woman asks about me about my problem. She doesn't ask me to fill out any forms, she doesn't give some bureaucratically inspired canned response. Instead she writes down all the information herself, diagnoses the problem about my mail service, and takes down all my daughters info too, to ensure that the fix doesn't effect my daughter's mail service across town. Then she said that another guy from the USPS would call me to confirm that the problem was taken care of. I thanked her and thought to myself as I was leaving, "that was pleasant enough, but I won't hold my breath waiting for that phone call".  I'm about 10 minutes out from the Postal Annex driving back to work when my phone rings. A fellow named Danny from the USPS leaves me a phone message saying he's working on my problem and gives a short instruction for my daughter to alter her second Change of Address that should solve the whole thing and I'll get my mail service restored. I get to a spot where I can call him back. I reach him on the phone on the first try just to get some clarity about his earlier message. As I start ask him a question he stops me to say that he just took care of the whole thing himself and my daughter and I didn't need to do anything more. Problem solved.

I have to say, that made my whole day. I had a problem with a formerly notorious organization. I went to them and they treated me well. On top of that they acted quickly and actually went out of their way to solve the problem. You might think this is a small thing and you'd be right in some regard. But this experience got me thinking about several issues. First, it just nice to go to a large agency and have people treat you well, do their job and actually go above and beyond to just fix the problem. Being treated well by strangers, and particularly by those in normally faceless organizations is not what we expect in this era. So when it happens it is very pleasant.

The other thing that occurred to me is that a large organization with a bad reputation is capable of change. I don't believe I was just incredibly lucky to have gotten good service on that one day. I have to believe that the USPS realized some time ago that they became the poster-boys for a crappy outfit and set about to purposefully change that. This gave me real confidence that large organizations, be they private companies, government entities, or quasi-government agencies can actually change their culture and transform themselves into organizations that are well regarded. If the Post Office can do it, I'm quite sure other organizations can too.

 I cannot think of another national organization that has suffered more bad press, more negative market pressure, and more Congressional scrutiny that the USPS. As I mentioned before they were so bad in the 70's and 80's that it was actually dangerous to work there. Then the computer age of digital communication (email and such) came along with the growth of private package delivery by UPS and FedEx, and on-line billing and bill paying all cut seriously into their bread and butter business. Just as they were turning the corner on modernizing in the new market place Congress forced them to over-fund their pension programs to the point of nearly driving them completely out of business- which I think was the whole point Republicans in Congress were going for. But the U.S. Postal Service is still with us after all that. It goes to show that organizations with value can undergo the change in corporate culture needed to survive. This should be a lesson to other organizations who desperately need to change.

As so many people condemn big government and the services it provides, they tend to believe the simple answers and not dig deeper for the real solutions to fix our ailing institutions. Congress itself has a lower approval rating than a root canal. But they, like so many bureaucracies refuse to take an honest look at themselves. Instead they do as they have always done, and therefore never improve themselves. We need the services government provides, just like we still need the USPS. My brief personal encounter the Post Office tells me that others can improve, just like they did. The secret is leadership that sees the need for change and a willingness to embrace it.

Thanks for looking in.