Hacked

HOW ABOUT THIS? So I get a text message the other day from my Telco provider Optus – an Australian company bought out by Singapore’s Singtel Cyberattack update: Confirming only the licence number on your Driver’s Licence was exposed, not the card number. Your State or Territory government will provide advice on any action that you may need to take via their website. My first thought: Wait? My Driver’s Licence has a card number as well as a licence number? Who knew? It took a hack to discover that? You learn something new every day. Something new like this: one of our major Telcos had hopelessly inadequate security measures when it comes to protecting our data. Yes that’s right: Here in Australia OPTUS has just been hacked. An amateurish hack – as these things go – but 10 and a half million customers and ex-customers were hacked. Ten and a half million – forty percent of the population of Australia – had licence numbers, bank account details, passport details etc, taken. Now, given the secondary and tertiary levels of security for things these days it’s not all doom and gloom. But the next time a public entity – or a govt department for that matter – says “for extra levels of security please provide us with …” We’re all going to think twice. I mean how much data do they need? And is this hack just the tip of the iceberg? And should we care any more that an amateur hacker has our details, or should we care more that a large corporation – or a government – has a level of information about us that they didn’t really need to take, but which we willingly gave? Even my password reminder questions seem sullied. What’s it to you what my mother’s maiden name was? And why can’t Fido rest in peace without me having to dredge up the horrors of the death of the first pet I owned? Jokes aside – we give out information flippantly, then recoil in horror, wondering how we can gather it all in again, sheepishly checking our bank accounts to make sure some villain in a Guy Fawkes mask isn’t stealing our life’s savings. We value our privacy Except of course when we don’t. At the same time we worry about data being hacked, we public extol the virtues of everything we read, everything we think, every trip we go on, our spending habits, our worship habits the state of our mental health, the state of our physical health, and where we will be in two day’s time. We're private about our financial and legal data but profligate with our personalities. What was that word OPTUS used in its “hacked” text message ? Exposed No one has to “hack” that much about us We willingly expose so much about ourselves to everyone A sign – apparently – of being authentic Is self-exposure Maybe our self-hacks – as we might call them Are exposing ourselves in a more sinister and potentially worrying Manner than our financial data hacks Maybe we haven’t figure out to whom And for whom our self-exposure is most valuable. SO WHERE’S IT ALL GOING? Well if you believe the reports – not in a very good direction And we’re not talking about the conspiracy theory websites . Bloomberg – the financial news journal In an article headlined “China's Surveillance State Will Be the West's Future, Too” Says it baldly: “The arc of the digital revolution bends towards tyranny” Forget the golden glow of tech company ads And the promise to keep us connected. Bloomberg staff writer, Adrian Wooldridge, Says our future is the Chinese present China’s zealous harvesting of data, The fact that China possesses fifty percent of the surveillance cameras on the planet, The fact that its cable TV network now provides households with a remote control that includes a button that allows you to report a crime without having to leave the comfort of your chair… Or the fact that China has pushed a financial credit system to its logical conclusion: a social credit system determining which citizens should be rewarded for good behaviour, and which should be locked out – or indeed locked up – all on the basis of huge amounts of data. All scary stories and all safely locked away in an authoritarian state. But according to Wooldridge it’s coming to a democracy near you In fact it’s already here. Writing in The Australian newspaper in the wake of the OPTUS data breach, Peter van Onselen, made the point that the major Australian political parties have far-reaching data bases that they – by parliamentary act - have excluded from Privacy Act rules. Big deal – you might say – but when appointments are made to government boards, the data bases are searched to see if the information about individuals suggests which party they may vote for. Government boards then become stacked with groupthink. It’s just a more sophisticated version of Amazon suggesting books you ought to read because you read one particular tome. Now in case it all sounds scary – let’s be clear – in our risk averse world it’s all about safety. As Wooldridge states the Chinese Communist Party now believes that data mining: Will discern what people want without having to give them either a vote or a voice, ceaselessly adjusting the party’s “offer” to satisfy its “customers.” Heading problems off at the pass, so to speak. And lest we think, once again, that’s just China, then what do we do with New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinta Ardern’s statements to the UN recently about how to limit misinformation on the internet, Ardern stated: “We are rightly concerned that even those most light-touch approaches to disinformation could be misinterpreted as being hostile to the values of free speech we value so highly,” I’m with you there Jacinta But then she follows up with this concern that allowing the internet to rip: “poses an equal threat to the norms we all value”. Here’s the problem We don’t all value the same norms. Some things you see as a threat I see as a promise And vice versa. The West is experiencing a huge splintering In terms of what we call the “Common Good” So for example My norms around how gender is determined And the parameters of sexuality Are neither everyone’s norms Nor are they – increasingly – viewed as the common good. But rather – they are viewed by many large corporations And increasingly governments – as problematic And contrary not simply to the norms we all value But to the norms we SHOULD value. Data collection is not merely About Storing information from us But shaping opinions for us. Collectively. That’s the point of algorithms. Who determines which information is for the common good Around hotly contested matters Such as public health Political opinion Sexual identity and the like? Does this sound too dystopian? Too futuristic? Too science fiction? The best science fiction of course Tells us where – unchecked – our ideas might lead. They are almost invariably dystopian And perhaps that’s because the best sci-fi writers Are not political or poetic But prophetic They take ideas and drive them to their logical extension This podcast is called Delorean Philosophy Not because the future is all hoverboards and electric guitars But because we want to take ideas to their logical extension And in doing so – work out where ideas are taking us Which future? Whose future? And in terms of prophetic sci-fi Exhibit A: The movie Minority Report: Produced 20 years ago Starring Tom Cruise Based on a short story by Phillip K Dick Written nearly 70 years ago The premise? A specialist crimes unit Actually called a “pre-crimes unit” – underpinned by three psychics – called Pre-Cogs Pre-cogniscent – knowing before the event - Visualise impending homicides They’ve made the US a safer place Violent crime is headed off at the pass. The only problem – a minority report by Another Pre-Cog – constantly goes against the data Resulting in their adverse findings being scrapped. Injustices occur. People are wrongfully imprisoned. Or are they? Best not take any chances A few unsafe eggs need to be broken to Make a safety omelette, right? Enter Tom Cruise… Watch it if you haven’t. Because this is not about stalags And gulags Not in the West at least It’s not about a Political Zombie apocalypse More “A Beautiful Apocalypse” Perhaps the arc of the digital revolution DOES bend towards tyranny But in our case it’s a soft-focus Pastel-coloured tyranny with a background Of elevator music. The tyranny of A highly ordered Highly crafted society Of comfort and ease And above all else – safety - One in which those troublesome micro decisions Which we find so tiresome Are made for us In this increasingly curated life Of “surveillance capitalism” - Companies using data harvesting technologies To compile behaviours and predict markets - No one needs to hack our data. All the information required We gladly give them. Every click we make Every pic we take They’ve been watching you … And our need to be authentic - Conspicuously so - In a social media world Hands out data on a plate. Your Resume might tell your prospective employer That you would be a model employee Hardworking and honest But if you’re constantly posting pics on social media Of your weekend shenanigans Then hitting the ground running on Monday mornings Might not be your thing. Thanks you for your application, but… And just as a speak The newly appointed CEO of a national football Club in Australia is all over the headlines Because as a Christian He believes in some values around sexual ethics That the national league Diametrically opposes Did he blog about it? Tweet his views on sex? No But his church’s website is full of Sermons that reveal what this community He belongs to – thinks of such matters Can the national football code Which is constantly seeking to promote diversity And indeed has a Pride Round each year? Afford CEOs in its clubs who don’t value the norms we all value? Maybe better to head it off at the pass In a Minority Report kinda way Pressure the club to self-censor. We’ve become accustomed to frantic digital cleansing In order to align ourselves with some Supposed pole star “norms” We apparently all value. While this soft tyranny is a “danger in the West” There’s an outlier country in Europe When it comes to data One nation has swung so far the other way That getting any data seems impossible. Extreme “Data hygiene” threatens The normal functions of modern life. No surprises for guessing the country: Germany. The Germans take seriously that quote in Bloomsberg “The arc of the digital revolution bends towards tyranny” having seen first hand in their own country How data was harvested For hard tyranny They’ve swung the other way In a recent article in The Times It was reported that in post-pandemic Germany Employers were having a hard time getting Employees back to work They were not even permitted To check that they were back at their desks. Government departments are struggling to align After being ordered to stop using Microsoft Office programmes such as Word, Excel and Teams because some of the data might be unwittingly transferred to the US. 96 per cent of all departments use Office, so unless someone comes up with a new – and universal – programme, things could grind to a halt. And during the pandemic health officials, devoid of data about which citizens might be above 80 years of age and therefore in a higher risk category, resorted to sourcing local postal service lists and guessing who might be old just from peoples’ names! Which names? Perhaps the German equivalent of Ethyl, Mavis or Bertie Neither extreme Too much data Or too little data Seems either helpful or healthy SO WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS? First up Don’t panic Well not too much If the OPTUS breach Or a similar one has compromised your data Then you need to sort out some new documents And watch as the government tightens up regulations. This is no call to Go off grid In some sort of post-technological existence. We live here We live now Sacrificing our current communities Friendships and spheres of influence For the sake of zealous data hygiene In the off-grid wilderness Is a trade-off I don’t think is worth considering. But second Don’t go down the – ironically - Digital Conspiracy theory rabbit hole Algorithms cut both ways Don’t be unthinking But don’t be overthinking either. Be discerning Perhaps be most discerning about Your soft data How much we share of ourselves online When corporations and governments have a Keen interest in shaping the so called “norms we value” It may help to reject the “let it all hang out authenticity program” And play your cards closer to your chest. This is not a call for total self-censoring But for wisdom Be aware that The serpentine arms of data harvesting Will reach further into our lives As technology increases. And what about some digital Detoxing? As Australian author Daniel Sih calls for in his book Spacemaker: How to Unplug, Unwind and Think Clearly in a Digital Age. Digital self-care Unless we’re somehow bombed back into the Stone Age Or an actual Zombie Apocalypse occurs Then the Digital Age isn’t going away any time soon. How can we help each other think clearly about it? How can we help our friends and family members Our children – who are digital natives – Be discerning about data and its use? How can we resist the push by Surveillance capitalism to make life smooth By nudging and nurdling us towards decisions That are all about our comfort and ease? Interestingly – it’s as I’ve been part of a local church community And the discipleship program it offers That I find an alternative to Discipleship programs big Tech lures me with. One that rewards me with digital dopamine hit After digital dopamine hit When I hit “search” We need a Minority Report community A dissenting voice That rises above the fog of digital war. One that refutes and refuses the so-called “norms we all value” Norms that lure us into Lives committed to comfort and ease. Personal autonomy Perhaps the arc of the digital revolution Does bend towards tyranny But for us in the West it will probably Be a soft tyranny The question is What are YOU putting in place To stare down such a tyrant?