actorartathleteauthorbizcrimecrosspostcustomerservicedirectoredufoodgaminghealthjournalistmedicalmilmodpostmunimusicnewsworthynonprofitotherphilpolretailscispecialisedspecializedtechtourismtravelunique

Request[AMA Request] Chloe Kim: Seventeen year old Olympic half-pipe gold medalist that scored 98.25

Feb 14th 2018 by belugasoup • 10 Questions • 856 Points

OK GUYS, MY HOUR IS UP. THANKS SO MUCH FOR PARTICIPATING AND FOR YOU INTEREST IN THIS TOPIC--HOPE IT DIDN'T FREAK YOU OUT TOO MUCH. (THOUGH I DO WANT IT TO FREAK YOU OUT A LITTLE.) My name is Robert Draper and I’m a journalist and author. My most recent piece for National Geographic is called “They Are Watching You—and Everything Else on the Planet”. It's about how the demand for security is increasing, monitoring technology is proliferating, and as a result, we’re all under surveillance. While that part definitely sounds alarming, I also explore the ways surveillance is helping. Spacecraft technicians are better able to calculate the Earth’s landmass, we can monitor hurricanes, and rangers can better protect wildlife from poachers.

Read the story here and AMA: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/02/surveillance-watching-you/

Proof: https://i.redd.it/99njchz4rtf01.jpg https://twitter.com/NatGeo/status/963442928516464641

Q:

Do you already know what questions we are going to ask?

A:

Nope, only as they come up!


Q:

Who is more guilty of surveillance, the public or private sector?

A:

"Guilty" being a loaded term, it's evident that private-use surveillance (ranging from CCTV's to drones to satellites) has now far out-stripped public sector usage. And therein lies the danger, since it's hard to know what company at any given time is monitoring to you, and to what extent, and why, and where (and for how long) the data is going. At least there are FOIA means by which to determine government surveillance.


Q:

Thanks for the response.

A:

Private sector by far, and/though the extent is far more difficult to quantify, as are the retention patterns...and of course therein lies the danger with commercial usage.


Q:

I know a lot of people who write this issue off saying "I don't have anything to hide" - what is your response to that reaction?

A:

I get that privacy sometimes seems like a triviality--or even a preoccupation of the affluent--in the greater interest of information-sharing. But at a certain point, we all need alone time, of our choosing. And the psycho-social implications of what happens to a community when it operates under the assumption that it's always being watched, for reasons not readily identifiable...well, it's chilling, right?


Q:

Is it just just the important people? Or is it normal everyday people too?

A:

Depends on how you define "important," right? I was in a CCTV control center in the London borough of Islington and the monitors there were watching 2 guys on motorcycles who were "important" only b/c they were deemed suspicious, though throughout our surveillance of them they were only guilty of popping wheelies.


Q:

Has your research changed your opinion of state-sponsored solutions to humanity's greatest ills? You know the standard blah blah blah on any complainers list: welfare, inner city crime, police abuse, food stamps, political bribes, "know your customers", vaccines, health records, regulation X, regulation Y.

A:

That's a great question. My research has certainly awakened me to a few things. First, that there are some really cool, legitimately humanitarian (and public interest) surveillance technologies out there. Second, that CCTV's do NOT, by any & all available evidence, deter criminality. And third, that while it's probably a fool's pursuit to think we can prevent government from utilizing cutting-edge technologies to combat crime & promote efficiencies, it's also dangerous to assume that such technologies will unerringly be used for benevolent purposes.


Q:

My name is zach draper! Are we related?

A:

No doubt!


Q:

If you can entertain a hypothetical question for a minute: with what your research and findings have shown you, what do you see/imagine that these levels of surveillance evolving into in the near future? And in the distant future?

A:

Well, you can bifurcate that question into evolving technology and evolving concern over the deployment of that technology. This is a much longer subject than I can get to in depth here. But clearly the frontier that's upon us now is one in which we're seen, or in some other way identified, by Interest A, who then sells that information to Interest B, who may use that info however it sees fit and/or be hacked into by Interest C. In other words, a meta-proliferation of surveillance of which we can't possibly keep track.


Q:

Does covering your camera really protect your privacy from the FBI? Can't they still get tons of meta data from your companies like Verizon or Facebook?

A:

Yes, they can! But it requires a warrant. And no, covering your camera does nothing but make you look paranoid.


Q:

What's your opinion on the Obama administration using knowingly false Intel to wiretap and spy on the incoming Trump administration?

A:

The words "false," "wiretap" and "incoming Trump administration" don't apply to Carter Page.