Thank You for Smoking (2005) reflection

Hello again! It's been a very long time since I last posted here, but I just recently watched Thank You For Smoking (2005) and wanted to talk about it a bit since I really enjoyed it! If you didn't know, the movie follows Nick Naylor, a spokesperson for "big tobacco" (shown left) and covers ethical topics and conflicts that come with advertising/speaking for a vice product. That said, it's not also just that as it discusses argument along with ethics in other fields such as journalism.

To start, I'd definitely say that I cannot do the job Nick Naylor has. I don't care what it pays, I just couldn't do it. Promoting a product that harms others wouldn't feel right to me. Sure, I could put up a stoic front for a bit, but I think that would eventually crumble after too much pressure which is definitely always coming to Nick Naylor. Like, especially after seeing what happened to him after he is kidnapped later in the movie, I would absolutely say: "HELL NO." This is also not even mentioning my rule following and honest pillars of character that I have which would conflict with the deceiving job that Nick has.

Moving on, I also want to clarify this is not just for smoking either. As this denial of the position comes not because of the product, but because of its dishonest nature. In line with this, I also would not take a similar position for a vape, since it is also dishonest and in fact EVEN WORSE THAN SMOKING.

Editor's note here: I actually looked up some more research after writing this and found that it is apparently not as bad. I stand corrected. That said, it is still acknowledged that vaping is not healthy and there are many missing data points, however, for now, it just happens to be better than smoking which I didn't realize (maybe the anti-vaping ads are really working). If wanting to research more about this topic, you can do so at these citations here. Okay now back to your regularly scheduled blog post...

I wouldn't be able to justify working there for a vape or smoking product. That said, there are some exceptions to this that are still considered "vices" and bad for people that I would be willing to work for/at. The main ones being alcohol and gambling. Both of these things, on their own and in moderation are okay. It is only in overconsumption that they truly become a problem, which in my mind, is not because of the product, but because of the individual. Sure, these are not wholly ethical (Casinos are designed to keep people in after all and lose all their money), but I wouldn't have the issue with promoting it. Like I said, if problems arise for those products, I consider it is because of the individual overconsuming them. Yes, you can say the same for tobacco, but in my mind, it is different because of the strong addictive property it has, one that is much stronger than the other vices as indicated by the higher numbers found here. Just remember to keep in mind that the source here is from 2014, though I included it here since it covered all three of the vices I am discussing (something that more recent sources don't do).

Continuing on with this though, honestly, it is hard to describe what differs between these products and why I am fine with gambling and alcohol but not tobacco. I originally thought it was because gambling and alcohol can't kill, but that's a lie. Alcohol definitely can if one has truly gone overboard, but gambling can too, just in a financial sense rather than physical, which could potentially be even worse and lead to the physical one being lost by the person's own accord. Maybe it's because of the fact that smoking just degrades your health in itself over time even in proper doses that causes me to be reluctant? I can't recall alcohol doing that in proper amounts so it's my best idea? All I can say, is no to vaping and smoking, and gambling and alcohol would be okay. Truly though I would not want to work for either anyway if I had a choice (I don't know... loot boxes are being a potential problem for that plan...)

Moving away from that, I now want to discuss a comment made in the movie about going back and editing old movies to remove cigarettes from them. Sure, I get the idea, cigarettes are bad, and I agree. However, this is art and creative expression and HISTORY. As such, I would NEVER been on board with this idea to edit old movies to remove cigarettes even if they are bad. In my mind it's the same thing as trying to correct all old films for simply having something not viewed positively today (like slavery or antisemitism or antipride). Those things happened in real life's history, so the movie being like that is just showcasing how the perspective on that argument was in that time. Like going back and removing all slavery ideas from movies isn't going to explain to those who didn't experience it why slavery was bad. Seeing it is a whole different thing than just hearing/reading about it from a textbook or history class. Showcasing it makes it feel more real and hopefully convinces those who watch it why said thing is heinous today but was how the world really was during that time. All in all, though, I am a big promoter of letting history be. It is the past, we can discuss it sure, but don't try to correct it when it's already done. If you do, it could lose the meaning and lesson that it taught us, and thus we as a human species could do the same mistake again in our ever cycling of mistakes. Although going back and removing cigarettes isn't going to be a loss in any lesson (other than maybe the problems of tobacco addiction in the past), just allowing this to happen here may open the door for others to attempt what I mentioned before. A possibility that should definitely be avoided by simply stopping it here before people try to utilize this leniency for other things. This is not uncommon in law either as removing these potential future complications is taken into consideration for rulings of the present (in fact we even talked about a great example of this with Brandenberg v. Ohio 1969!).

I mentioned it at the start, but journalism is also looked at in the movie through the character of Heather Holloway, an upcoming journalist, and one who reports on Nick Naylor with the information she gathered through her many interactions with him. That's fine right? What's so wrong about reporting on someone with the information she gathered? Well, it comes down to how she got it, which in this case was seducing Nick and convincing him to spill information while being intimate. Maybe it's just my honest character, but I can't get behind the methods she used here. It's demoralizing and downright manipulative, something which in my mind, a true journalist shouldn't be. Sure, getting the information and telling the truth of the situation is what journalism is about, but the ends did not justify the means here. If anything, it reminds me of highly cutthroat tactics and cheating to quickly rise to the top within the journalist agency, and that is something I think should not be rewarded. Doing proper good work the right way is always how I think it should be. So yes, the journalism angle of this movie does look at the ethics behind the methods of gathering information, which I feel is a great discussion, and one that I have a clear answer for: do the right thing.

Now with all this said, why don't we just outlaw advertising for all these products if they are so bad? Well, it goes back to this idea I talked about with movies where you need to draw a line at what is acceptable. If we allow these products to be outlawed for advertising, then how can we realistically go and say to the companies in that industry that "yep, those other companies doing other things are a-okay." It's just clear and blatant discrimination against the product and definitely not economical to boot. As such, I highly doubt that even if I did support this idea, it would ever be passed due to its strict limitations on a specific type of product, one that would definitely dish heavy backlash for such a decision to restrict it. The fact of big tobacco making their own research association to prove the "healthiness" of their product really does say a lot here. Just look at Viceroys! How despicable!

Of course, ethics are also at play here, but even if they aren't allowed to advertise, it still will happen. There will always be advertising, and the enforcement of this ideal is just too hard to ignore. Like if we did ban advertising on alcohol, for example, and I said to my buddy, "I really like this alcohol brand," what's going to happen to me? Jail? I technically advertised the product, which is illegal now. There are just too many holes in the argument to ban it outright that makes me fail to see how it would ever work out, even if it was for good ethical reasons. 

Finally, I had gotten some sources that did discuss some numbers of this topic briefly prior, but what about marijuana? It's illegal nationally, but legal in some states, so how do I feel about it (and what are my thoughts on its advertising when it could breach into illegal areas)? Well, you probably already got the idea based on my prior discussion about vice advertising. You just can't enforce it. Yes, I will be advocate number one for never seeing Mary Jane in ads (I believe my family is allergic or something of the sort after all), but I still can't reasonably claim that it should be banned outright, even if it crosses the legal boundary in some ways. Internet is the primary example, as Colorado, for example, has prevalent marijuana ads, which one can find on the internet while even in states that have marijuana banned (like North Carolina). So, since they spread advertising into NC, should they get punished? In my mind, no. Honestly, I feel like it comes down to the website provider for this problem. They have the IP address of the user (as noted in the abstract of this paper), so they can see where they are from. Based on that, they should be able to restrict what types of ads they see in case it's illegal where they are at, and thus the website provider (or whoever decides what ads to show, if anyone) would be the one to punish. After all, the marijuana company didn't explicitly say to promote it in NC, they just made the ad for where it should be legal. Now, if they did try to circumnavigate a ban in another state is a different scenario (and one where they should definitely get punished). In the end though, it comes down to the amount of enforcement that could occur for this type of thing, which is really low. You won't be able to completely stop it, so why try to spend countless amount of time, effort, and cash on this unrealistic ideal? Truthfully though, I really wish that marijuana wasn't prevalent, legal, or is able to be advertised. I just realize that my dream utopia that has this is something that is not realistic and thus my stance being different from how I truly feel. 

Okay, that was a lot, but to end it all, I just wanted to recommend again, watch Thank You For Smoking (2005). It genuinely was one of my favorite movies of all time which is hard to do since I don't like movies normally. Though I guess it makes sense as it has a nice discussion of character in it, similar to my favorite movie of all, It's a Wonderful Life (heavy recommendation for that too if not seen before). Well, that's all for now since I am really busy considering I am now a Senior. Have a great day readers!

Final Blog Post

Relationship With Technology

 For the final blog post I will be creating, the topic is our relationship with technology. Troubles were had organizing my thoughts in an effective manner for this post, so to help myself out, I decided to organize them by the videos that I watched that were demonstrating our relationship with technology.

First up, a video from the 1964-1965 World's Fair in New York showing a ride called "FUTURAMA", which demonstrated how technology was going to be everywhere helping us in the future of the world.

Out of the three videos that I watched relating to technology, this video I would say was the one with the most positive outlook on what technology would do. It showed all the benefits we would receive from having technology around us, not only on earth, but also on the moon (although this still isn't the case today). 

That said, I feel like the video does a great job showing how our relationship with technology is very important. Technology will never go away, humans will always progress (which is also shown in the third video), so we have to understand and learn how to interact with all of these devices and discoveries that can help us out day to day.

As such I looked inward to see my own personal relationship with technology and if I considered it healthy. Personally, I tend to believe that my relationship with technology is healthy. I may use the computer a lot along with my phone, but I still avoid the consequences of technology to the best of my ability, while also getting important tasks done like homework. However, technology may indeed take too much time up in my life, but at the same time, without it doing so, I feel like I wouldn't be the same person, possibly in a good way, but my instinct tells me it would be worse. 

Technology has helped me throughout my life and various ways, and I still believe it does and will do going forward. It is important to acknowledge that technology could misinform you, but from my experience it generally will greatly benefit you with knowledge that you likely wouldn't have had otherwise. Though we still have to make reasonable decisions and analysis on if the information we find is legitimate. 

Credit to Dictionary.com

Would I personally worry about these things? Not really, I find it very hard to believe that most information you see online is incorrect, so I generally don't find myself worrying about if the information I found was accurate. This will be detrimental to me at times, but I remain having an open mind so if something I learned online is challenged and proven to be incorrect, I will change my mind. 

As a last point before the second video, technology does indeed seem to be an accepted part of society, as like I said technology will never go away. The benefits of having technology clearly outweigh the downside of not having them, even if said technology has unintended consequences (like cyberbullying for social media). Finally, I think it is great to look to this video as a guide, a guide for what technology can and should do for us in the future, helping us, not hurting us.

Next, "Mad World Remix of Moby Video (Are You Lost In The World Like Me)", a video mainly showing the downsides of technology and the consequences of it.

Like mentioned above, this video tends to focus on the negatives of technology with its beautiful animation, further reinforcing how the relationship with technology discussed with the first video is heavily important. 

To begin, it is shown how technology is everywhere, which is even true today, where it is practically impossible to avoid technology all together. This is continued to be shown throughout the video with everyone being on phones. Exposure to this extent is unhealthy for us, and I can see an argument for how we today have an unhealthy relationship to technology. Especially since some people are incapable of living without technology, and I think this is a problem, because what happens if the technology disappears or stops working? Then again, technology has saved numerous lives that would have been lost otherwise, and killed many others, so it's really hard to say.

Credit to Copypress

Next, the video demonstrates how some fall into the literally pit-fall of using technology too much. Like mentioned before, technology is good, but it needs to be used in healthy dosages. Otherwise, it can lead to numerous problems. I've seen technology ruin people's lives before and I hope to avoid ruining my own and helping others to avoid it too.

The video once again goes back to how it is hard to avoid technology and the negative influence it can have on ourselves with the little boy trying to run away. As such, I decide to actually just outright not use some technology, I understand that it has a benefit, but I think the cost of using it is too much, and if I used it I might get addicted (social media).

Also, this overexposure and usage of technology is showing a clear downside and unhealthy effect of technology: a loss in social skills/communication. In the whole video, you never see people interacting face to face, only online through texting and such. This also transforms into people being desensitized (shown in numerous scenes in the video and also through the lack of color) and not understanding the effects of the actions which leads into the next scene.

Credit to Alarmy Stock Photo

The scene of the man on the train becoming a scary monster shows a horrible case of how technology causes the worse side of us to come out at times. By not being face to face, people tend to be a lot more negative and disrespectful to others as they don't understand the implications of the actions and how someone is behind the screen too. In our world today, this is clearly shown through cyberbullying, which is another reason that some say we have an unhealthy relationship with technology. Suicide and depression are also further worsened because of these downsides, especially cyberbullying as shown in the video with "tellytube" and the girl in the video. 

Next, the scene of the police brutality shows another effect of technology that I like to call "dramatizing." This effect is also seen a lot in the news, where dramatic situations are talked about all the time, however in this case, dramatic situations are recorded, photographed, etc. Eventually after seeing numerous examples of these situations, people start to become desensitized like I mentioned earlier, so it is important to note that this is not the norm, but an outlier.

Comparison to others is also clearly evident in technology like social media. This is shown twice in the video both in regard to beauty standards, which is another downside of technology that needs to be addressed. Personally, I don't compare myself to others as much, though I'm told that I have high self-confidence. Usually, I look to others to see where I can improve, but I don't look at how they are so much better than me and get down over it. Staying positive while using technology can be very helpful in helping us maintain good technology hygiene and avoiding numerous downsides with technology.

As a last note for this video, the final scene of everyone looking at their phones while falling off a cliff symbolizes how without paying attention to the effects and influences of technology, we can be distracted to the point that it may cost us our job, our relationships, or even our life. 

Overall, the video does a great job showing off the majority of negative influences and impacts of technology, though it is important to remain steadfast in counteracting these influences. There is action to be taken in the fight against these effects, it is not hopeless, so remember to continue using technology while keeping in mind and dodging the bad parts of it.

For the last video, it is a short animation by Steve Cutts called "MAN."

Unlike the other two videos discussed earlier, I won't focus on this one as much. The video ends up being very similar to both of the videos discussed earlier having parts showing positive and negative impacts of technology.

That said, I find that there are four important things to note from this video: Scale, Time, Environment, and Progress (STEP for short, as the man keeps on taking steps in the video.)

Towards the end of the video the animation shows the scale of the situation, as with the numerous piles of garbage we have devastated our planet and for what? A smoke on the king's chair? Then afterwards aliens arrive to beat up the human just like the human did at the beginning of the video with the bug. This is important for two reasons: one, it demonstrates how the cycle continues to go on (it's a loop). Two, it shows how we humans, who think we are the best and can't be matched, may be out of league at times since we only see a small scale.

Time is also heavily shown throughout the video, even at the very beginning it states the time it starts: 500,000 years ago. Then with every step in the video, time goes on, showing how time is something that always goes forward and cannot stop. This ties heavily into progress, which follows the same motion, where it cannot stop and will forever progress. Basically, time is important as it shows us that it is impossible to turn back time and change what we did, so instead of criticizing our mistakes in the past, we should focus on making a better world in the future.

With the numerous piles of trash at the end, and the man killing or hurting animals in some way or another, the impact we humans have on the environment is evident. Technological discovery and progress has only worsened our impact on the environment, so with this video, we should take away the fact that we need to remember the effect we have on the world around us, so we don't lose our precious world like they did in the video.

Credit to Current Affairs Magazine

Lastly, progress, shown in the video with inventions such as the boots for the man, the basketball chicken, the piano, and numerous vehicles later. The video shows how progress continues ever forward, just like time, which is important to note as it's hard to go back on technology we have now. Today in our world, we have phones everywhere, just saying to not use a phone is absurd, as it's practically impossible to avoid having to use one. 

So instead of trying to tell people to not use a technology (which I would say is like trying to rewind time to before the technology), people should learn to properly interact with the technology. That said, we can take breaks from technology if we believe our usage is unhealthy, but technology is never going away. Progress will forever be moving forward onto bigger and brighter technologies that some may have problems with. As such, before getting these new technologies, we should accustom ourselves to the ones we have today, with fewer risks and concerns.

As a final note for this blog post, technology is beneficial, that is undeniable. However, as shown in the last two videos, without proper use, we may make our lives worse even though they are beneficial. So I believe our relationship with technology is like a new kind of health for us. When our technological health is good, technology becomes our savior like the FUTURAMA video says, but when we are technologically unhealthy, technology becomes our killer and destroyer of worlds.

Since this was my final blog post, I just wanted to say thank you to everyone that read this, and I deeply appreciate you. Have a great rest of your day, week, life, or whatever!

Blog Post #10

 Learnings from Each One Teach One #2

Hello again! It's been quite a while since I last made a blog post as I've been handling other classwork and a case of covid. Now, however, I will discuss my learnings from each one teach one #2. 

Unfortunately, I wasn't present in class during the day of these amazing presentations by my fellow peers. So instead of talking about what I saw from their presentations (that I didn't actually see since I had covid), I'm going to dive into the topic of net neutrality, which was one of the presentation topics, and the one I was most interested in hearing about. As mentioned, since I didn't hear the presentations, this will be from my own personal research, so I hope this doesn't mind you all.

What is Net Neutrality?

According to Wired, "Net Neutrality is the idea that internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon should treat all content flowing through their cables and cell towers equally." Investopedia also adds that "Network neutrality ensures that all data on the internet is treated equally by internet service providers (ISPs) and governments, regardless of content, user, platform, application, or device." 

Basically, net neutrality discusses a part of the internet, connection times, and how it should be nondiscriminatory as it could be exploited by companies for profits, or for keeping competition out of the market as bigger companies can pay more money for faster connection times while smaller companies get slower times which causes people to abandon the smaller company.

Effects of Unchecked Net Neutrality

The topic of net neutrality has been highly debated ever since the term was first coined by Columbia University law professor Tim Wu in a 2003 paper. It has some very serious effects that could occur if it is left unchecked, as mentioned, if connection times aren't treated equally, it is feared that "companies and organizations that either can't afford priority treatment, or simply aren't offered access to it, will fall by the wayside."

This has serious implications on the development and innovation of the future, and as such net neutrality is being heavily fought for as without it, big internet service providers, may be the ones dictating the way innovation goes in the future. 

Not only does unchecked net neutrality causes concerns for the future of innovation, but it also has concerns for everyday people! For example, "YouTube and Netflix were slowed by wireless carriers, using a fraction of the available speed." For users of both YouTube and Netflix, this effected their performance while watching from those sites, and it likely occurred that some people left YouTube or Netflix due to the decreased performance! The internet service providers and silently influencing what you should or should not use, and why should they decide that!

History of Net Neutrality Policy

Net Neutrality had many policies made around it in the United States for the last 20 years, the first of which was in 2005. The 2005 policy "prohibited internet service providers from blocking legal content or preventing customers from connecting the devices of their choosing to their internet connections." This policy led to the FCC ordering for BitTorrent, a sharing software sometimes used for digital piracy, to not be slowed by Comcast in 2008, as it still had some legitimate uses.

However, this policy was ended shortly thereafter as the FCC was determined to not have legal authority to enforce the 2005 policy as according to a federal court. Another policy was made a couple of years later, but it was once again ended after a course case with Verizon, where the FCC was once again told they didn't have the authority to enforce the policy.

This changes in 2015, where the then FCC chair, Tom Wheeler, reclassified broadband providers as Title II carriers, though with fewer obligations, which in turn put the providers under the authority of the FCC. Shortly afterward, the FCC passed a net neutrality order in 2015, and after numerous court cases by providers against the FCC, a federal court sided with the FCC. 

Once again in 2017, the policy changes again, as now after the republican controlled FCC voted to remove the previous net neutrality order allowing ISPs to do as they pleased. As a result of this, it is left up to the FTC to protect consumers from violations of net neutrality, but the FTC is only an enforcement agency, so it can't make new rules which may allow for some loopholes to occur.

Then in 2018, multiple state attorney generals and consumer-advocacy groups sued the FCC to block the new rules and restore the old ones. The courts mostly sided with the FCC, but it did allow for states to pass their own Net Neutrality laws that the FCC could not override. 

The pandemic also highlighted the importance of net neutrality and as such, in July 2022, "Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Representative Doris Matsui (CA-06) introduced the Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act, legislation that would classify broadband internet access as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, giving the FCC the appropriate authority to reinstate net neutrality protections." 

Net Neutrality around the world

Net Neutrality rules are all different around the world, in the United States for example, following the course cases in 2018, numerous states have now passed laws relating to net neutrality. The first was Washington in March 2018, followed shortly by Oregon. California then passed a very extensive law that was under scrutiny from the federal government, so it was put on hold. There are also states like Hawaii, New Jersey, Montana, New York, and Vermont who have passed executive orders not allowing state agencies to do business with ISPs that do not uphold net neutrality.

The EU on the other hand, as in line with other online policies, has "formed regulations to promote and protect an open internet, preventing internet service providers from restricting and blocking users' access to lawful content." Though it is important to note there are exceptions, mainly in reference to court orders.

Finally, in 2017, some of the most strict laws about net neutrality were developed in India. "Policymakers and Indian activists, with a desire to promote an open internet and widespread internet access to the nation's citizens, advocated together for net neutrality laws." The punishment for violating these laws for service providers? A potential loss of their license to operate, a huge loss in such a big market for the company. 

Thankfully, net neutrality policies are different around the world, so if you dislike your net neutrality laws where you are, you could move to another place. Also, as it is highly debated, you could likely advocate for a change in the law around it as well, so you have many options if you want to ensure net neutrality. 

Blog Post #9

 In the Age of AI

This time for my blog post, I will be reviewing and discussing some of the aspects from the video above about artificial intelligence.

To begin, China's development and focus on AI as discussed during the first part of the video is quite frightening to see. The growth the country has over the time has been incredible, but with their track record, I can definitely see China using the technology in negative ways.

Not to mention that the data being gathered in China is so immense due to their population that it is quite concerning that they will inevitably have the lead in technology due to it. At that point, who knows what China will or could do?

They could go and make an authoritarian surveillance state like described, one which I would fear of for a lack of privacy and sincerity. The jaywalking technology that shames people is a prime example of it as it publicly shames people for doing it no matter the situation.

However, on the other hand, in the US multiple positives were talked about AI. For example, the truck driving AI technology company, Embark was shown, and I didn't realize how far they were along in the process, as I thought it would take much longer to get trucks on the road like they had. 

That said, technology will replace jobs and that is inevitable, but sad, as those affected have to find some way of getting another job or another situation like Saginaw Michigan will occur. Especially when in the future we will need different skills, not all of which can afford to learn.

As for one last positive, AI will allow us to be a lot more efficient than we ever were before and learn small techniques that increase productivity or probability for something we do each day.

Privacy is important to talk about when discussing AI, as this data being farmed by companies like Google and Facebook is an important topic related to privacy. Advertising before Google and Facebook's data they gather was inconsistent as advertisers didn't know if they were advertising to their target market, but now they can at the expense of personal privacy.

Data is gathered on individuals before they are even aware and without their consent a huge negative con for artificial intelligence.

National security on the other hand is likely to be heavily increased with AI technology such as facial recognition as shown during the first part of the video along with the part talking about the Uyghurs. 

During these parts of the video, they show numerous examples about how from these technologies' governments can monitor suspicious individuals or determine if someone is suspicious or dangerous to the government and from there stop any potential threats to national security. 

It's basically an increased surveillance of what the five eyes are doing through the usage of technology.

Online security has become much more important due to the huge amount of data harvesting, that of which if it got leaked would expose so much information about people that there would be a massive problem for numerous people around the world.

One specific problem would be identity theft, that of which would become much easier with the information discovered from data gathered online from companies such as Google and Facebook.

So, do you fear technology after watching this video? I certainly fear some things, but I am still optimistic about the numerous upsides and trust that everything will eventually turn out in the right way just like some people in the video mentioned.

Blog Post #8

 Each One Teach One: Five Eyes

What is the Five Eyes?

The Five eyes is the most significant intelligence alliance with an intricate web of global intelligence, and a covert club of members like the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It is widely regarded as the "gold standard for intelligence alliances." 

Origins and Secretiveness

The five eyes stems back from World War 2, where the US and the UK formed an agreement to share intelligence to help against fighting the Axis Powers. This alliance then persisted after the war ended and through the cold war until today, however it now includes Canada (joined in 1948), Australia, and New Zealand (both joined in 1956).

The original document was only 7 pages long, but it was revised and added to several times between 1946 and 1955 when the new agreement was enacted. The most recent version of the agreement has not been declassified.

The nickname Five Eyes is a shorthand derived from the stamp intelligence documents would have on them that marked them as only for the Five Eyes. The stamp read, “TOP SECRET- AUS/CAN/NZ/UK/US EYES ONLY.”   

The alliance is heavily secret and covert, and as such it wasn't even known of by the prime minister of Australia, George Whitlam until 1973. The public also didn't know of it until 2005, and the full text of the original agreement from 1946 wasn't released to the public until 2010.

Five Eyes

Relationships

The Five Eyes alliance held a very important factor the many relationships, not only between the members of the alliance, but also some outside of it.

Most important to note is that the alliance helped forge trust and the basis for a stronger cooperation between the UK and US during the Cold War.

However, the five eyes has also cooperated with countries like Denmark, France, Norway, and the Netherlands (all of which are considered a part of the "Nine Eyes"). The fourteen eyes also exists, which includes everyone in the Nine Eyes plus Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden. 

That said, the "Fourteen Eyes" official name is SIGINT Seniors Europe (SSEUR) and the primary objective is to coordinate the exchange of military signals, which is a lot more specific in comparison to the five eyes surveillance which is mainly for national security.

Responsibilities

Each country in the five eyes is responsible for monitoring a specific portion of the world, as shown in the map below.

Britain monitors Europe, Western Russia, Middle East, and Hong Kong. United States monitors the Middle East as well, China, Russia, Africa, and the Caribbean. Australia is responsible for South and East Asia. New Zealand's territory is the South Pacific and Southeast Asia. Canada's is the interior of Russia, China, and parts of Latin America. 

However, note that most information gathered actually comes from multiple members and as such helping each other is essential in this alliance. In fact, sometimes people have trouble telling where the information came from because of the great cooperation and just conclude that it came from the five eyes. This was why it was so detrimental that New Zealand refused to share information to the five eyes for decades.

Finally, the other responsibility the countries have is part of the deal itself. The Five Eyes alliance revolves around a deal that is broken down into two parts: products and methods. Basically, the alliance agreed to share not only the information they gathered (the product), but also how they collected said intelligence (methods and techniques). 

In turn, this has led to an unprecedented era of surveillance and information sharing that continues to shape the world’s approach to national security.   

Downsides

Now, the five eyes has downsides too, it's not all rainbows and roses here. For one, the development of technology has been a problem for the Five eyes, especially encryption. Members are unsure of whether the privacy for citizens outweighs potential security threats they could discover by accessing this encryption.

As such, the intelligence network is a double-edged sword. It enables governments to have the power to uphold national security, but it also allows for the loss of personal privacy. 

This was heavily demonstrated in 2013 with Snowden's (shown to the right) whistleblowing that revealed extensive data harvesting activities of the alliance. Not to mention that data breaches of information such as this continue to pose a disadvantage to the five eyes because the alliance is founded on deep trust.

While the Five Eyes alliance certainly plays a crucial role in global security, it’s equally important to remember that privacy forms a cornerstone of democratic societies. As such, the alliance’s activities highlight the need for a delicate balance between security and individual rights—a balance that remains a significant topic of ongoing debates.   

However, it is up to you to decide if potentially sacrificing your personal privacy to stop over fifty terror attacks in the US and abroad is worth it.

Blog Post #7

 Privacy and Data Collection

Our world today online is much different than it was when I was born about 20 years ago. A massive majority of people now use the internet and as a result get data collected about them. 

If one does not know this already, companies such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and other companies that you utilize their products online, track and collect data about you. From Google search histories, to likes on Facebook pages, to what you have written in your cloud-shared Microsoft document, all of the companies can know that.

The effect on us

Some may be perfectly happy with companies knowing this about them as they likely think "what's so bad about it?"

The main way this issue along with many others like it affects us is by causing everyone to have only "15 seconds of being anonymous" as mentioned in the first video with Juan Enriquez. Anonymity is very important to people as people learn, since without it you can't stop people from learning things about you that you rather not let them learn.

For example, let's say you have an irrational fear of fish that you don't want others to know about, but in our day in age with the internet that is quite hard to do. Same thing applies when one applies for a job, as your employer can likely learn a lot from just looking at your online presence on social media or through searches. 

From this it is also important to note how we can also learn many things about people we know online, so like Orpheus, maybe you should not look too deeply into your close friends, lover, family, etc.

Also as demonstrated in the second video, this is also not exclusive to the online world either. The police and government are also using this technology to gather data on you and then store it for safekeeping just in case since storage costs are now lower than before.

Finally, in the last video it talks about how aspects of the internet such as revenge porn is problems that need to be addressed as it can happen to anyone as our online civil rights are at stake.

What should the government do?

Well as mentioned the government themselves collect data on us, so I would doubt the government would change much as why would they hinder themselves?

That said, preferably the government should pass privacy laws that increase privacy of everyday people from not only companies, but also from the government themselves would it be online or offline. 

People don't take it too kindly to be tracked without their consent, so the government should only allow this collection of data after consent or after enough evidence can be collected to have reasonable doubt (basically a search warrant.) 

Outside of those cases, tracking and data collection should not be allowed as it provides too much power to companies and the government while making the individual suffer. 

Also as seen in the last video, more legislation needs to be passed to counteract these online threats posed to us as individuals through mediums such as explicit photos, background searches (a popular way of "cancelling" now-a-days), and overall harassment online.

What can we do?

Like mentioned in the first video, everyone can decrease the amount of data about themselves online by being careful about what they post and by refraining from overuse of the internet. Users can also utilize things like duckduckgo or firefox to further increase their privacy.

We can also petition the government to pass laws that help protect our privacy from companies and the government itself as mentioned during the section above.

Video 3 also shows how we can use encrypted technologies like text messages, facetime, and whatsapp to avoid government surveillance, but it is also important to note that this does not fully protect one as there is always backdoors into products such as these.

Finally, the last video mentions that we can take some legal actions against certain online actions, but the results of doing this are heavily varied and also plagued with many legal loopholes and such that cause either cases to go on for much longer than they should or not conclude in the right way at all.

Video 1:

Video 2:

Video 3:

Video 4

(Video 4 cannot be shown here for some weird reason, so click on the link if you wish to watch.)

Blog Post #6

 Antiwar Obscurity

During the progressive era around the time period of World War one, America had numerous anti-war voices around the country. This culminated in Woodrow Wilson's election where he stated he wasn't going to go to war, but then in reality we did. 

America is in a similar state today and has been for the past 20 years or so. Numerous voices have been made against war spanning from the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq to the most recent conflicts in Israel and Ukraine. 

That said, the progressive era had many of these voices persecuted and thrown in jail basically censoring the naysayers. Today on the other hand, they are not persecuted as they once were, but they are very obscure and hard to find in comparison to before, so why is this the case?

My take on this topic being so obscure now is that it is in response to the numerous changes that have happened since the progressive era, in order to accomplish a similar goal as before. 

Simply put, I believe those that once persecuted the antiwar voices are now not trying to persecute them, as they realize they would lose, but instead silencing them by popularizing other voices. Sites like Antiwar.com and The American Conservative, I had never heard of before this assignment, and the reason is because I think someone is trying to stop them from being widespread popular.

To add on to this, in the age we are in with social media and mass communication everywhere, it is a lot harder for the antiwar opinion to be heard.

For starters, news sources now focus on all the "dramatic, scary, or negative" stories, all of which can be an accurate description of conflicts or wars. As such, news sources cover these stories just like how they cover school shootings a lot for the same purpose. More dramatic, more views, and more revenue.

Social media, on the other hand, promotes a very big concept of polarization because of echo chambers. 

The basic definition of an echo chamber is where one person hears or sees only their opinion. In social media platforms like Facebook, this occurs because of the data that is gathered about the individual while using the site, and as a result of this data, opinions differing from their own are silently not shown to the individual while ones that agree with their sentiment are.

It is important to understand that these echo chambers exist, as without this understanding one can spiral into a circle of confirmation bias where they eventually could outright reject other opinions different from their own or even become more extreme in their stance.

So due to the mass communication present in news and social media, along with a possible influence behind the scenes that is trying to not popularize the opinion of anti-war, I believe this is why I had never heard of these sites before, especially since I never had antiwar in any of my echo chambers before.