NSA and GCHQ: The Flawed Psychology Of Government Mass Surveillance - GuardianUK

[WillyT]

NSA and GCHQ: the flawed psychology of government mass surveillance
Posted by Chris Chambers - GuardianUK
Monday 26 August 2013



<snip>

Recent disclosures about the scope of government surveillance are staggering. We now know that the UK's Tempora program records huge volumes of private communications, including – as standard – our emails, social networking activity, internet histories, and telephone calls. Much of this data is then shared with the US National Security Agency, which operates its own (formerly) clandestine surveillance operation. Similar programs are believed to operate in Russia, China, India, and throughout several European countries.

While pundits have argued vigorously about the merits and drawbacks of such programs, the voice of science has remained relatively quiet. This is despite the fact that science, alone, can lay claim to a wealth of empirical evidence on the psychological effects of surveillance. Studying that evidence leads to a clear conclusion and a warning: indiscriminate intelligence-gathering presents a grave risk to our mental health, productivity, social cohesion, and ultimately our future.

For more than 15 years we've known that surveillance leads to heightened levels of stress, fatigue and anxiety. In the workplace it also reduces performance and our sense of personal control. A government that engages in mass surveillance cannot claim to value the wellbeing or productivity of its citizens. People will trust an authority to the extent that it is seen to behave in their interest and trust them in return. Research suggests that people tolerate limited surveillance provided they believe their security is being bought with someone else's liberty. The moment it becomes clear that they are in fact trading their own liberty, the social contract is broken. Violating this trust changes the definition of "us" and "them" in a way that can be dangerous for a democratic authority – suddenly, most of the population stands in opposition to their own government.

For more than 50 years we've known that surveillance encourages conformity to social norms. In a series of classic experiments during the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch showed that conformity is so powerful that individuals will follow the crowd even when the crowd is obviously wrong. A government that engages in mass surveillance cannot claim to value innovation, critical thinking, or originality.

Security chiefs may believe that surveillance gives them greater control over the populace, but is this truly the case? The answer is complicated. A recent study found that if members of a team felt a common social identity with their leader then surveillance in fact reduced the leader's influence by fostering resentment and distrust. However, if they saw their leader as belonging to a social outgroup then surveillance increased the leader's power.

This pattern is interesting because it places politicians and the security services at loggerheads. For politicians to succeed in a democracy they must be seen as part of the same ingroup as their electorate. We see this in force most strongly during election time, when politicians go to great pains to emphasise their grass roots connections with the community. But by supporting mass surveillance, politicians then undermine this relationship.

The security services, on the other hand, have the opposite motivation. For them, mutual distrust is par for the course, so it is better to maintain a social distance from the public. That way they are guaranteed to be perceived as an outgroup, which – the evidence suggests – increases the influence they can wield through surveillance.

There are two ways to resolve this conflict...

<snip>

More: http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2013/aug/26/nsa-gchq-psychology-government-mass-surveillance

[mindwalker_i]

1. America doesn't do science

I mean that in the sense that we don't use science to make decisions, especially with respect to decisions or actions that are political in nature. The fact that abstinance education doesn't work has no bearing on whether it's taught, for example. The Republicans have been laboring for many years to make this the case, as it's easier to herd "believers" in the directions they want to go than it is for thinking people. Look at the Iraq war: the "arguments" for it were based on emotions, specifically fear or terrorists and that we didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. If people had more information (real information) with which to make rational decisions, that war wouldn't have happened.

[The Blue Flower]

2. Very interesting comments at the site

I agree that mass surveillance will end in a break in the bonds between the governed and their government.

[nashville_brook]

3. this is why spying is so abhorrent to Americans - it goes to the foundation of our

social contract. it shows that there's no intent for the governed to be governors. that those in power will stop at nothing to retain that power.

This is the difference between the Wydens of the world and the Feinsteins. the Wydens are refuse to roll over on us.