As I delved deeper into Ronan Farrow‘s riveting documentary “Surveilled,” I couldn’t help but marvel at his tenacity and courage. The man is a modern-day Muckraker, fearlessly exposing the dark truths hidden beneath the veil of secrecy in the advanced spyware industry. His life experience, tainted by his own brush with cyber surveillance during his groundbreaking #MeToo investigations, gives him an unparalleled perspective on this matter.
In the HBO documentary “Surveilled,” Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ronan Farrow embarks on a global journey, uncovering and revealing the hidden, sinister side of the billion-dollar advanced spyware business. The movie unmasks how not just repressive governments but also democratic ones secretly invade citizens’ cell phones and computers for spying purposes.
Over the past few years, numerous Western democracies, once believed to be immune to such occurrences, have experienced scandals involving the unchecked proliferation of commercial spying technology. This is surprising given that they have constitutional safeguards intended to prevent this, as highlighted by Farrow in his latest article for The New Yorker, which discusses the potential expansion of commercial spyware use under the Trump administration in the U.S.
As a movie buff, I’ve been pondering over a recent deal between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and an Israeli surveillance firm called Paragon, shelling out a whopping $2 million. This contract is raising some eyebrows in the cinematic world, as it seems like a thriller plot unfolding right before our eyes!
According to Farrow, simply because the Department of Homeland Security may obtain this technology, it doesn’t automatically mean that it will only be utilized by ICE for immigration matters. Experts in privacy law have voiced concerns over the potential combination of advanced spyware technology with Trump’s pledge for mass deportation, but they emphasize that we should all be wary regardless of our personal circumstances. Even if you are not a politician, an activist, or a journalist, there’s a risk that you could become a target without knowing it beforehand. This is one of the reasons why Farrow felt it was crucial to share stories of ordinary individuals who unintentionally find themselves ensnared in these dragnet operations.
Farrow started covering the spyware sector following the incident where he was subjected to cyber monitoring, which occurred during his probe into Harvey Weinstein that ultimately ignited the 2017 #MeToo campaign.
Farrow mentions that his exploration into this topic came about due to being monitored while covering sensitive stories that sparked controversy. He explains this experience was both frightening on a personal level and devastating overall. It’s not just about acquiring information, he adds; there’s an element of intimidation involved as well, and perhaps more importantly, it limits our ability to perform our duties as journalists.
Under the guidance of directors Matthew O’Neill and Perri Peltz, the documentary “Surveilled” delves into the enigmatic realm of the surveillance industry, shedding light on how the digital spying sector is redefining notions of privacy and power in today’s world. This groundbreaking piece, premiered at DOC NYC this month, probes the moral quandaries that society and governments are confronting in the era of cyber-espionage.
As a fervent admirer, I chatted with EbMaster on topics ranging from Trump’s influence, the evolving landscape of the #MeToo movement, and strategies for safeguarding oneself against cyber-attacks.
How could ICE use spyware to carry out Trump’s plan to deport millions of undocumented immigrants?
I prefer not to engage in speculation, instead focusing on discussing our current abilities and the pledges being made, and potential conflicts they might cause. However, the prospect of mass deportation under Donald Trump has sparked great concern among many privacy law experts. Additionally, his threats towards political adversaries and tribunals, as well as his view that journalists who safeguard sources should be punished, have heightened this worry. This apprehension escalates when considering the advanced surveillance technology that his administration could potentially control.
In the docu you interviewed people who help protect people and companies from cyberespionage. Since spyware is so prevalent now, do you think that news outlets will have to hire security teams to protect their journalists from being hacked?
It’s a huge concern. If we want freedom of expression and freedom of information, then we need to have privacy rights and devices that can’t be so easily compromised. We need to have checks and balances on these (spy) tools, and one of the big casualties when those checks and balances go away and when these devices are just a public space, and there is no room for private conversations, is journalism. I don’t want to see a reality in which the Trump administration makes good on what he’s saying about imprisoning people in our profession who protect their sources. Unfortunately, that reality becomes a lot more likely to transpire if this tech is used in an unfettered way.
How does the average citizen protect themselves against being hacked?
Contact your elected officials and urge them for accountability regarding this matter. During my research, several tech experts have suggested a daily restart of your device as a precaution against sophisticated hacking technologies, although it doesn’t provide a comprehensive defense.
Trump was found liable of sexually abusing and defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll. Some of the men he has selected to join his Cabinet – Pete Hegseth and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Matt Gaetz before he dropped out – have been accused of sexual misconduct. What do you think this means for the future of #MeToo – a movement against sexual violence? Are we going backwards?
I’m unable to provide a comprehensive response to your question since my role in that reporting scenario was primarily as an investigative journalist, not an activist. The point you brought up regarding Trump’s appointments seems to be part of a broader pattern that has been termed a “trolling operation” by credible journalists recently. This administration appears to have a disregard for the rule of law, which is evident in numerous instances where individuals appointed to agencies are dismissive or disobedient towards the very things those agencies are designed to protect and uphold. While it may seem like a deliberate act of defiance against standards of consent and accountability around sexual violence, it’s more accurately seen as a manifestation of this administration’s overall disregard for legal norms.
“Surveilled” is currently streaming on Max.
Read More
- PENDLE PREDICTION. PENDLE cryptocurrency
- Skull and Bones Players Report Nerve-Wracking Bug With Reaper of the Lost
- SOLO PREDICTION. SOLO cryptocurrency
- Smite 2: Overcoming the Fear of Your First Match in the MOBA Universe
- W PREDICTION. W cryptocurrency
- Understanding the Constant Rain in Pacific Drive: A Reddit Discussion
- Team Fight Tactics (TFT) Patch 14.23 Notes: What to Expect from Set 13 Release
- Dragon Quest III HD-2D Remake Review: History Repeats
- POPCAT PREDICTION. POPCAT cryptocurrency
- Clash Royale: The Perils of Firecrackers and Cringe Decks
2024-11-22 03:19