Privacy

In George Orwell’s work of fiction 1984, the reader is presented with a narrative about a totalitarian world where every movement and action by the population were scrutinized and analyzed by tyrannical regime, personified by the Big Brother construct. Big Brother as the ever watchful entity was always quick to silence dissent and any form of expression was cause for trouble. As a result any notions of privacy were soon dispatched for the characters, aware that they were always being watched. Though presented as a work of fiction there are number of parallels that can be drawn with the narrative and the modern day society we now enjoy.

While it may seem the type of rhetoric conveyed by conspiracy theorists, we are increasingly living in a highly monitored and scrutinized society. A high price has been placed on the information we as communicators now generate, with both government and private industry looking to extract as much data as from our day to lives as possible. Consider for a moment a person’s digital footprint. In this day of technological advances, the use of communications mediums such as the Internet and telephones have become so ingrained in our lives that it’s not often thought about where all the information we generate is ending up. We use technology for banking, shopping, correspondence, networking and countless other activities we now consider routine in our lives. Yet how often do we consider where all this information is going? Who owns our digital footprints and what level of privacy and safety do we have as result of this and how does it differ from what we expect?

As a result this paper will focus on the privacy issues surrounding the digital communication age we now live in. It will discuss how the integrity of our ability to communicate effectively is being compromised by privacy concerns. An age where the majority of the first world population now exists simultaneously within two worlds, the physical and the virtual world of the Internet. In the same way that we etch out an existence in the real world, we are increasingly leaving our mark in cyberspace. An ever increasing database of knowledge is being built up by actions we casually go about everyday. From purchasing grocery items with a credit card to socializing online through networking sites, every contact made is leaving a virtual trace.

We live in an age where governments are increasingly active in the monitoring and scrutinizing of our communications, a practice often performed without consent or disclosure to the public. Finally, an age where an increasing portion of the Internet is based on the user generated content. The rise of Web 2.0 has seen the increasing popularity of social networks that encourage the sharing our lives in a relatively public forum, to video and photographic websites dependant on public submission, the modern world is putting it their lives on show. So with so much information being generated by our actions what levels of privacy can we expect?

Firstly the concept of privacy isn’t about the right of individual or a group to engage in an activity without their actions being scrutinized and monitored, nor is it about the ability to hide ones activities. Instead as Garfinkel (2000, p 11) points out, “it’s about self-possession, autonomy and integrity”. In that, it is about the right as individual to decide what information is made public for the rest of the world to see and what we choose to keep to ourselves. As Hughes (1993, p 285) sees it, “privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world”, in that the power should be with the individual.

Many of the everyday tasks we perform now involve what Garfinkel termed ‘privacy – invasive technology”, referring to devices that collect, store and transmit information based on our actions for processing and analysis. For example in order to have the convenience of a credit card for shopping there needs to be the gathering of private information. Information about who you are as a consumer, financial details and purchasing habits are collected by a number of entities such as the retail store, the bank, credit card provider. Information that has been deemed necessary for collection, by an organization making a conscious decision to do so, so that it can better understand the behavior of its customers and react accordingly..

In the majority we have come to accept this. In the interest of convenience we seemingly are willing to accept this information becoming a commodity. As Garfinkel states, “we are entering a new world in which ever purchase we make, every place we travel, every word we say, and everything we read is routinely recorded and made available for later analysis” (p 11). However, here we have a choice, if we don’t like the practice there are alternatives that can be made on the basis of an informed decision.

What is of concern, is when the use of intrusive technology is done covertly. Increasingly governments and businesses are engaging in practices that they themselves would prefer to maintain private and confidential. These practices often defended as being in the interests of national security and crime prevention, often involve the surveillance and recording of the communications activities of the general public. As Hunter (2007, p 1) points out “surveillance has evolved from a helpful investigatory tool in solving crimes, to an essential technique used to prevent minor violations of the law and large scale catastrophes from occurring”. As a result the ability to communicate freely is being impaired.

However, the issue is that in order to capture the few, the majority is also under increased surveillance and scrutiny. An individual’s right to privacy has been compromised and justified against the perceived prospect of greater security for the collective population. In Australia, legislation is continually being pushed that would allow law enforcement agencies (State and Federal) to access personal information pertaining to the following: telephone (including mobile), email and Internet records, Common to each new legislation is the ability to access private information without a warrant or the knowledge of the intended target of the surveillance.

Perhaps of even greater concern is the current proposal by the Australian government to mandate a “clean feed” for Internet connections to homes and schools. Under the proposed scheme, the government would censor content it deems inappropriate, denying access as a default. Individuals supposedly would be allowed to opt-out of the scheme but whether this would be an easy process remains to be seen, as would the possibility that in volunteering to “opt-out” would put those people under greater scrutiny.

As Electronic Frontiers Australia Chair Dale Clapperton (2008) stated about the proposed plan, “The proposals threaten the free speech rights of every Australian.... Australia is supposed to be a liberal democracy where adults have the freedom to say and read what they want, not just what the Government decides is ‘appropriate’ for them.” The concern is that once this technology is in place it becomes far too easy to monitor what people are doing online. Whilst it may impede some illegal activity, the question remains, under whose jurisdiction and governance does the notion of “appropriate content" get decided and what level of privacy can exist when the possibility exists that your actions are being monitored and recorded?

In the United States the Carnivore program was used to scan and monitor email traffic on the Internet during the early 1990’s. Developed by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, out of perceived need that it would allow for improved surveillance and detection of terrorist activities, the program would search for data that matched a predefined dataset. Naturally those engaged in criminal or terrorist activity don’t publicize the fact or their email address, so Carnivore worked by scanning/sniffing all communications traffic for keywords from the dataset. If the system flagged enough keywords, the email would be logged for further scrutiny regardless of who generated the message. The program was reportedly replaced by commercially available software that was deemed more suitable. This also raises a privacy concern that the technology for monitoring and capturing internet traffic covertly by governments is also available for exploitation by private commercial interests.

Similarly, in usage today, the Echelon system is used to intercept, voice, email, and facsimile communications around the world. A collaborative intelligence network consisting of the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand was established for the sharing of information by circumventing each countries own national laws. In that, it is illegal to spy on one’s own citizens but it is not illegal to spy on another nation on their behalf and then pass on any information that may interest them.

Prior to these examples occurring, the United States government aand its agencies the Federal Bureau of Information (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA) pushed for the introduction of the “Clipper Chip”. A device that would encrypt communicated material, but the US government would also hold the “keys” to access these messages whenever it needed to. This meant that whilst voice and facsimile messages were secure and private because of the encryption for the wider public US government could still listen in when it so desired. When public protests about the government having such powers saw the plan reassessed, the US government offered to turn the technology over too private industry. This was done under the flawed view that allowing private industry to have access to the technology would calm concerns over a “Big Brother” style of government. Fortunately the plan was shelved after the realization that the majority of the populations weren’t too happy with the concept of the government being able to listen in on “private” conversations regardless of who was behind the technology.

These examples are demonstrative of governments that seem to think that in order to make the population safe, everyone needs to under suspicion and they highlight the increasing erosion of the peoples right to privacy. In the United States, as Miller (2007, p. 3) describes it “the government seizes the right to preemptively investigate anyone who is now, or might someday be opposed to the abolition of the nation’s civil liberties”. For those who are opposed to such scrutiny the official reply is always the same, again as Miller describes it, “ who but someone with something to hide would object in these imperiled times to granting the government free access to one’s mail, one’s phone conversation, one’s library records”.

The problem as Hunter (2007) sees it is the rapid evolution of these technologies has seen government so focus on what they could do rather than what they should. In that “technology continues to rapidly advance, far more quickly than most governments can create legislation. As a result, no international legal framework exists to deal with the issues of privacy rights and surveillance” (p. 13) As result in order for a perception of security within a community, citizen’s are being asked to give up on part of their right to privacy. The issue is how much are citizen’s willing to give and how much are those in power willing to take whilst our ability to communicate freely is being impeded..

When the United Kingdom government proposed a data-mining program called, “Total Information Awareness” there was an outcry from privacy advocates and concerned individuals. Data mining refers to the practice of scanning and extracting information from web pages, emails, and telephone conversations for later use. The program as described by Post (2002) would incorporate, “a surveillance technique it calls eDNA that would tag all Internet data with unique markers to make impossible the anonymous use of parts of the Internet”. In reality this would create a division on an Internet, one half unruled, but no doubt monitored, and the other half would require users to provide identification to access. As a result, freedom of information and expression would be lost under the watchful eyes of some governmental “Big Brother”. Fortunately the program was cancelled as a result of the backlash over the proposal and it perceived invasion into the people’s privacy.

Yet it’s a concept that won’t go away, with just this month the government of the United Kingdom announcing a plan to create a central database for the purpose of storing communications traffic. Defended as a means to counter terrorist activities, the £12 billion proposed system would allow live monitoring of the Internet and mobile phone networks. Currently, under UK law, a warrant is required for the interception of such traffic to monitor suspect illegal activity. Critics of this proposal and similar proposals argue that the potential for such a database to be abused and comprised is extremely high. As UK Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve, quoted by Allen (2008) states, “It would mark a substantial shift in the powers of the state to obtain information on individuals. Given the Government's poor record on protecting data, and seeing how significant an increase in power this would be”

While it seems rational to be outraged and suspicious of intrusive practices being carried out by governments, the popularity of Web 2.0 and its user interactive content highlights another privacy issue. As mentioned many social networking, user content generated, and virtual community sites are profiteering from the apparent increasing narcissistic need to share and exposé oneself to the rest of the world.

Little thought seems to be given to the implications that posting personal information about one self may have. This is under the misguided or ill-informed opinion that the information they post is only accessible by those they intended to view it. Yet the Internet is for the majority a publicly accessible forum. Social networking sites for example do offer privacy setting designed to limit accessibility, yet all too often these are easily negated or not engaged at all.

Furthermore with the increasingly popularity of user generated content based websites, either video (e.g. YouTube), photographic, (e.g. Photobucket, Flickr) or a blog site (Livejournal, Blogger), there exists a greater chance that an individuals digital footprint and wider personal network, may reveal more information about its creator than they ever intended. Voluntary postings about personal thoughts, feelings and beliefs, combined with online activities helps to form a virtual archetype of those individuals depending on how they choose to be seen.

Current and future employers may find any number of pieces or personal information that may affect their judgement of the individual. A study by a United States recruitment firm, CareerBuilder, sighted by Brandenburg (2008); found that an increasing number of managers were scanning social networking sites for information about job applicants. The study also found that out of those managers surveyed, more than half would not hire a prospective employee based on the information that they had garnished from the web. Whilst the argument is that this could be an invasion of privacy of the prospective employee, is it not also the right of the employer to validate a potential employer through all available resources?

Also of concern is the greater number of opportunities the Internet has provided for those with criminal intent. Social networking sites can provide an abundance of information for identity thieves, hackers, crackers, phishers and predators with which they can use to their advantage. Furthermore as technology evolves the methods used by these protagonists are rapidly evolving making their activities harder to police.

Also one should consider that it standard practice for these sites to request the user to enter their personal likes and dislikes about a wide variety of subjects. For example through data mining, a music company can see how many people list their represented artists on their page. Combine this with the other demographic information provided by the user, (age, location, gender etc) and combine it with countless other users, the music company can get a greater understanding of who their customers like and dislike.

Taking this a step further, the Web 2.0 website operators are then able to provide targeted marketing efforts based on the content the user has provided. Content that although was provided by you the user, is now the property of the company whose website it was entered into. For the user this may result in them receiving targeted marketing based on the information they have unwittingly disclosed.

Facebook drew attention to itself earlier this year when its Beacon advertising feature caused a backlash amongst users of the social networking site. The application was incorporated into Facebook user profiles to data mine information about purchased items on web sites external to their own. The feature didn’t allow users to opt-out of the program initially and was seen (by those aware of it) as an invasion of privacy because the program would then broadcast user activities to their social network friends. The challenge for social networking sites is to balance their popularity and how to monetize the tremendous wealth of marketing and behavioral information that is available through these sites. It is become common practice to publicize aspects of one life in a public forum with little thought into the potential uses of this information.

Furthermore, in an effort to attract more traffic, these Internet websites are increasingly sharing information in effort to synchronize and amalgamate content from different sites. For example, both the popular websites, MySpace and Facebook, allow for users to input their email account details and then allow the social networking sites to harvest these email addresses and the user’s contacts details in attempt to find the users friends. In reality it also serves as another tool for obtaining marketing and behavioral information about the users of their website.

As a result of this a number of users of such sites are then deciding to delete the profiles and in there mind regain control over their personal information. However this isn’t always the case and many of these sites maintain archive copies of their content for backup purposes and future use. Aspan (2008) quoting Facebook’s terms of service that state that as a user “ you may remove your user content from the site and any time” and that while a user may delete their profile(s), they should be aware that, “you acknowledge that the company may retain archive copies of your user content”. Even still once requested data has been deleted; the company may still have retrievable information stored in backup copies.

This is because to the companies that operate these social networking sites; the amount of potential marketing information is exponentially linked to the number of users. Google attempted to take its market intelligence gathering process a step further when it launched its own web browser to compete with the likes of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Mozilla’s Firefox. Launched with great fanfare, Google’s Chrome browser promised faster user-friendlier interface for accessing the Internet.

What wasn’t initially made public was that the browser would harvest the page address of websites visited by a user and electronically report these back to Google. Through collecting about 2 percent of all keystrokes entered into the browser, over time a virtual catalogue of a person’s interests and activities would be built up over time. Compounding the issue was the in the browsers initial release, the terms and conditions of use stated that any content entered into the browser would become property of Google. Once again public outcry would see Google amend its terms and conditions of use but it still reserves the right to collect information obtained during its products usage.

So it is evident that with an increase in the availability of information there is an apparent need for greater security and awareness. One hope for better privacy lies in encryption. This process provides a secure means of transmitting encoded “scrambled” data. In that, the messages can only be read or heard by the intended receiver and the sender, through the use of a “key” necessary to decode the message. The intended receiver of the message is able to read and decipher it, as they have been made aware of the “key” previously.

The good news is that such technology to make the internet and a personal data more secure is already available with a number of commercially available products existing in the marketplace. However, because governments around the world consider the technology capable of being used by criminals and terrorist’s they lobby against the use of such techniques. In the United States for example encryption technology is closely monitored and regulated. Certain countries have had bans placed upon them and it is illegal to export or supply encryption technology to those nations.

Information at this time is not always safe and perhaps the key to maintaining privacy for the individual is ensuring that they are in charge of what they share. Technology is advancing so rapidly that information we once thought secure and private is now being put into a public forum. Privacy however should not be surrendered under an illusion of security as championed by governments. Instead careful judgement should be made by individuals when choosing what information they choose to reveal and showing wise judgement with whom they share with it.

Realising that whilst they may not care what information is available about them today, but there is always the possibility that tomorrow may bring a change in attitude. The ability to control what the world sees of us remains in part up to the individual. How much we chose to reveal should be based on how comfortable we are with other people knowing and those choices should always be informed knowing that a number of Orwellian “Big Brother’s” may be watching us.

On September 20, 2001, Georges W Bush’s addressed the citizens and congress of the United States of America and told them they had been put on notice. They may be the world’s most powerful country but they weren’t immune to attack and that their people had reason to be afraid. It was a speech that did little to allay the fears and concerns of the people. The terrorists who had attacked on September 11 had installed fear and now the government was going to ensure that that level of fear remained. For the fear of terrorisms allows for it to be useful as a propaganda and control device.

The challenge for the propagandist is to “inject” their ideas into the minds of the target population. The challenge is therefore to overcome the audience that thinks critically. As Rampton and Stauber point out,”an audience that thinks critically and is prepared to challenge you message becomes a problem that must be overcome” (2003, p 135). Fortunately for terrorists and governments alike one of the easiest ways to overcome objections to their actions is through the creation of a climate of fear and distrust. This process is aided by the media who benefit in the ratings and help in promoting a climate of fear that manage to keep audiences watching. A public that is afraid and untrusting of others, results in them being more easily manipulated and accepting of the influence of others.

As the late Nazi Reich Marshall Herman Goering quoted by Rampton and Stauber points out that the purpose of any propaganda campaign is to overcome resistance from the public directed at the government or terrorists ideology “but voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country” (2003, p135)

Now that the public exists in a climate of fear, governments are able to reign in civil liberties and those that protest are attacked for their lack of patriotism. Any controversial act is defended by the linking it to being in the best interest of national security. Proof of this can be demonstrated by the outcomes of the enacted USA Patriot Act. Enacted only 45 days after September 11, 2001, the legislation was sold to the public on the perceived intention of targeting terrorists and making the United States safer from terrorist attack. Riding a wave of nationalism and fear of future terrorist attacks, the Act was intended to unite the nation and see an amalgamation of national intelligence agencies and law enforcement.

Critics of the Act were denounced as unpatriotic and as such un-American. It also creates a climate of intolerance and groups looking to blame Law enforcement now under the act could now legally spy on the citizens of their country. As William’s points out, this type of measure “highlights the distinction between punishing what has already occurred and preventing what might happen in the future” (2002, p. 340). Agencies that previously were responsible for enforcing the law now were able to manipulate the law to their own means. As such the concept of innocent until proven guilty under the law has been reversed.

A number of personal freedoms previously protected by United States law have bee lost under the Patriot Act. Under the act law enforcement and government agencies are able to gather personal information such as medical records, taxation records etc, without the need for a warrant or even criminal suspicion. This information can be obtained through clandestine searches of an individual’s home or business without indefinite notification. Also the definition of domestic terrorism under the Patriot Act can now potentially include the simple act of political protest.

As a result the United States government now spies on its own citizens and assault their individual rights through programs like ‘Terrorism Information Awareness”, a centralized computer database that compile information from government and public sources. All under the banner of a campaign for freedom and protection from those who they’ve been told wish to harm them.

Similarly in Australia, intelligence services have been given the power to detain and interrogate individuals for up a week, without charge, persons sixteen and over for suspicion of knowledge or involvement of terrorist activity. Furthermore laws of sedition and control orders have limited the freedom of speech and the freedom of movement

Naturally the government wants its public to believe its actions are in their best interest. It not only endeavours to win the “heart and minds” of those it if fighting against but also of it own people. Instead of just defeating the enemy the new goal is to defeat them psychologically through the creation of a climate of constant fear. Sighting the work of political theorist Thomas Hobbes who wrote in his 1651 work Leviathan, Bethke Elshtain) wrote that, “If we live in constant fear of violent death we are likely to seek guarantees to prevent such” (2003, p 47). As a result governments are able to justify their actions through the promotion of fear in their rhetoric.

By creating a climate in which its citizen envisions anarchy and dread and a perceived threat of random violence their lies an ability to control. The ruling powers that be can exploit this fear knowing that if it fails in so called right to protect the people it will be perceived in dereliction of it duty. As a result they can justify an act of war. This however does not give it the right to abuse the authority given to it and seek unquestioned obedience and acceptance.

Under the perceived notion that the war is just in that it’s a war being fought under the right intention supposedly. For the United Stated their actions were justified in their eyes as they sort the punishment of the wrongdoers and the prevention of those who sought to harm and kill innocent civilian currently and in the future. But the both sides see themselves as being in the same position. They portray themselves through propaganda as being on the “good” side.
US President George W Bush used the term “crusade” in his post 9/11 speech, stating that the he and the power of the United States government would take action against the so called “axis of evil”. The government later realised the association this actually had with historical campaigns of Christian forces from the 11th to the 13th century that had the aim of expelling Muslims from the lands the occupied. Instead the government came up with “Operation Enduring Freedom” to describe it campaign of “liberation” of Afghanistan.

Moving forward the United States and its coalition of the allied countries began a long campaign involving Iraq. History will show that the world was lead into a War in Iraq on the basis of misinformation. The world was repeatedly told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that their leader Saddam Hussein was willing to use them. Documents and evidence supporting this claim were reportedly fabricated to implicate Iraq in plans to possess nuclear weapons. These fabrications were used to convince the public and policy makers alike of the need for military action.

The use of propaganda and the misrepresentation of the truth have been carried out in a threat to the freedom of truth and expression, which those that are responsible for are supposedly trying to protect. As Bethke Elshtain wrote that a climate of fear can lead to harsh measures, “The condition of fearfulness leads to severe isolation as the desire to protect one-self and one’s family becomes overwhelming (2003, p 47).

When the truth was exposed about Iraq and its apparent lack of weapons of mass destruction it was linked to the war on terror. The country was now presented as a breeding ground for terrorists. The war on terror would continue, as would the use of propaganda to influence the hearts and minds of the enemy and the public. Historically, however there has been little to no history of co-operation between Iraq and al-Qaeda leading up to the invasion.
As a result of manipulating the truth to justify their actions, the United States possibly created the situation that lead to terrorists being in Iraq and attacking United States interest. Rampton and Stauber stated “The propaganda approach becomes more attractive during wartime, when each side becomes preoccupied with manipulating and coercing the thinking of their enemy or domestic” (2003, p 134).

The United States government endeavoured to garner support for their actions through the continued use of propaganda. To show that what they were doing was right and their actions were justified. However the propagandist generally doesn’t hold a high regard for the intelligence of their targeted audience. With support for the war in Iraq diminishing the United States government needed something or someone to distract the public from the war that they created under false pretences. More and more people had begun to think critically about the situation and challenge the message that they were being told. In response the United States government sought to manipulate people at a primal level, appealing to them with emotional symbolism.

Quartermaster Corps Private First Class Jessica Dawn Lynch became an icon of the United States war effort. Portrayed as the all-American girl who became a heroine when the supply convoy she was with took a wrong turn and was ambushed by Iraqi military. Nine US soldiers were killed in the ensuing battle. Initial reports released by the military claimed that PFC Lynch had stab and bullet wounds and suggestions that she had also been sexually assaulted. Prior to her capture PFC Lynch, according to the Pentagon had fought heroically, engaging the enemy with her weapon before succumbing to her injuries. The injured and then unconscious PFC Lynch was taken to a local Iraqi hospital, in which she would stay for eight days until members of the United States military rescued her. The rescue operation was filmed by the military and the highly edited and some argued scripted film and transcript were provided to the world media to distribute to a public who loved the supposed hero story. For terrorists and governments alike the use of the media to gain attention and support for their respective causes balances nicely with media outlets drive for ratings and commercial success.

However after the initial release of information, accusations arose that the rescue mission to extract PFC Lynch and the bodies of her fellow soldiers carried out by elite Special Forces operatives was a staged media event. What the public had been told and what had actually occurred were two very different scenarios. Filmed with night vision camera the footage shows something akin to a Hollywood action movie, with the military meeting no enemy resistance. Iraqi forces had reportedly fled in the days prior to the rescue. In her testimony to the United State Congress, Lynch said she never fired her weapon during the ambush that leads to her capture. Instead her weapon had jammed and furthermore that she had been knocked unconscious when her vehicle crashed. She awoke to find that she was in Iraqi hospital and being provided medical care for her injuries. Her real injuries instead of those first advised consisted of a broken arm and thigh and a dislocated ankle which were found to be consistent with a car accident.

Lynch would later state, that the US government used her as a propaganda tool. In an address the US congress, she stated that, "They used me to symbolize all this stuff. It's wrong. I don't know why they filmed [my rescue] or why they say these things. She also stated "I did not shoot, not a round, nothing." I went down praying to my knees. And that's the last I remember."

Then there is the story of Patrick Daniel Tillman, the professional American football player who gave up fame and fortune to enlist in the US army. Tillman and his brother enlisted out of call of national duty after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Tillman would become the United States poster boy for the War on Terror. After serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, Tillman was reportedly killed by hostile fire in combat. Championed by the United States government and the media as a soldier who died defending the so called freedoms of the country, it would be a month after his death that the reports about he died were announced to be inaccurate. Army medical examiners confirmed growing suspicions amongst the media and public when they found that the three bullet holes in Tillman’s forehead were fired by a United State issued M16 machine gun. A subsequent military criminal investigation concluded that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire.

Subsequent investigation by some members of the media revealed that US Army investigators were aware of the cause and circumstances of Tillman’s death within days of the initial incident, yet covered it up to protect the reputation of the US Military. Tillman was posthumously promoted and award the Purple Heart medal and a Silver Star Medal for valor in the face of the enemy. Tillman’s family was not informed of the real circumstance of death until weeks after his memorial service. Tillman’s father, Patrick Tillman Sr. has voiced his opinion on the military covered up, “After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this. They purposely interfered with the investigation; they covered it up. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a hand-basket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy.”

Under the banner of a war on terror, Bush was able to topple two governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, eased restraints and empowered intelligence and law enforcement agencies to almost draconian levels. All of which have been done out of the perceived threat and the propaganda associated with the war on terror and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Furthermore in calling countries to account by including in the so called ‘axis of evil’, the United States government has increased the amount of fear perceived by people by stating that they have more and more enemies. The rhetoric of ‘your either with us or against us” does little to foster a democratic society. One in which people and countries should be able to freely express opposition without the fear or reprisal. The media, turning patriotism into an emotive response elicited from the people, then further fuels this message.

Finally as a result of all this, the people were left asking, “why do they hate us”, projecting the blame onto an external entity. Instead perhaps they need to understand that one man’s terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Terrorists are only there as a result of a perceived injustice they seek to change. Furthermore the fear that exists for such groups is compounded by the propaganda that comes from the so called good and bad sides.

With democracy supposedly built upon the basis that people are able rationally self govern themself. Given the necessary information in which to critical analyse and determine the truth they inturn should be able to act on own best interests. However for the propagandist the aim is the opposite. By keeping people in a state of misinformation, living in fear they are able to be manipulated and controlled. The goal once was supposedly to win the “hearts and minds” of the people to create a world of democracy and freedom from authoritarian regimes that seek to control the will of the people. Instead it appears we are headed for what we fear most, a life ruled by fear itself.