Total Information Awareness: Security at What Cost?

    After the attack's that happened on September 11th the fear of it reoccurring allowed for the     American political imagination to reshape. Because of this the U.S. government made a program called Total Information Awareness (TIA). When you first hear it, it sounds somewhat reassuring, and that awareness means we have protection. After looking into it more you will probably ask yourself how much information should the government be able to have on citizens while still keeping their safety. 

    Total Information Awareness was created under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 2002. Its goal was to collect and analyze large amounts of data like travel records, emails, phone calls, financial transactions, and more so that strange activity could alert as terrorist activity before it was too late. Basically, it would use elaborate data and try to be able to connect activates that humans would look past. The outcome of this program is huge. On the more positive side, people believed Total Information Awareness could stop violence before it happened. If suspicious behavior could be pointed out early by the government, we could be able to stop terrorist attacks and save people's lives. Threats can be very hidden in todays world and hard to notice, having more information can let us feel more in control of situations like these. The government already collects some data for security reasons, and TIA was basically an attempt to expand that using advanced technology. This seems like a smart step to prevent things from waiting around from a national security point of view.  

    Unfortunately, the risks are just as serious. The first major concern is the privacy aspect. TIA doesn't just find suspected criminals, it collects data on everyone which includes innocent people. This creates controversy between investigating specific threats and watching all the public. When the government can see all that personal information like your purchases, travel history, phone calls, and more, a lack of balance is created between the state and the citizens. Even if you did nothing wrong, you are still being monitored. 

     Fairness is also another issue. Surveillance programs tend to not affect all groups the same. In the past minority communities, immigrants, and activists have been watched more closely. A system like TIA could make that worse. People who are wealthier could have lawyers and other things like that to protect their data, while lower income communities probably won't have those resources. Younger people, especially my generation, are all online. That means our digital footprints are more visible than ever. A program like this could have our entire lives because we are online in ways older generations never experienced. 

Trust is also something to consider. It is important that people trust their government.  When surveillance programs become secretive, the trust can break. Even though congress shut down TIA in 2003 due to public criticism, a lot of people believe similar surveillance systems continued under different names. The big concern is the idea this program introduced and not just the program itself.  Once technology tracks people, it is very hard to limit or remove it. 

    Thinking about TIA makes me realize how much of my life is already held as data. I have used many fitness apps, social media, and I have purchased things online and much more. I have made a digital footprint for myself without realizing or understanding what it means. If someone were to collect all that information, it would be easy to tell who I am, what I do, my interests, and even what weaknesses I have. This is powerful data. Yes, it can be used to prevent and stop real threats, but it can also be severely abused. I think the main issue is who gets to decide how it's used.  

    In conclusion, Total Information Awareness expresses a very important debate which is security versus freedom. It makes us ask ourselves if feeling safe is worth giving up our privacy. Even though technology allows things, it doesn't mean they should all be done. This is a question that affects everyone, not only the government.