Examine the forefront of digital research in our Latest News & Blog. Study expert analyses, technological advancements, and key industry insights that keep you informed and prepared in the ever-evolving world of digital forensics.
Kenneth Griffin, a billionaire investor, recently urged Harvard University, his alma mater, to reaffirm its commitment to “Western values.”
But I ask, do “Western values” still hold sway in 2024? The answer is unequivocally, resoundingly, and lamentably, no.
Here’s why.
The West once prided itself on being the bastion of freedom, a place where the individual’s rights and liberties were sacrosanct, where various viewpoints weren’t just tolerated but encouraged. The events of Sept. 11, 2001, however, ushered in an era of unprecedented state surveillance, governmental overreach, and a pervasive culture of ideological conformity that would have appalled the very architects of Western democracy.
The enactment of the Patriot Act was ostensibly a necessary response to the terror that had just been unleashed upon American soil. However, it marked the beginning of a slow but steady erosion of civil liberties in the name of national security. The state, empowered by this draconian legislation, granted itself the authority to spy on its citizens, to delve into their private communications without due process, and to create vast databases of personal information, all under the pretext of safeguarding the homeland.
Surveillance became the new norm. The revelations by whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the government’s intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens. The National Security Agency’s (NSA) metadata collection program, indiscriminately swept up information about billions of phone calls, effectively making every citizen a suspect in a never-ending hunt for the invisible enemy. This omnipresent surveillance apparatus has done little to enhance security but has significantly curtailed the freedoms that were once taken for granted.
Yet, the state’s overreach did not stop at surveillance. It extended into the realm of information, where a culture of deceit and obfuscation became standard practice. Government officials, sworn to protect and uphold the truth, were caught repeatedly lying to the public. From the fabricated weapons of mass destruction that justified the invasion of Iraq to the systematic cover-ups of military and intelligence failures, the trust between the governed and the governing eroded to a perilous low.
This pattern of deception was not limited to the halls of power. It permeated the media landscape, where the distinction between fact and fiction became increasingly blurred. The once vaunted Fourth Estate, meant to serve as a check on power, became complicit in propagating the state’s narrative, often at the expense of truth and transparency. In February of 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations Security Council with a forceful declaration. He asserted that intelligence conclusively demonstrated Saddam Hussein’s possession of vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. “These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence,” Powell stated, underscoring the credibility of his sources. This was a lie.
A month prior, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had bolstered this narrative, claiming Saddam’s regime harbored “large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons” and was actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. This was also a lie. The rise of “fake news” and the corresponding distrust in mainstream media can be seen as a direct consequence of this betrayal.
The White House is seen.
Samuel Corum/Getty Images
Freedom of speech, another cornerstone of Western values, found itself under siege. In the post-9/11 world, dissenting voices were often drowned out by accusations of disloyalty or worse. Lexical tyranny took root, with terms like “Nazi” and “racist” being weaponized to silence opposition and stifle debate. The ideological conformity that ensued demanded not just tolerance but active endorsement of certain viewpoints, regardless of personal beliefs or empirical evidence.
This conformity reached its zenith in the cultural and social debates of the 21st century. The discourse surrounding gender identity demanded that society at large adopt and affirm the notion that trans women are indistinguishable from biological women. Failure to comply with this orthodoxy did not just invite social ostracism but was labeled as misogyny and bigotry. The public arena, once a marketplace of ideas, became a minefield where deviation from the prescribed dogma was perilous.
Simultaneously, the power dynamics between the state and the individual shifted alarmingly. Big Tech companies, which once championed the free flow of information and connectivity, became enforcers of state policy. These corporate behemoths, in collusion with government agencies, began to monitor and censor the masses with a fervor reminiscent of Orwellian nightmares. Social media platforms, search engines, and data analytics firms started to wield their immense power to shape public opinion and suppress dissent, echoing the surveillance state of China more than the free societies of yesteryear. In recent times, strong evidence has shown that the Biden administration has worked with both Facebook and Twitter (now X) to censor speech. During the pandemic years, Jen Psaki, the White Houses’ press secretary at the time, openly admitted that federal officials were “in regular touch with these social media platforms.” Why? Yet again, to ensure only very specific narratives were allowed to flourish.
The collusion between Big Tech and the government is not merely a matter of convenience, but a strategic alliance aimed at controlling the narrative and maintaining order. This unholy alliance ensures that any challenge to the status quo, be it political, social, or ideological, is swiftly neutralized. The algorithms designed to connect us now serve to divide and manipulate, creating echo chambers where conformity is enforced, and deviation is punished.
The post-9/11 world has seen a profound shift in the balance of power. The state, armed with unparalleled surveillance capabilities and supported by tech giants, holds more sway over the individual than ever before. The values that once defined the West—liberty, transparency, and the right to dissent—have been eroded in favor of security, secrecy, and ideological conformity.
The decline of Western values is not an inevitable consequence, but a result of choices made by those in power. It is a betrayal of the principles that underpin our democracies and a warning of the fragility of our freedoms. If we are to reclaim the essence of what it means to be a free society, we must confront these overreaches, demand accountability from our leaders, and resist the creeping tide of conformity that threatens to engulf us. Only then can we hope to restore the balance between the state and the individual, and revive the values that make the West worth defending.
John Mac Ghlionn writes about social issues, technology, and the impact of media manipulation. Follow him @ghlionn.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
Congress is transferring closer to inserting US election technology below a stricter cybersecurity microscope.
Embedded interior this three hundred and sixty five days’s Intelligence Authorization Act, which funds intelligence businesses esteem the CIA, is the Strengthening Election Cybersecurity to Uphold Respect for Elections via Self sufficient Checking out (SECURE IT) Act, which can possibly possibly require penetration making an are trying out of federally licensed vote casting machines and pollscanners, and create a pilot program exploring the feasibility of letting honest researchers probe all scheme of election systems for flaws.
The SECURE IT Act—within the muse launched by US senators Ticket Warner, a Virginia Democrat, and Susan Collins, a Maine Republican—might possibly possibly critically red meat up the protection of key election technology in an period when foreign adversaries live intent on undermining US democracy.
“This rules will empower our researchers to think the kind our adversaries carry out, and verbalize hidden vulnerabilities by attempting to penetrate our systems with the identical instruments and systems worn by monstrous actors,” says Warner, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The unusual push for these purposes highlights the truth that even as election issues of security absorb shifted to extra visceral risks such as demise threats in opposition to county clerks, polling-space violence, and AI-fueled disinformation, lawmakers live afraid in regards to the likely for hackers infiltrating vote casting systems, which are belief about critical infrastructure but are lightly regulated when put next to other a need to-absorb industries.
Russia’s interference within the 2016 election shined a highlight on threats to vote casting machines, and no matter foremost improvements, even as a lot as the moment machines can even be inaccurate. Consultants absorb consistently pushed for tighter federal standards and extra honest security audits. The unusual bill attempts to contend with these issues in two ways.
The first provision would codify the US Election Aid Commission’s contemporary addition of penetration making an are trying out to its certification task. (The EAC no longer too long ago overhauled its certification standards, which conceal vote casting machines and pollscanners and which many states require their distributors to fulfill.)
While previous making an are trying out merely verified whether machines contained explicit defensive measures—such as antivirus utility and files encryption—penetration making an are trying out will simulate real-world assaults intended to search out and exploit the machines’ weaknesses, potentially yielding unusual files about critical utility flaws.
“Of us were calling for crucial [penetration] making an are trying out for years for election equipment,” says Edgardo Cortés, a historical Virginia elections commissioner and an adviser to the election security crew at Recent York University’s Brennan Heart for Justice.
The bill’s second provision would require the EAC to experiment with a vulnerability disclosure program for election technology—including systems which are no longer enviornment to federal making an are trying out, such as voter registration databases and election outcomes web sites.
Vulnerability disclosure purposes are in actuality love hunts for civic-minded cyber consultants. Vetted participants, working below sure rules about which of the organizer’s computer systems are gorgeous game, are trying to hack these systems by finding flaws in how they’re designed or configured. They then file any flaws they research to the organizer, every so ceaselessly for a reward.
By allowing a various team of consultants to hunt for bugs in a wide differ of election systems, the Warner–Collins bill might possibly possibly dramatically expand scrutiny of the machinery of US democracy.
The pilot program might possibly possibly possibly be a high-profile test of the connection between election distributors and researchers, who absorb spent decades clashing over how to survey and disclose flaws in vote casting systems. The bill attempts to assuage distributors’ issues by requiring the EAC to vet prospective testers and by prohibiting testers from publicly disclosing any vulnerabilities they obtain for 180 days. (They would additionally want to directly file vulnerabilities to the EAC and the Division of Native land Security.)
Aloof, one provision might possibly possibly spark remark. The bill would require manufacturers to patch or otherwise mitigate critical reported vulnerabilities within 180 days of confirming them. The EAC—which need to overview all adjustments to licensed vote casting utility—would absorb 90 days to approve fixes; any repair no longer popular within that timetable might possibly possibly possibly be “deemed to be licensed,” though the fee might possibly possibly overview it later.
A vendor might possibly possibly no longer be in a disclose to repair a trouble, accumulate that repair popular, and accumulate all of its customers to deploy that repair sooner than the nondisclosure period expires.
“Updates to equipment within the self-discipline can rob many weeks, and modifying equipment shut to an election date is a unhealthy operation,” says Ben Adida, the manager director of the vendor VotingWorks.
Some distributors might possibly possibly additionally chafe on the bill’s appropriate protections for researchers. The rules comprises a “safe harbor” clause that exempts making an are trying out actions from the prohibitions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and bars distributors from suing researchers below these rules for accidental violations of the program’s phrases.
There is additionally a funding quiz. The SECURE IT Act doesn’t authorize any unusual money for the EAC to drag these purposes.
“I am hoping Congress accounts for the needed funding wanted to enhance the increased tasks the EAC will rob on,” says EAC chair Ben Hovland. “Investments in purposes esteem this are critical to asserting and strengthening the protection of our elections.”
Within the period in-between, the bill’s prospects are unclear. Despite the truth that it passes the Senate, there might possibly be not any longer this sort of thing as a signal of comparable momentum within the House.
