Counterpoint Issue Two by Counterpoint

@_counterpoint

Autumn 2013

COUNTER POINT TWO

CONNECTED issue two grindr - missing people - new journalism - snowden - urban living

Counterpoint is an online publication featuring thoughtful journalism and considered illustration. The journal is edited, written, and illustrated by students. Counterpoint is based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

CONTACT counterpointeditor@gmail.com @_counterpoint counterpointjournal.wordpress.com

CONTENTS 4

THE DEPARTED

DATING WITH DATA

joining the search for missing people

the growth of online dating app Grindr

14 URBAN INDEPENDENCE illustrators respond to this issueâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s theme

16 NEW CONNECTIONS modern journalism and global consciousness

20 GCHQ & YOU the snowden revelations and internet activism

Cover, inset photo: mjtmail

The departed Counterpoint looks at how charities and police use traditional techniques and digital tools to help bring missing people home Words: Sam Bradley Pictures: Bethany Thompson

In the United Kingdom, 858 people are reported missing every day. For those left behind – friends, families and lovers – the questions asked about the whereabouts and wellbeing of a missing loved one may never be answered. Some simply vanish overnight, leaving without a trace and without an obvious reason, leaving in their wake loose ends that will never be tied up. The fact that 313,000 missing person reports were filed with police forces across the country in the last year stands in sharp contrast to the increasing influence of surveillance across British society. It’s thought that there are as many as 5.9 million CCTV cameras currently operating the UK, and CCTV footage is used increasingly as evidence used by police forces across the country investigating crimes. When confronted with this wealth of data, it can be hard to see the wood for the trees – or the people for the numbers. Yulia Solodyankina, a 22 year old student at the University of Edinburgh, went missing five months ago. Yulia was last seen exiting a bus from Edinburgh in Glasgow’s Buchanan Street bus station on June 7, and hasn’t been seen since. The last contact anybody had with her was at a bar the night before she went missing, and save for a single text message sent the following afternoon – the day of her disappearance – nobody has heard from Yulia since. Following a renewed appeal for fresh information in August, Chief Inspector Mark Patterson, from Police Scotland said, “Our investigation has established that Yulia left Edinburgh of her own

accord, and we do not believe there to be any suspicious circumstances surrounding her disappearance. “Since she was reported missing we have carried out extensive enquires across Scotland, most recently in the north and far west of the country, where we believe she may have travelled from Buchanan Street bus station. Unfortunately we have been unable to establish her destination, and we are relying on new information from the public that can help us to open up new potential lines of inquiry.” “We will not give up in our efforts to trace Yulia,” said Patterson.

The increasing ubiquity of surveillance cameras in public spaces, despite proving a persistent source of concern to civil rights and privacy campaigners, has led to a new source of evidence for those attempting to track down their missing friends and loved ones. Despite the fact that the vast majority of CCTV cameras operating in public spaces belong to private organisations like businesses, police can still use footage from security cameras to further their investigations into missing persons cases. In the eyes of those searching, a precious few frames of camera footage scavenged in train stations, bus depots and departure lounges can transform despair into hope, even if they prove to be nothing more than a handful of false dawns.

In addition to the millions of security cameras monitoring public and private spaces, soft surveillance has also rapidly expanded of late. It’s thought that there are 36 million users of Facebook in Britain – almost 60 per cent of the entire population – and that they account for over 72 per cent of all internet users in the UK. Social media like Facebook and Twitter, twinned with always-on geotagging features, form a secondary form of surveillance in our society, one that we produce voluntarily and constantly. One of the largest demographic swathes of Facebook’s userbase – the under-18’s, which account for almost 25 per cent of the site’s users – are also the group most likely to go missing.

Data published by the UK Missing Persons Bureau (UKMPB) provides a vital demographic overview of how many people go missing, and for how long they leave. In Scotland alone, thirtythree thousand people are reported as missing every year. In a country of over 5.3 million people, that’s 0.6 per cent of the total population. Those statistics are inflated by the age question; 64 per cent of missing persons cases reported in the UK are for individuals under eighteen, and the majority of those cases are resolved within 24 hours. Furthermore, figures from the Bureau show that 96 per cent of all missing people return within 48 hours (2011/12 data). Still, a significant number of people are found

to go permanently missing every year, and many cases are only resolved when a body is discovered or when the missing person decides to return or reestablish contact, if they are resolved at all. The Bureau, which is part of the National Crime Agency, compiles its data from information gathered by police forces across the country. Sherri Latham, a Tactical Analyst at the UKMPB, spoke to Counterpoint about the work of the Bureau. “The UKMPB work to support and advise police forces to help resolve missing person cases and assist in the identification of unidentified bodies. “We offer comprehensive tactical advice to police forces which may include deployment to the force area for a case review.” “The type of advice we can offer varies depending on the circumstances of the case but will include co-ordination of enquiries using our network of partners (including international connections), providing access to specialist advice from experts and providing procedural assistance around effective retrieval and retention of forensic material such as DNA, fingerprints and dental records,” Latham said. In addition to their specialist support role with police forces, the Bureau also maintains the UK’s national database of both missing and unidentified persons – a resource which is used frequently in both national and international missing person cases.

The Bureau also works closely with charities and third-sector organisations, such as Missing People, that attempt to help locate missing individuals and to ameliorate the effects upon the families and loved ones of the missing. “Linking in with charities and other agencies is crucial, not just for locating someone, but in considering a more preventative approach to try and support people before they go missing in the first place,” said Latham. She explained that, “the UKMPB work very closely with partners as we fully appreciate that missing persons is a very complex area and is not something that the police alone can solve, it requires a multi-agency response.” That multi-agency response – incorporating close links with international charities ITAKA and Smile of the Child in Poland and Greece respectively, as well as collaborations in the UK with charities like Reunite and Missing Abroad – also includes cooperative work with their counterpart bureaux in other countries.

Until Yulia is found, or she decides to make contact, her friends and family will never know what happened to her. And despite the huge amount of security cameras in place across modern cities, only one captured any footage of her leaving. Latham told Counterpoint that there are many reasons why people leave, saying that, “until someone has returned and disclosed to police why they went missing then it is difficult to know what has caused someone to leave. Unfortunately we don’t collect figures on this, but anecdotally a lot will

have gone missing voluntarily either because there are issues at home or work, financial problems, or mental health issues.”

Given the lack of evidence available in missing persons cases, often the best bet in locating missing individuals comes from persuading witnesses to come forward with fresh information, or from the missing persons themselves. Missing People, a UK charity founded in 1993, started out as an organisation that offered support to the families of missing persons, but gradually expanded over time to accommodate multiple telephone helplines, and nationwide awareness campaigns utilising traditional advertising techniques and social media marketing to help find missing people. One of the most visible aspects of their work are its numerous billboard campaigns, used to generate publicity around individual cases. In the summer of 2012, Missing People launched the biggest digital billboard campaign in British history – targeted at more than 10 million adults across the country. The result of a partnership between the charity and the Outdoor Media Centre, the project cost over a million pounds, and was given a high-profile publicity boost by brand ambassador Kate McCann. The campaign has helped locate 79 people at the time of writing. Bill Wilson, Operations Director at the Outdoor Media Centre said at the time, “Outdoor advertising is able to reach a mass audience again and again, so

it’s really the perfect medium to help the authorities find some of the missing people.” Missing People work in conjunction with police forces across the UK, which in turn means workin alongside people like Sherri Latham of the UKMPB. Asked about the success rate of such tactics, Latham said, “anecdotally I would suggest that publicity is a very valuable tool in locating missing persons.” During the last appeal for information from Police Scotland regarding the whereabouts of Yulia, Missing People sponsored a week-long digital billboard campaign.

Repeated calls for new information by her friends, her family, and the police have generated no new clues about where Yulia Solodyankina is, or where she went from Glasgow bus station in June. Despite the vast array of surveillance operating in public spaces across modern Britain, despite the fact that it is almost impossible to walk into a city or town centre and not leave a trail of digital footprints, and despite the work of the police, specialist agencies like the UKMPB and charities like Missing People, it is still possible to disappear without a trace.

Anyone with information about a missing person should contact the relevant regional police force. If you feel affected by the issues discussed in this article, then please call the Missing People helpline on 116 000.

Dating with data Counterpoint looks at the recent popularity of dating smartphone app Grindr Words: Riley Kaminer Pictures: Steph Coathupe and Bethany Thompson

“Listen, Alex – NSA stands for ‘no strings attached,” asserted Chris, “you’ve got to put NSA if you want to get a quick response.” Alex unlocked his phone and added the three letter acronym to his profile. “Now it’s just a matter of time!” exclaimed Chris. The two friends were exploring Grindr, a social media tool that facilitates hook-ups for gay, bisexual and bicurious men through a mobile phone app. Chris, 18, has experience using the service and has used it to meet people, have hook-ups, and even find guys to date. Alex, 18, is straight and has never used any such service. The two decided to make a fake profile for Alex in an attempt to see how much response they could get from a fictitious account. “Look at all these people,” said Alex. “Some of them are so close!” Grindr shows users pictures, short biographies, and locations of potential hook-ups. If one user looks at another’s profile and finds him attractive, he can chat directly with the person through the app. “If the other guy’s interested, he’ll respond; if not, he won’t,” explained Chris, “no face-to-face rejection like a bar or something.”

The service has six million active users, more than one million of which are in the UK. The service has six million active users, more than one million of which are from the UK. Grindr’s reputation and uniqueness allows it to spread quickly through word of mouth. For instance, British users increased by 30,000 alone after the app was mentioned by Stephen Fry on the popular TV show Top Gear. However, what distinguishes Grindr from other social media sites is how much time users spend on the website every day: an average of one and a half hours per user. This figure is massive, especially in comparison to the 30 minutes daily that an average user spends on Facebook, the world’s largest social network. Grindr has recently gained such popularity that it has created ‘Grindr Xtra,’ where users buy subscriptions in one, three, six, and twelve-month blocs. While it offers the same service as its free counterpart, Grindr Xtra has no advertisements, takes advantage of Apple’s Push Notification Service to get new messages to users as soon as they are sent, and allows users to load up to 300 guys at once. Alex’s phone started to buzz as replies to chats were coming in at an increasingly

rapid pace. “What does ‘can you accom’ mean?” he asked. “It means he wants to know if he can come over to your flat for sex, right now,” replied Chris. “Well that was certainly quick,” retorted Alex, “and now he wants more pictures.” In Grindr’s chat feature, users have the capability to send pictures as well as text to the men with whom they are flirting. I felt quite uncomfortable,” said Alex, recalling being asked for additional photos. “I’d heard stories about how notorious [Grindr] is for the types of pictures on there, so wasn’t surprised at what was asked, more the fact that people are willing to do it.”

What about the difference between online and offline flirting? Alex explained that the level of “anonymity” makes services like Grindr appealing to people who are shy in real life. Still, he maintained that the location feature adds a level of awkwardness, calling it “weird that you could walk out onto the street outside and bump into a neighbour you’ve seen on Grindr.” “Look, this old guy’s trying to chat with Alex!” A selfie of a middle-aged man flashed onto Alex’s phone. “What should I do?” asked Alex. “Ah, just ignore him,” advised Chris. For Chris, Grindr is “superficial and judgemental, but that’s the point.” He continued, “in a bar, people don’t know your personality either; at least with

“What does ‘can you accom’ mean?” “It means he wants to know if he can come over for sex, right now” 12

Grindr, you have the opportunity to say a few words in your profile to let people get a feeling for who you are.” The Grindr community is diverse in what its users are looking to get out of the app. “I would say that half the people on Grindr are out and, likely, flamboyant with their homosexuality, while the other half is not as comfortable with their sexuality,” explained Chris. He continued, “most guys are definitely looking for hook-ups, but there are people who want something more.” But is it possible for someone to assess another person’s level of comfortability online? In real life, humans use visual

cues to judge other people’s interest and decide what moves to make. Albert Mehrabian, a psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, asserts that 65 per cent of human communication is done nonverbally through body language. As such, judging someone’s interest and intentions online is not the easiest task. It is not difficult to lie in a profile, as Alex did, joining Grindr as a straight man just to see the reaction he could get. A more common Grindr con, though, is using fake pictures to solicit men that would be otherwise uninterested in having sex with them. “I’ve been surprised sometimes when meeting people in real life,” said Chris. “Once, a guy showed up to a meeting who looked completely different from his online profile. I always meet in a public place for this exact reason, so we just had a bit of a conversation over coffee and then parted ways.”

Waiting for the virtual world to collide with reality can be strange, however. “It’s a weird experience, waiting for these guys you’ve met online to show up in real life; you feel a mixture of nerves and excitement,” Chris recalled. For him, meeting people through Grindr is “easy, new, exciting [and] not about romance,” alleviating any dating stigmas common in real life situations. Could app-based services like Grindr truly replace traditional dating methods?

British users increased by 30,000 after the app was mentioned by Stephen Fry “That’s not really the point,” alleged Chris, “because physical human contact can never be replaced, yet I would say that Grindr makes guys more confident in real life because they know people like them, even if just online.” Grindr is somewhat of an anomaly in the dating world, considering that no other apps are nearly as popular in the niche hook-up app market. Tinder, created three years after Grindr in 2012, is marketed as a straight alternative, but is less popular with about two million active users. The main difference between the apps besides the distinctly different target audiences, however, is that users have to both ‘like’ each other to be able to open up a chat. Alex believes, despite never having used Tinder, that this difference would the make the experience “more mutual and less random,” ultimately leading in better matches. Still, the element of judging people you don’t even know still exists with the service. “Sure, Grindr is not conducive to a long term relationship, as sex is just one aspect of love,” Chris explained, “but, ultimately, everybody just wants to be liked - and Grindr is great for that.”

Urban independence Our experience of urban living is increasingly an independent, autonomous, and atomised one, mediated by social media and the internet. Abi Woodhouse (above) and Steph Coathupe (right) respond to this theme in these original illustrations exclusive to Counterpoint.

New connections Examining the effect of the twenty-four-hour news stream upon social and political movements across the globe Words: Sofie Ejdrup Larsen Pictures: Abi Woodhouse

New technology and social media are bringing people around the world together. Our perception of time and space are changing and so is our understanding of the world around us. A new global way of thinking may lead to solutions to some of the major global issues we are facing today if we choose to take global responsibility.

Today, we are witnessing a technological revolution. New technology enables people around the globe to suddenly witness and report to billions of others directly and immediately. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, blogs, online groups and networks are all creating this new space for communication. These transplanetary connections between people are gradually changing our perception of time and space, affecting a wide range of aspects of our lives. Shortly after the chemical weapons attack in Syria in late August, US Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech condemning the attack: “What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscious of the world.” Killing more than 1,300 people and injuring at least 3,600, the attack is the deadliest single incident in the conflict so far. Kerry emphasized the horror of the images of the victims: “I watched the videos. The videos that anybody can watch on social media. “I watched them one more gutwrenching time. It is really hard to express in words the human suffering that they lay out before us.”

Since we are able to view pictures, videos and read first-hand descriptions of what is happening on a global level, events suddenly seem very close to us That statement by John Kerry is interesting for more than one reason. First of all, he used social media to view those images. Secondly, he expressesd a strong sense of solidarity with the Syrian population; Kerry is able to relate to the Syrians and their suffering, despite their being people whom he has never and probably never will meet. Since we are able to view pictures, videos and read first-hand descriptions of what is happening on a global level, events happening around the world, like the Syrians’ suffering, suddenly seem very close to us. In other words, technology and social media bring people around the world together, making it impossible to ignore gruesome and inhumane incidents in the world, even when they are not affecting us directly.

This growing international concern of the public is reflected in the media. The interest of the audience is the most important factor in whether or not a particular event gets news coverage. Or rather, what the media thinks is the interest of the audience determines what becomes news and what does not. Since international events receive more public attention than ever, they receive more media coverage as well. However, it seems like some parts of the world matter more than others. For instance, a terror attack in the US will receive more attention from the British

public, and therefore the British media, than a terror attack in the Congo. The main reason for this is that the relations between Britons and Americans are stronger than the ones between Britons and the Congolese. However, the fact that the access to information about the Congo is far more limited than information about the US is also of great importance. Images, videos, and first-hand reporting of major incidents in the Third World do not reach the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;global publicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to same extent as other places in the world do. This is partly because the technological revolution taking place in the West has not reached every region yet. Instead, some parts of the world are falling behind

in the process of globalization and are gradually becoming less visible to the rest of the world, in a technological vicious circle.

environmental issues and world poverty have to be found collectively. The fact that we are sharing this planet cannot be rejected by any state.

Essentially what brings us all together is our common humanity. This is what enables us to relate to each other crossculturally despite the fact that we have never met. As globalization continues, this new global way of thinking will continue to spread. Hopefully, the Third World will be able to catch up.

In the process of globalization comes the responsibility to help each other. When the Assad regime uses chemical weapons against their own population it is not only the Syrians that are under attack but the entire world.

This new way of thinking, this global solidarity, can help us solve some of the biggest challenges affecting us on a global scale. Effective solutions to

Like John Kerry put it: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Our sense of basic humanity is offended.â&#x20AC;?

GCHQ and you Counterpoint examines whether the internet is still a realm of political independence in the wake of the Snowden revelations Words: Stephen Maughan Pictures: Abi Woodhouse

When thinking about internet freedom, a suburb on the outskirts of Chicago seems an unlikely place to start. It was here, however, that Time Magazine went about deciding who was going to receive their prestigious Person of the Year award for 2011. The winner, quite justifiably, was ‘the protester’ – a fictional person that embodies every individual that took part in what we now call the Arab Spring. If this figure of ‘the protester’ actually existed, they would undoubtedly own a smartphone. Widespread use of the internet defined the spirit of popular interconnectedness we have all come to associate with the Arab Spring. In the same way, the use of social media during the Iranian elections of 2009 was a platform for those opposing President Ahmadinejad to make their voice heard. It was clear that once upon a time the internet, particularly social media, was a space where you could express your views and tell the world what’s going on without fear of repercussions or censorship. Then things changed. Governments quickly realised how powerful the internet could be, and began taking steps to control it. We now find that the web - once a hub of free expression - has become an intensely monitored medium, and in some cases a nonexistent one. In certain parts of the world, it is becoming increasingly difficult to express yourself without worrying about the potentially harmful consequences. Regrettably, it seems that the internet has lost the independent edge upon which it was founded.

Let’s start with the Arab Spring, where the role of the internet is undeniable. Whether it’s a woman in Tunisia holding her Blackberry aloft to tweet pictures of a protest outside the Tunisian Prime Minister’s house, or a Libyan man filming a person in front of him taking a bullet to the head, the internet was clearly a tool the protesters used to publicise their cause and make their voices heard. The Arab Social Media Report, put together by the Dubai School of Government, states that nine out of ten Egyptians and Tunisians involved in the Arab Spring used Facebook to organise protests and spread awareness. News Group, another organisation also based in Dubai, has analysed over 10 million publicly available social media conversations in the run-up to the Tahrir Square protests in Egypt. Their findings showed that people were using more political terms, and that social media was a “key driver” in the Egyptian revolution. The internet, especially social media, was clearly the tool of choice if you wanted to spread your ideas. Social media was invaluable because it provided a way for protesters to present their ideas and actions to the world, whilst at the same time avoiding government censorship. During the Arab Spring, the mainstream media of Tunisia, Egypt and other countries were state-controlled (some regrettably still are). Media coverage of the Suez area of Egypt was barred, Egyptian newspapers were silenced, and

Social media-based activism enabled users to transmit news that would never make it into the mainstream, statemonopolised media

Tunisian state media ignored the fact that police were frequently using tear gas on young protesters. Facebook in particular functioned like an open, transparent media source free of government control. Nouridine Bhourri, a 24-year-old Tunisian call-centre worker involved in the protests, told a Guardian reporter “we don’t believe the news and television. I research what’s happening on Facebook and the internet.” Blogging and social media activism enabled users to transmit news that would never make it into mainstream, state-monopolised media.

Unfortunately, towards the end of the Arab Spring, governments tightened their grip on social media. In Tunisia, the government attempted to close down the country’s internet services; Hosni Mubarak‘s regime in Egypt succeeded not long after. For five days, Egypt had no internet services or 3G network. The ability of the protesters to communicate, organise and speak freely through the internet was lost. Certain elements of social media, which had for a long time evaded both countries’ strong internet filtering laws, were now also banned in Tunisia and Egypt. Towards the end of the Arab Spring, the internet became a less valuable tool because governments were able to destroy its independence. As we know, the Egyptian and Tunisan people managed to oust their leaders, Hosni Mubarak and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, but internet censorship does not seem to have decreased by much. Last year, Reporters Without Borders, an organisation dedicated to pursuing global internet freedom for journalists, wrote “the SCAF (the transitional body ruling Egypt after the ousting of Mubarak) has affirmed that it will show ‘no tolerance for insults against itself’ [via the internet]… [There have been] multiple assaults, threats of persecution and still more political prisoners”. In Tunisia, blogger Riadh Sahli is currently being charged with “defamation” via the internet simply for sharing a press release circulated via Facebook that protested against Mahrouk Korchide’s campaign for government advisor. Two others have been accused of defamation

for expressing their opinion on a political candidate. It is surely clear from this evidence that free speech on the internet is being persecuted. The internet doesn’t seem like such a safe place to express yourself anymore. Many similar themes can be identified when looking at the Iranian elections of 2009. Blogs and websites were an important campaign tool for those opposing the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Mir Hossein Mousayi, the leading reformist candidate, used social media to try and mobilise youth votes. At the time, he said “Facebook is one of the only independent sources that the Iranian youth could use to communicate”. Mohammed Ali Abtahi, another candidate in the 2009 election using Facebook, said “the loss of Facebook - and possibly other websites popular with reformists – will leave Iranians forced to rely on government sources such as the state-run media.” Again, it is clear that social media was a way of sharing your views with others and expressing yourself freely, independent of government control. Not only that, but like in the Arab Spring two years later, social media was a way of finding out what the government didn’t want you to know. The plot trajectory is sadly very much the same, with the Iranian government blocking Facebook and other social media sites very quickly. Almost every single website that had the potential to be critical of the regime was made inaccessible. Mehrad, a student, told

an American newspaper “they intensify censorship so it gets very difficult to access blocked websites, even with anti-filter software”. This view was echoed in the response from an aide of Mousayi’s, who said “every single media outlet that is seen as competition for Ahmadinehad is at risk of being closed. Placing limits on the competition is the top priority of the government”. Things went from bad to worse. Armadinijad was re-elected in what many have said to be a rigged election, and there is still extensive internet censorship in Iran, with as many as 5 million websites being blocked by the Iranian government at this very minute. The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that social media supplied by an independent internet is a powerful enabler of social change. An internet free of government control provides a platform for those speaking against conformity, and often-totalitarian dictatorships, to air their views – something that is not necessarily a guaranteed right in every society. In short, most leaders desperate to cling onto power will, and have, seen the internet as a threat. This is why many different governments have taken such drastic steps to limit their people’s internet access. And of course, by adopting such stringent censorship programmes, the internet’s independent spirit as envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee has been killed off in many parts of the world.

If you’ve ever emailed a friend, chances are that GCHQ may also be looking at it Limiting internet freedom, however, is not just a problem for the Middle East. The western world also has a somewhat questionable approach to the regulation and monitoring of internet traffic. The United States and the UK are perhaps the most obvious examples. In the past few months, revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden have confirmed that the US government is actively working to undercut the internet’s independence. For instance, the National Security Agency has repeatedly attacked The Onion Router (Tor). In case you don’t know, Tor is an online tool designed to guarantee anonymity when using the internet. Admittedly, it is a program which has been used by terrorists and organised criminals, but it has also been used by journalists and peaceful civil rights campaigners in parts of the world where any kind of anti-state activity is heavily persecuted – China, Iran and Syria to name a few. Snowden’s revelations show that the US government has gone out of its way to identify and destroy the computers of those using Tor, seemingly making no distinction between a potential terrorist and a civil rights activist or journalist. Keeping your identity a secret on the internet

is becoming ever harder, which means that, for many people, free expression is no longer a possibility. This is, of course, symptomatic of an internet that is losing its independence. It doesn’t stop there. Recently, The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald unveiled NSA’s Xkeyscore programme, which allows analysts to search vast databases of millions of people’s e-mails, online social media chats and browsing histories. Without court authorization, security services can intercept a person’s internet activity as it happens and learn about any given individual’s web activity. Who they’ve e-mailed, what they’ve said in e-mails, and messages on Facebook are all accessible. The British intelligence service GCHQ has developed a way to crack encrypted internet traffic of Hotmail, Google, Yahoo and Facebook, meaning they also have access to almost unlimited streams of data on just about everyone. If you’ve ever e-mailed a friend or sent a YouTube video to someone on Facebook chat, chances are either GCHQ or the NSA may also be looking at it. The government’s monitoring of the internet is all-encompassing. The reasoning behind this hugely intrusive and extensive programme of surveillance goes something like this: by monitoring as many people as possible, the intelligence agencies learn how people act in their everyday lives. They then use machines to search for ‘outliers’, or people who act differently from what is expected, and these people are then investigated.

The problem with this is twofold. Firstly, this intrusive approach encourages ordinary, innocent people to be increasingly wary of their internet activities. This alone indicates how unindependent the internet is becoming. The second concern is slightly more problematic. Surely, any machine, any mathematical algorithm used to identify potential national security threats will make mistakes? Thousands of false positives will undoubtedly be produced because the huge and varied internet activity. This presents the question: how safe should you feel expressing yourself on the web? There is always the possibility that anything anyone says on the internet could be misconstrued, no matter how well-intentioned. Given the amount of intrusion and the amount of risk now potentially attached to web expression, the internet no longer seems like a space where people can feel comfortable saying anything they like; Snowden’s revelations make that clear. In recent years, the web has undergone an identity crisis. Tim Berners Lee said in 2009 “the original design of the web was… for a universal space… we just have to make sure it is not undercut by any large companies or governments trying to use it to get total control.” It seems that, on the whole, Sir Tim’s vision has not been realised. Thanks to government controls, the internet has gone from a tool accelerating social change to a closely monitored and highly regulated medium.

GETTING INVOLVED The next issue of Counterpoint will be released in February. We hope you liked reading our words and looking at our pictures as much as we enjoyed writing and drawing them.

We want writers, illustrators and photographers for our next issue. If you want to do something creative for Counterpoint, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d love to hear from you. The best way to get in touch is to send us an email at counterpointeditor@gmail.com.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

CONTRIBUTORS Words sam bradley sofie ejdrup larsen stephen maughan riley kaminer

Pictures steph coathupe bethany thompson abi woodhouse

Editors sam bradley bethany thompson