Introduction

Background

History

Types of Espionage

Epsionage Methods

Social Impact

References

My P.O.V.

The main driving force behind the development of new technologies has traditionally been national spy agencies and the military. However, much like Teflon and Tang, products conceived originally for those agencies are entering our offices, homes, and everyday lives. Currently, there are many pieces of equipment that the everyday citizen can order in their own homes and have delivered in one week. So, should all this technology be available to the everyday consumer? Or are we living to too large an espionage society? Is there a line that should be drawn and if so, where is it? There are many societal impacts the spying and spying technologies have on our society.

Let’s look at just a few of the societal impacts that the developing technology of espionage has on you and me everyday.

Do you trust your cubical mate or your senator?

Our culture seems to be quite obsessed with having access to any and all information, regardless of how it is obtained. Some argue our culture is in love with spying. In the article, “Are we living in an Espionage Society?” (www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/espionage -society.html) the author argues that we are a society, “saturated by surveillance technology, a new sort of economy has appeared,” and that, “trust in American institutions is at an all time low.” This brings up a good point, when trust is at an all time low, we move towards implementing spying technology in many parts of our lives. As those new technologies are developed, nearly before we can blink, a counter-spying technology is developed and then a following counter-response. This is evident in many technologies, including caller-ID, radar guns, computer spy-ware, and so on. We seem to be in a type of race to develop the newest and most ‘unbreakable’ type of surveillance. With all these things going on we seem to become more and more reliant on computers and other machines in our daily lives. People begin to assume that all these things are foul proof--that machines can’t lie. We trust our machines and use them more and more because we trust the people we are surrounding ourselves with less. So, is the line to be drawn at our current level of surveillance ability and machine reliance? Some would argue yes, and others would argue no. Why not go out and develop everything that we can. Every time something new is developed we can argue that more bad people can be put behind doors and more lives might be saved. Or perhaps we should find a way to trust the people that we surround ourselves with and elect to rule where we live. This may help, but before trust is reinstated in the government, workplace, and home, I don’t think that surveillance and the development of this technology will slow at all. Espionage involves elements of both deceit and treachery, usually traits that are not condoned nor respected. However, although clearly not good for our personal lives or dealings, there is a justified reason for espionage in national security and state dealings. Once again, where is that line?

Tang, Teflon, and Espionage equipment?

Recently a new technology Smart Dust was developed. Currently the applications for this technology seem endless. Culler, creator of Smart Dust commented, "we had no idea what the applications would be and never in our wildest dreams expected it would lead where it has," he says. This new technology has endless options, which makes it both exciting and scary. The possibility of releasing hundreds of tiny ‘motes’ into any home at the estimated cost of just $1/mote that could collect endless data and monitor movement is a little unsettling to this and other writers. In as early as 2001, a writer for the Ecologist commented, “while smart dust is being created for military operations, environmental scientists worry that it will be used for spying on private citizens” (Edwards, R.). This is a legitimate concern, like mention in the beginning of this section, products like Teflon and Tang were first developed for military use and were eventually available to just about any US consumer. The question then has to be asked, should there be a limit? We like to believe that the military is a relatively safe and contained environment, with some regulation and safety and ethical protocol. However, when exposed to the entire US consumer population that protected environment is lost and the possibilities literally become endless. The law of unintended consequences seems to take over. There may not be an end to what people could come up with; this is a scary perspective. While we thought it was okay to let Teflon and Tang out to the public, Teflon at least soon became a concern in cooking, turned out it was potentially poisonous, maybe. So there is a lot that we don’t know about things, so should there be regulations that say when and how these products should or should not be used. This is a logical place to start, something could become out of control, regulate it. However, lawmakers are reluctant to pass legislation on the areas of espionage and counterespionage. Perhaps something we should think about.

This site created for UNIV 270 at Bucknell University Spring 2005

Direct all questions and comments to ebeesing@bucknell.edu