Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
The Secret Service is buying social media location data
New documents confirm that the government agency—one of many—has been using a tracking company.
- Documents reveal that the Secret Service used Locate X as part of a social media tracking package.
- The service "allows investigators to draw a digital fence around an address or area, pinpoint mobile devices that were within that area, and see where else those devices have traveled, going back months."
- Other agencies that have used this service include the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Customs and Border Protection, the Coast Guard, and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
A popular, recurrent conspiracy theory: all humans will soon be microchipped so the government can track our every movement. This year, that idea was briefly attached to a potential COVID-19 vaccine, though the fear has long been present.
The irony, of course, is that we're already chipped. We just call them phones.
We probably shouldn't be surprised that the U.S. Secret Service contracted with a company to use the service, Locate X, in order to track Americans via social media. But they did, and once again we're forced to distinguish between baseless conspiracies and the real-world consequences of government surveillance.
According to internal Secret Service documents, obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request, the agency paid the Virginia-based company, Babel Street, roughly $36,000 to include Locate X in a social media monitoring package that ultimately cost $2 million.
According to the trademark, Locate X provides:
"online, non-downloadable software used to collect, analyze, filter, store, track, manage, convert, interpret, categorize, index, extrapolate, compare, prioritize and produce databases, images, emails, files, documents, information, and data from online sources, websites and social media sites and to create reports in the fields of client-driven commercial, legal and governmental inquiries and investigations."
And that's only the first one-third of Locate X's goods and services.
As early as March, Protocol reported on the dangers of Locate X. The deal with Babel Street "allows investigators to draw a digital fence around an address or area, pinpoint mobile devices that were within that area, and see where else those devices have traveled, going back months."
Young players walk through the city centre of Hanover while holding their smartphones and playing "Pokemon Go" on July 15, 2016 in Hanover, Germany.
Photo by Alexander Koerner/Getty Images
Besides, the Secret Service is not Babel Street's only client. Others include the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Customs and Border Protection, the Coast Guard, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and others.
The Secret Service has apparently used Locate X to identify credit card skimming thieves. According to former employees of location-based companies that provide data to Babel Street, "the sale of personal location data from commercial firms to the government is more widespread and has been going on longer than previously known."
In 1985, Neil Postman wrote about Orwell's "1984" prophecy coming and going. In "Amusing Ourselves to Death," the cultural critic noted that Orwell got a lot right, but with "Brave New World," Aldous Huxley may have been the real winner when it comes to understanding the future.
"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture."
There's no need for a secret government plot to microchip us. Tech companies sold chips that we willingly bought; governments are simply purchasing the rights to locate them. That's not a conspiracy. We're staring straight into the truth every single day.
- How Paranoid Should You Be About Government Surveillance ... ›
- New Bill Bridges Gap Between Constitutional Rights and Technology ›
"You dream about these kinds of moments when you're a kid," said lead paleontologist David Schmidt.
- The triceratops skull was first discovered in 2019, but was excavated over the summer of 2020.
- It was discovered in the South Dakota Badlands, an area where the Triceratops roamed some 66 million years ago.
- Studying dinosaurs helps scientists better understand the evolution of all life on Earth.
David Schmidt, a geology professor at Westminster College, had just arrived in the South Dakota Badlands in summer 2019 with a group of students for a fossil dig when he received a call from the National Forest Service. A nearby rancher had discovered a strange object poking out of the ground. They wanted Schmidt to take a look.
"One of the very first bones that we saw in the rock was this long cylindrical bone," Schmidt told St. Louis Public Radio. "The first thing that came out of our mouths was, 'That kind of looks like the horn of a triceratops.'"
After authorities gave the go-ahead, Schmidt and a small group of students returned this summer and spent nearly every day of June and July excavating the skull.
Credit: David Schmidt / Westminster College
"We had to be really careful," Schmidt told St. Louis Public Radio. "We couldn't disturb anything at all, because at that point, it was under law enforcement investigation. They were telling us, 'Don't even make footprints,' and I was thinking, 'How are we supposed to do that?'"
Another difficulty was the mammoth size of the skull: about 7 feet long and more than 3,000 pounds. (For context, the largest triceratops skull ever unearthed was about 8.2 feet long.) The skull of Schmidt's dinosaur was likely a Triceratops prorsus, one of two species of triceratops that roamed what's now North America about 66 million years ago.
Credit: David Schmidt / Westminster College
The triceratops was an herbivore, but it was also a favorite meal of the Tyrannosaurus rex. That probably explains why the Dakotas contain many scattered triceratops bone fragments, and, less commonly, complete bones and skulls. In summer 2019, for example, a separate team on a dig in North Dakota made headlines after unearthing a complete triceratops skull that measured five feet in length.
Michael Kjelland, a biology professor who participated in that excavation, said digging up the dinosaur was like completing a "multi-piece, 3-D jigsaw puzzle" that required "engineering that rivaled SpaceX," he jokingly told the New York Times.
Morrison Formation in Colorado
James St. John via Flickr
The Badlands aren't the only spot in North America where paleontologists have found dinosaurs. In the 1870s, Colorado and Wyoming became the first sites of dinosaur discoveries in the U.S., ushering in an era of public fascination with the prehistoric creatures — and a competitive rush to unearth them.
Since, dinosaur bones have been found in 35 states. One of the most fruitful locations for paleontologists has been the Morrison formation, a sequence of Upper Jurassic sedimentary rock that stretches under the Western part of the country. Discovered here were species like Camarasaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, Stegosaurus, and Allosaurus, to name a few.
|Credit: Nobu Tamura/Wikimedia Commons|
As for "Shady" (the nickname of the South Dakota triceratops), Schmidt and his team have safely transported it to the Westminster campus. They hope to raise funds for restoration, and to return to South Dakota in search of more bones that once belonged to the triceratops.
Studying dinosaurs helps scientists gain a more complete understanding of our evolution, illuminating a through-line that extends from "deep time" to present day. For scientists like Schmidt, there's also the simple joy of coming to face-to-face with a lost world.
"You dream about these kinds of moments when you're a kid," Schmidt told St. Louis Public Radio. "You don't ever think that these things will ever happen."
- Lawrence Kohlberg's experiments gave children a series of moral dilemmas to test how they differed in their responses across various ages.
- He identified three separate stages of moral development from the egoist to the principled person.
- Some people do not progress through all the stages of moral development, which means they will remain "morally undeveloped."
Has your sense of right and wrong changed over the years? Are there things that you see as acceptable today that you'd never dream of doing when you were younger? If you spend time around children, do you notice how starkly different their sense of morality is? How black and white, or egocentric, or oddly rational it can be?
These were questions that Lawrence Kohlberg asked, and his "stages of moral development" dominates a lot of moral psychology today.
The Heinz Dilemma
Kohlberg was curious to see how and why children differed in their ethical judgements, and so he gave roughly 60 children, across a variety of ages, a series of moral dilemmas. They were all given open-ended questions to explain their answers in order to minimize the risk of leading them to a certain response.
For instance, one of the better-known dilemmas involved an old man called Heinz who needed an expensive drug for his dying wife. Heinz only managed to raise half the required money, which the pharmacists wouldn't accept. Unable to afford it, he has only three options. What should he do?
(a) Not steal it because it's breaking the law.
(b) Steal it, and go to jail for breaking the law.
(c) Steal it, but be let off a prison sentence.
What option would you choose?
Stages of Moral Development
From the answers he got, Kohlberg identified three definite levels or stages of our moral development.
Pre-conventional stage. This is characterized by an ego-centric attitude that seeks pleasure and to prevent pain. The primary motivation is to avoid punishment or claim a reward. In this stage of moral development, "good" is defined as whatever is beneficial to oneself. "Bad" is the opposite. For instance, a young child might share their food with a younger sibling not from kindness or some altruistic impulse but because they know that they'll be praised by their parents (or, perhaps, have their food taken away from them).
In the pre-conventional stage, there is no inherent sense of right and wrong, per se, but rather "good" is associated with reward and "bad" is associated with punishment. At this stage, children are sort of like puppies.
If you spend time around children, do you notice how starkly different their sense of morality is? How black and white, or egocentric, or oddly rational it can be?
Conventional stage. This stage reflects a growing sense of social belonging and hence a higher regard for others. Approval and praise are seen as rewards, and behavior is calibrated to please others, obey the law, and promote the good of the family/tribe/nation. In the conventional stage, a person comes to see themselves as part of a community and that their actions have consequences.
Consequently, this stage is much more rule-focused and comes along with a desire to be seen as good. Image, reputation, and prestige matter the most in motivating good behavior — we want to fit into our community.
Post-conventional stage. In this final stage, there is much more self-reflection and moral reasoning, which gives people the capacity to challenge authority. Committing to principles is considered more important than blindly obeying fixed laws. Importantly, a person comes to understand the difference between what is "legal" and what is "right." Ideas such as justice and fairness start to mature. Laws or rules are no longer equated to morality but might be seen as imperfect manifestations of larger principles.
A lot of moral philosophy is only possible in the post-conventional stage. Theories like utilitarianism or Immanuel Kant's duty-focused ethics ask us to consider what's right or wrong in itself, not just because we get a reward or look good to others. Aristotle perhaps sums it up best when he wrote, "I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."
How morally developed are you?
Kohlberg identified these stages as a developmental progression from early infancy all the way to adulthood, and they map almost perfectly onto Jean Piaget's psychology of child development. For instance, the pre-conventional stage usually lasts from birth to roughly nine years old, the conventional occurs mainly during adolescence, and the post-conventional goes into adulthood.
What's important to note, though, is that this is not a fatalistic timetable to which all humans adhere. Kohlberg thought, for instance, that some people never progress or mature. It's quite possible, maybe, for someone to have no actual moral compass at all (which is sometimes associated with psychopathy).
More commonly, though, we all know people who are resolutely bound to the conventional stage, where they care only for their image or others' judgment. Those who do not develop beyond this stage are usually stubbornly, even aggressively, strict in following the rules or the law. Prepubescent children can be positively authoritarian when it comes to obeying the rules of a board game, for instance.
So, what's your answer to the Heinz dilemma? Where do you fall on Kohlberg's moral development scale? Is he right to view it is a progressive, hierarchical maturing, where we have "better" and "worse" stages? Or could it be that as we grow older, we grow more immoral?
Dunbar's number is a popular estimate for the maximum size of social groups. But new research suggests that it's a fictitious number based on flimsy data and bad theory.
- A team of researchers recalculated Dunbar's number using his original methods and better data.
- Their estimates were as high as 520 and were stretched over a wide enough range as to be nearly useless.
- The authors suggest that the method used to calculate the number of friends a person can have is also theoretically unsound.
Since 1992, people have been talking about "Dunbar's number," the supposed upper limit of the number of people with whom a person can maintain stable social relationships. Named for British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, its value, rounded from 148 to 150, has permeated both professional and popular culture.
The Swedish taxation authority keeps offices under 150 people as a result of it, and the standard facilities of the W. L. Gore and Associates company are based around the concept. Dunbar's number was cited in Malcolm Gladwell's bestselling book Tipping Point, and it also has a fair amount of academic influence, the original paper having been cited 2,500 times.
It's also probably wrong.
Despite its fame, Dunbar's number has always been controversial. A new study out of Sweden and published in the journal Biology Letters suggests it might be both theoretically and empirically unsound.
Getting to 150
Less well known than the value of Dunbar's number is how he came up with it. The value of 150 is determined by looking at the ratio between the size of the neocortex in primates and the average size of groups they form. These ratios were then applied to data on the human brain, and the average value of roughly 150 relationships was determined.
The point of this study isn't to replace Dunbar's number but to dismiss the notion that such a number can be determined in the first place.
However, this number has always been the subject of debate. An alternative value based on empirical studies of American social groups is a much higher 291, nearly double that of Dunbar, and suggests that the median social network has 231 people in it. That value wasn't calculated by crunching other numbers; it kept coming up again and again when the authors of that study looked at the professional and social networks cultivated by different groups of people.
Yet, even in the face of critics and new studies, Dunbar's number always managed to hang on in popular and academic discourse. That is where this latest study comes in.
A new study with old methods but better data
In the new study, the researchers did similar calculations as Dunbar but with updated information on the size of monkey brains and social networks. While their average human group size was below Dunbar's estimate, the upper boundary of the 95 percent confidence interval ranged between 2 and 520 people depending on what methods were used. Nearly every method gave a range of possibilities with a maximum value higher than 150.
When the authors applied Dunbar's exact same methods from 1992 to their new data, they got an average group size of 69 people — but a 95% confidence interval between roughly 5 and 292. This is far too wide a range to be of any use.
Additionally, the authors discuss the flimsy nature of the theory behind Dunbar's number. Human brains often work differently than those of our nearest evolutionary cousins, as evidenced by our ability to create things like, "Stockholm, symphonies, and science." The idea that we would process social information exactly like other apes do is a bold and largely unsubstantiated claim.
They quote a study by Jan De Ruiter and their rejection of the idea that the ratio between monkey neocortex size and group composition can be carried over to humans:
"Dunbar's assumption that the evolution of human brain physiology corresponds with a limit in our capacity to maintain relationships ignores the cultural mechanisms, practices, and social structures that humans develop to counter potential deficiencies"
So, is there a new Dunbar number?
The point of this study isn't to replace Dunbar's number but to dismiss the notion that such a number can be determined in the first place. The authors go so far as to end their paper with:
"It is our hope, though perhaps futile, that this study will put an end to the use of 'Dunbar's number' within science and in popular media. 'Dunbar's number' is a concept with limited theoretical foundation lacking empirical support."
While this study may not be the death of Dunbar's number — after all, less empirically sound ideas have endured much longer — it may be the foundation for new attempts to determine how large our meaningful and stable social groups can be.