Tin Foil Hat or Reality?

Tin Foil Hat or Reality?

By Darren Hamburger

"Your just paranoid!" sound familiar? Perhaps you ’ ve been accused or you have even accused others of being paranoid. In todays article I wanted to explore the word “Paranoid” which is a vernacular casually used to highlight a person who may have legitimate concerns or exhibits a tendency to be weary of openly disclosing personal information to individuals. The ’being paranoid’ accusations are nothing new these days, however I tend to believe there is a really big difference between how people are being labeled as ’paranoid’ because they are actually paranoid, and those who are labeled as paranoid because an individual may be hypervigillant or privileged to other factual information which others may not be aware of at the time. Thus a person who tends to carefully prioritise there own privacy due to a genuine concern such information may be misused, does not necessarily equate to a person being paranoid. Even though such persons are likely to find themselves at the forefront of accusations to being paranoid. The conundrum between being protective of ones private information and being labeled as paranoid these days is no different to the early modern times of the witch burning trials. Let’s take a moment to examine the truth behind what a diagnosis of paranoia entails, and then later ill discuss how being careful with your own information and data is not you just being paranoid, it’s a necessity.

So what is paranoia?

I find the word “paranoid” is one of many words the general public use to casually label people without fully understanding the depth of such a word. So that we are clear, lets take a look at the true diagnostic criteria from the DSM-V which is a manual to guide mental health professionals in collating a series of behavioural “criteria“ in order to achieve a diagnosis. At the time of writing this article, the most recent manual is the DSM-V and to help us understand what paranoia is, I decided to pull out the diagnosis of Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD).

Cluster A ‐ Paranoid Personality Disorder

  1. A pervasive distrust and suspicious of others such that there motives are interpreted as malevolent beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following.
    1. Suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming or deceiving him or her.
    2. Is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates.
    3. Is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her.
    4. Reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events.
    5. Persistently bears grudges (I.e is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights)
    6. Perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counter-attack.
    7. Has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner.
  2. Does not occur exclusively during the course of schizophrenia, a bipolar disorder or depressive disorder with psychotic features, or another psychotic disorder and is not attributable to the physiological effects of another medical condition.

NOTE: if criteria are met prior to the onset of schizophrenia , add “premorbid” I.e “ paranoid personality disorder (premorbid)”

The (PPD) is not the only diagnosis which exhibits maladaptive paranoid behaviours. Some other typical psychological conditions (not limiting too) which may express paranoid traits are:

What are delusions?

Sometimes delusions and paranoid ideology tend to become confused, while I have already outlined above the diagnostic criteria for paranoid personality, I can simplify the explanation of a delusion as something where a persons belief is taken as a fact when indeed the reality shows this is not the case. Perhaps a good example are the times I had seen people who had used Methyl-Amphetamines and experienced psychosis where they had truly believed they were Jesus. The belief is so real and strong for the individual experiencing delusions, the significant abilities being suggested by the delusional such as being able to control people, read minds, change the weather or my all time favorite tell me next Thursdays lotto numbers are never realised.

There is a thin line between reality, paranoia and delusion.

It all boils down to the ability to demonstrate fact from fiction. Reality while different for all of us will always have some common ground, a level playing field that is mutual for all parties where we base our discussions. Therefore, the person who is cautious with being hacked, having there data stolen or collected by governments is at least in Australia and according to the documents provided by Mr. Snowden is a reality. Therefore if one has the belief they wish to protect there own privacy just for the mere fact they fear there private information may be misused, I don’t see anything wrong with a person protecting there privacy for legitimate reasons. Often is the case, I have found people who neglect or have a haphazard approach to protecting ones ID from theft are the ones who are quick to cast the first stone when accusing an individual who is I.T or Network Security savvy as being paranoid. However I am fairly sure, if you were to pull aside any network security adviser and ask them of the plausibility of data leaking concerns, you would be quickly advised a computer system is always at risk of being breached even wireless technology such as WPA2. The security of a computer system is only as strong as its weakest link, thus if a person who haphazardly shares there personal information on open networks is in effect the first weakest link, then vulnerabilities in software and hardware would ensue. The sole reasons social media are usually the first to be monitored by intelligence organisations and hackers alike is because they know the amount of information leaked by people is the best starting point to learn more about there target. Perhaps the similarities of the person being labeled as paranoid for taking steps to protect ones privacy and the history of witch burning in early modern times were not so different after all, perhaps the witches just had a better understanding of the environment around them and the witch hunts were used as a method of controlling the population and alter the power of influence. If a person has a tendency to be ignorant or care free with what happens to there information, it does not mean others should do the same, nor should they be ridiculed when exercising protective measures one takes when trying to preserve there privacy.

However if that same average law abiding citizen who is protecting there information has turned there belief system where it causes extremely unrealistic maladaptive lifestyle changes causing an exaggerated amount of distress such as fears of persecution, fear, anxiety, depression, agoraphobia etc. This is the realm where true paranoia seeps into this discussion i.e tin foil hat.

So what does the accused do that raises the initial blame?

There are a couple of note worthy considerations regarding how personal information is handled leading to the accusation of being labeled as ’paranoid’.

  1. Information which goes against the mainstream concept, in other words any information which brings controversy may see others being accused of being paranoid.
  2. Information that moves towards an extreme ideology which causes people to become uncomfortable may cause the person receiving the information to suspect the person providing the information is paranoid.
  3. The way information is conveyed can also add to the suspicion of being paranoid. What I mean here is if a person were to convey information in an aggressive manner, a way which causes the persons voice to raise or increases the intensity may also see the person as being ’oddly paranoid’ as they shout out non-mainstream views.
  4. Believably of the situation. The truth behind what a person says is likely to call into question if the information is reliable.
  5. Plausibility: The character and integrity of the person who holds the initial belief is likely to influence how believable the information maybe. For example if comparing the same unknown story from an unemployed drug dependent person or a person with a prior mental health diagnosis to a professional person may alter how a story is initially interpreted.
  6. Frequency of questionable behaviour is likely to increase being accused of being paranoid.
  7. Information without specific evidence may cause one to raise suspicions and conclude a person is ’Paranoid’. However not all things which exist may not have direct evidence at the time of the conversation. This is often the case as can be seen via the Snowden, Assange and Wiki leaks.
  8. The persons past integrity will also have some weight onto the believably of the information being conveyed.

The above eight points are most probably a good reference point to keep in mind when we start to understand what leads one to be accused of being paranoid. As I sit and look at these 8 points, I can't help but think of the pre Edward Snowden and Julian Assange era when anyone who had believed government data collection on a mass population was occurring, would have themselves been accused as being paranoid. Knowing what we now know, those ’paranoid people’ of the past were correct after all even if it is in the guise of governments packaging as an anti-terrorism protective measure. Combine this new reality where governments and business are now openly collecting data, pawing through the mass amounts of data and tracking individuals for what ever reason, people should not automatically be seen as paranoid because the truth is everyone is being monitored.

With all things said and done, I find it difficult to comprehend even with so many people now aware governments are monitoring our e-mails, data, phones, GPS activity etc, and with all this information on board if an individual is seen to take steps to avoid these personal privacy breaches they can still be labeled as being paranoid. Perhaps the reason behind this is because some people in the community are either unaware how there information can be collated and used or they believe they have nothing to hide and fail to comprehend how data can be manipulated to identify the individuals preferences, patterns of behaviors, who are there friends etc which opens the door to being exploited even if it’s in the most harmless way such as targeting marketing. In recent times ex-Facebook employees have come out to discuss how something free such as Facebook is designed in a way to cause unfettered desire to keep using the app. Some have even used the term 'hijacking the brain' to describe deliberate attempts to manipulate the user.

So what do I think?

I for one have no issue of being labeled as being paranoid when I take steps in protecting my personal data. This is because I have already been a victim of credit card fraud, id fraud, online personal attacks whereby a person had attempted to sabotage my business by setting up false representations of myself (and yes I do know who you are). Hence I only all to well understand the risks regarding information mishandling not only because of personal experience, but also because I read bulletins regarding malware, computing viruses, fraud, Id theft, selling ID details and even listening to clients talk about how they had committed there crimes etc. So I really don’t expect a person who is not subjected to such knowledgeable information to understand what is possible. I’d much rather er on the side of caution and be labeled as paranoid than to regret at a later date and suffer the inconveniences of data breaches. As far as I can see the only four main arguments which have some type of serious plausibility regarding someone truly being paranoid are 1) Is the severity the ideology truly effecting the individuals life. i.e is that person locking themselves in the house never to walk out because they feared being monitored 2) is the persons ideology harming them. 3) what is the likely hood of the ideology coming to reality. This is important because if the ideology is true then a paranoid belief is turned into a paranoid fact which could mean the concern may occur and its no longer a make believe ideology. 4) Meeting the DSM V diagnostic criteria in full.

And your answer is?

Lets review a couple of comments people may have made in the past and see which answers you would attribute to a person who is paranoid.

  1. I am concerned using my mobile phone for banking may be putting my own financial security at risk?
  2. I don’t trust external email services because there is a risk of these accounts being hacked?
  3. The government collects our electronic information?
  4. Information that is collected on us can be used against us
  5. I am not happy if my personal information is sent via standard encrypted email
  6. I will never use someone elses Wi-FI because my information can be intercepted.

Answers:

  1. Mobile phones often are not equipped with anti-malware & firewall programs, thus are vulnerable to attack. Just like Wi-fi, a mobile phone bluetooth is also vulnerable to interception. An article from yahoo finance once reported 1 in 5 android apps were malware in disguise.
  2. It has been well advertised over the years that external email services have been hacked, mass amounts of password, login and other personal information have been obtained by using external email accounts. I.e gmail, yahoo, even millions of icloud services.
  3. As mentioned in my previous article “Don’t worry it’s only meta-data” I discussed the Australian government requires all ISP metadata to be saved for 2 years after the electronic account has been closed. All meta-data tells a story of the persons data use history ie. the who, when and how long you communicated with a person and complex algorithms are able to draw conclusions and better predictive behaviour patterns can be used to make assumptions about people. The reasons why governments only require meta-data is because it simplifies data collation and processing for ASIO and other government agencies to formulate and process product.
  4. While difficult to explain, during my career I have seen at first hand how irrelevant information may be skewed to paint a different picture, as well as a bunch of irrelevant information maybe collated to paint a picture the individual may not want to discuss with others.
  5. It is a known fact sending unencrypted emails via email is subject to interception
  6. Using other organisations Wi-Fi connections is very easily subjected to man in the middle attacks, hence your personal information may be collected by other unintended third parties.

Conclusion:

So there we have it, this article took the time to examine the issue regarding being labeled as paranoid when an individual has factual reasons when taking steps to protect ones privacy even if others don’t understand the intricacies of IT vulnerabilities. We also briefly examined the true diagnose of paranoid personality disorder criteria and the differences between the plausibility and integrity of the information which is conveyed during discussions.

As we can see with the DSM-V criteria, there is simply much more to the single word Paranoid’ than meets the eye. My interests in maintaining privacy started due to my chosen career path and was further heightened when I was in business because I wanted to do what was right. Nowadays with new mandatory reporting of data breach laws, business data security is even more important if one wants to prevent costly fines. Because of my stringent views of data protection, ethical behaviours and privacy, I have from time to time been labeled as paranoid due to others lack of awarness of the topic and risks. The irony here is in time more times than none my views tend to be later realised in the common media where I later feel vindicated.

I conclude the article by asking the reader a couple basic questions regarding common beliefs in light of an average person who understands cyber risks and end with factual answers to provide a rationale for what others may initially deem to be paranoid behaviours due to there own ignorance.

Until next time...

Darren Hamburger


Page Last update:06/05/2018

return image Return to Author return image Return to Main Page

Copyright © 2018 Darren Hamburger. All rights reserved.