What It’s Like to Live in a Surveillance State(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
What It’s Like to Live in a Surveillance State
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/opinion/sunday/china-surveillance-state-uighurs.html
59 comments
After gaining those territories, it would be politically impossible to give them up - it could only happen on dynastic collapse! Ya, they also "protect borders", but think of Russia giving up its sparsely populated Far East or America giving up sparsely populated Alaska, it really is a no go.
It's also politically useful to have internal enemies who resist the righteous occupation. You can justify all sorts of measures if you frame them as rebels against your rightful claims. This is very standard totalitarian playbook for the past century.
Interesting parallels to the US attacks and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. We go from being liberators (in our minds) to occupiers of ungrateful nations. And we have to stick around so long as people resist, because politically people hate to "lose".
Interesting parallels to the US attacks and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. We go from being liberators (in our minds) to occupiers of ungrateful nations. And we have to stick around so long as people resist, because politically people hate to "lose".
Wendover Productions has an informative video on China's geography & geopolitical concerns that arise from that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiBF6v5UAAE
The TL;DR is that Xinjiang and Tibet both serve important national security purposes.
The TL;DR is that Xinjiang and Tibet both serve important national security purposes.
We know what it’s like - the question is, how do we, as hackers, stop it?
nobody said it would be easy, but here are six ideas for stopping the problem.
1. don't work for companies that surveil or support surveillance and don't hire, associate, converse, or lend aid to anyone who has worked for those companies
2. don't work for companies that produce weapons that will be used against civilians and don't hire, associate, converse, or lend aid to anyone who has worked for those companies
3. don't pay taxes to a government that treats you like a prisoner, and don't hire, associate, converse, or lend aid to anyone who has worked for that government in an intelligence organization, surveillance organization, or police organization
4. organize with your neighbors and coworkers to work within the political system to prevent abuses (we have already failed this option in the USA)
5. sabotage internet infrastructure of companies and governments wherever possible
6. revolution
none of these options are palatable, and none should be jumped into rashly. but do not assume that they are not necessary.
1. don't work for companies that surveil or support surveillance and don't hire, associate, converse, or lend aid to anyone who has worked for those companies
2. don't work for companies that produce weapons that will be used against civilians and don't hire, associate, converse, or lend aid to anyone who has worked for those companies
3. don't pay taxes to a government that treats you like a prisoner, and don't hire, associate, converse, or lend aid to anyone who has worked for that government in an intelligence organization, surveillance organization, or police organization
4. organize with your neighbors and coworkers to work within the political system to prevent abuses (we have already failed this option in the USA)
5. sabotage internet infrastructure of companies and governments wherever possible
6. revolution
none of these options are palatable, and none should be jumped into rashly. but do not assume that they are not necessary.
I sincerely hope you know this very far fetched to achieve.
Some are self-inflicting wounds, and for the most part untenable. And finally some way more harm than good (sabotage and revolution demand heavy prices, larger than the debt you're trying to get out from under).
the beauty of it is that most of the items are easy to achieve. individuals can do steps 1, 2, and most of 3 without investing any actual effort.
step 4 requires some minimal effort, and more people are getting there. finishing step 3 requires the confidence of having enough friends-- which is rapidly approaching for many people, tbqh.
the other steps are for people more serious about making rapid change, and frankly i don't think most people are there yet-- but they would be if they thought they had friends who were. for now, it's step 4.
step 4 requires some minimal effort, and more people are getting there. finishing step 3 requires the confidence of having enough friends-- which is rapidly approaching for many people, tbqh.
the other steps are for people more serious about making rapid change, and frankly i don't think most people are there yet-- but they would be if they thought they had friends who were. for now, it's step 4.
[deleted]
One way is working on one of the many internet (re-)decentralization projects, since that is one of their key goals.
[deleted]
We won't. Many of the brightest and best paid of us are busily working at places like Google, building ever more powerful surveillance and analysis machinery to target ads. Of course it will be used for more than that.
speak for yourself. some of us refuse to answer when we are called to serve something we don't believe in-- even if answering the call causes us to miss out on prosperity.
Most people would do the same as you do, even people working for Facebook and Google. I have friends who work at Monsanto and are absolutely believing they are doing good for the humanity. Look at Agent Orange by Monsanto, I wouldn't think any scientist who worked on it thought it would be used as the something that made thousands of newborn lives to live in hell. They thought you made a herbicide to help the poor farmers, in reality, the government used it as a defoliant chemical in wars, and tens of years later, the real reality turned out to be deformed children. How do we know what happened to Agent Orange won't happen again with sweet corn, GMO, social profiling, facial recognition, voice profiling, etc?
However, if we're afraid to do anything for fear of bad consequences, we could as well do nothing. I don't think that there is any way to know for sure. All we know is that right now, we do see here, a possibility for bad consequences to happen. Real-life situations are not as black and white as a call from Kim Jong Un asking us to nuke the world. We aren't smarter than the guys telling us to use the talents we have to serve their purpose. The only thing I could think of so far is to not depend on their pay or their recognition or personal fame.
However, if we're afraid to do anything for fear of bad consequences, we could as well do nothing. I don't think that there is any way to know for sure. All we know is that right now, we do see here, a possibility for bad consequences to happen. Real-life situations are not as black and white as a call from Kim Jong Un asking us to nuke the world. We aren't smarter than the guys telling us to use the talents we have to serve their purpose. The only thing I could think of so far is to not depend on their pay or their recognition or personal fame.
I have a family member who was associated with Monsanto and - by extension - the Manhattan Project. It's a fascinating, inspiring, and unsettling part of my family's history. It also reinforces how thoroughly internal narratives are developed to justify actions that may otherwise be against a person's moral code. Further, it reminds me that I can sit here clearheaded and accurately argue that I wouldn't support these companies or their choices - but, then, no one has ever said to me hundreds of thousands are dying in this war. What are you willing to do to stop it?
Those are nice analogies, but what is actually confusing about building gigantic data-mining and surveillance infrastructure, like working at FB and Google? At best it's used to manipulate and sell ads, at worst it gets turned over to the secret police.
Given the work I do at Google and FB doesn't harm other people, then I am doing a very good thing for the world.
1, It makes a lot of money for me, and I'm a happy person
2, I spend the money I earned to buy products and services, contributing to the global economy.
1, It makes a lot of money for me, and I'm a happy person
2, I spend the money I earned to buy products and services, contributing to the global economy.
Ah, the old, "it's good because I make money off of it", the argument of scoundrels and thieves.
You're not necessarily disagreeing with the parent's first sentence. One can believe we won't "hack" our way out of this problem while also refusing to work for companies developing/leveraging the surveillance infrastructure.
Yeah, that's what I meant. The economic and political incentives for this are gigantic. There's no reason not to collect data if you can.
Combine that with the lucrative pay for the workers and whatever... It's a bit like trying to convince coal miners to stop working because of global warming, but instead make coal mining a very cushy job with 3x the pay.
Combine that with the lucrative pay for the workers and whatever... It's a bit like trying to convince coal miners to stop working because of global warming, but instead make coal mining a very cushy job with 3x the pay.
Yeah I don't think you can.
The only way to resist is to watch the watchers.
Keep a camera/phone on you at all times. Distribute secret cameras near Govt buildings.
The only way to resist is to watch the watchers.
Keep a camera/phone on you at all times. Distribute secret cameras near Govt buildings.
You might be interested in a human rights organisation I helped build out of my student house and that now specialises in covert filming for human rights:
"Videre: the secretive group on a mission to film human-rights abuses"
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/videre
"Hidden Cameras Film Injustice in Dangerous Places"
https://www.ted.com/talks/oren_yakobovich_hidden_cameras_tha...
http://www.videreonline.org/
"Videre: the secretive group on a mission to film human-rights abuses"
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/videre
"Hidden Cameras Film Injustice in Dangerous Places"
https://www.ted.com/talks/oren_yakobovich_hidden_cameras_tha...
http://www.videreonline.org/
Is there a good guide you're aware of for personal surveillance--wearing a camera, audio recorder?
It's a good idea not just for civic pride, but for personal safety and liability--the same reason drivers use dash cams.
It's a good idea not just for civic pride, but for personal safety and liability--the same reason drivers use dash cams.
> Distribute secret cameras near Govt buildings.
wat?
wat?
Ok, doesn't need to be secret. Perhaps better not being secret. It's merely demanding that politicians are subject to the same rules as the general public.
Ideally, the press would do this job as in the link below.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10141790...
Ideally, the press would do this job as in the link below.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10141790...
Labor organization with the express aim of putting an end to Surveillance Capitalism.
Google and Facebook can’t withstand a sustained disruption of their workforce, which is why they spend so much time paying lip service to social issues. They have to create a constant illusion of concern for rights and justice to prevent their employees from actually demanding them.
Google and Facebook can’t withstand a sustained disruption of their workforce, which is why they spend so much time paying lip service to social issues. They have to create a constant illusion of concern for rights and justice to prevent their employees from actually demanding them.
> Labor organization with the express aim of putting an end to Surveillance Capitalism.
The article is talking about the extensive surveillance of an authoritarian government that heads a planned economy. What does it have to do with capitalism?
The article is talking about the extensive surveillance of an authoritarian government that heads a planned economy. What does it have to do with capitalism?
Regulatory capture is a dominant force in western capitalism. To the extent that is “planning” the economy, the article could be talking about the US. We certainly have a more extensive surveillance apparatus.
From what I can tell China keeps most of its oppression inside its borders, at least compared to the US.
Look up forced labor in immigrant prisons, or the 1,000,000 current cholera cases in Yemen / estimated 7,000,000 victims of famine coming soon — the US is actively working to expand that humanitarian disaster as you read this.
Also there are 100,000’s of legal immigrants we’re planning to send back to failed economies and war zones. All of that is happening today. If you go back a decade for more context, you can add torturing civilians to death, establishing narco states, etc, etc.
I was going to add “funding terrorism” to my list of past events, but I just remembered we’re actually in the middle of active military strikes that are meant to help Al Qaeda ground forces.
All of these violations of basic human rights were very profitable to campaign donors.
To make it worse, from what I can tell, some members of our congress think it is appropriate to let the president replace the head of the FBI with a yes-man specifically to block an investigation into the president’s ties with organized crime and foreign powers. That will give him some degree of legal impunity, and also control of a massive domestic surveillance apparatus (much of which consists of commercial entities).
How did this happen? Trump hired a foreign-owned company (Cambridge Analytica) to use the tools of surveillance capitalism to squeak through the electoral college with a record-low percentage of the popular vote.
Sorry for the long-winded answer, but that roughly summarizes the state of survelliance capitalism in 2018, and what it has to do with the article.
From what I can tell China keeps most of its oppression inside its borders, at least compared to the US.
Look up forced labor in immigrant prisons, or the 1,000,000 current cholera cases in Yemen / estimated 7,000,000 victims of famine coming soon — the US is actively working to expand that humanitarian disaster as you read this.
Also there are 100,000’s of legal immigrants we’re planning to send back to failed economies and war zones. All of that is happening today. If you go back a decade for more context, you can add torturing civilians to death, establishing narco states, etc, etc.
I was going to add “funding terrorism” to my list of past events, but I just remembered we’re actually in the middle of active military strikes that are meant to help Al Qaeda ground forces.
All of these violations of basic human rights were very profitable to campaign donors.
To make it worse, from what I can tell, some members of our congress think it is appropriate to let the president replace the head of the FBI with a yes-man specifically to block an investigation into the president’s ties with organized crime and foreign powers. That will give him some degree of legal impunity, and also control of a massive domestic surveillance apparatus (much of which consists of commercial entities).
How did this happen? Trump hired a foreign-owned company (Cambridge Analytica) to use the tools of surveillance capitalism to squeak through the electoral college with a record-low percentage of the popular vote.
Sorry for the long-winded answer, but that roughly summarizes the state of survelliance capitalism in 2018, and what it has to do with the article.
Thank you.
Labor organization is one option, that I think is widely unattractive to this industry.
What about Labor Disorganization. Simply stop working in "the industry". Simply stop accepting ego-stroking emails from recruiters. Simply stop playing their shitty game. Quit, quit, quit.
Stop buying new shit. Pay down your debts. Get away from consumption & move towards genuine ownership of the means of our own production.
Use some fucking bitcoins and stop paying taxes to a corrupt and oppressive regime.
What about Labor Disorganization. Simply stop working in "the industry". Simply stop accepting ego-stroking emails from recruiters. Simply stop playing their shitty game. Quit, quit, quit.
Stop buying new shit. Pay down your debts. Get away from consumption & move towards genuine ownership of the means of our own production.
Use some fucking bitcoins and stop paying taxes to a corrupt and oppressive regime.
Agreed. But the hard problem is "How do you sell tech workers on labor organization being necessary".
The whole culture depends on pampering and aggrandizing tech workers as individual heroes for whom collective action would only hold them back. You have to overthrow the entire mainstream worldview about employment in tech before you can get a foothold on that front.
The whole culture depends on pampering and aggrandizing tech workers as individual heroes for whom collective action would only hold them back. You have to overthrow the entire mainstream worldview about employment in tech before you can get a foothold on that front.
Since you used "we" and are on HN should I assume a typo?
You probably meant "how do we stop building it?" Which is a bit of an easy question, just stop building surveillance systems.
The hard part is how do we, as hackers, accept that most of our fellows will gladly do this for pay. Because it was fun to pretend they cared and be part of the subculture, but they never actually did.
You probably meant "how do we stop building it?" Which is a bit of an easy question, just stop building surveillance systems.
The hard part is how do we, as hackers, accept that most of our fellows will gladly do this for pay. Because it was fun to pretend they cared and be part of the subculture, but they never actually did.
We're building it, as the society. And we, too - or at least big part of us - want to stop it. Not only stop building it, but also stop that which we, other we, are building.
That's a multipronged task.
That's a multipronged task.
I was just talking about this with a friend on the way home from work today. He mentioned an article[1] about how you could use makeup and weird hairstyles to confuse facial recognition AI and we joked about this becoming an actual near-future (cyberpunk!) style. I was wondering if there was some kind of device that could emit infrared light in all direction that would cause cameras only to see a bright reflection in place of your head but I don't know how actually feasible that is.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/makeu...
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/makeu...
One or two governments practicing these techniques only serves to inspire many more to do it covertly or overtly.
Looking at the entire world, I feel it's shameful that more time and effort is spent on building better surveillance and control systems than decentralized and privacy protecting (to the extent possible) systems. It's as if all our freedoms are slipping by, leaving either an illusion of having freedoms with no practical use or freedoms curbed by governments with no concern about the well being of people or the government's reputation.
We've known about China and North Korea for a long time. Then we came to know about Five Eyes and Fourteen Eyes. It worries me that we may have One Hundred and Fifty Eyes in the next few decades (just a rough count of all countries minus a small percentage).
Looking at the entire world, I feel it's shameful that more time and effort is spent on building better surveillance and control systems than decentralized and privacy protecting (to the extent possible) systems. It's as if all our freedoms are slipping by, leaving either an illusion of having freedoms with no practical use or freedoms curbed by governments with no concern about the well being of people or the government's reputation.
We've known about China and North Korea for a long time. Then we came to know about Five Eyes and Fourteen Eyes. It worries me that we may have One Hundred and Fifty Eyes in the next few decades (just a rough count of all countries minus a small percentage).
Can somebody explain to me what racial profiling necessarily has to do with "what it's like to live in a surveillance state," or am I correct in my evaluation that this article is doing PR for our own surveillance state by conflating two forms of oppression?
I'm not seeing the "PR for our own surveillance state". But the fact is that surveillance regimes and racist propaganda and intimidation of othered ethnic, racial, or religious groups usually go hand in hand. Hyping invented criminality of or subversion by particular groups is key to convincing the populace that they are under threat and should give in to extremely intrusive measures.
Each feeds into the other. Political regimes use lies about (often invented) outsider groups to justify their growing power. And then true believers and overzealous apparatchiks begin harassing members of that group, often using those very tools, which leads to a growing perception that yes these people who are receiving international calls are clearly terrorists or terrorist supporters, who need to be surveilled. Etc.
Each feeds into the other. Political regimes use lies about (often invented) outsider groups to justify their growing power. And then true believers and overzealous apparatchiks begin harassing members of that group, often using those very tools, which leads to a growing perception that yes these people who are receiving international calls are clearly terrorists or terrorist supporters, who need to be surveilled. Etc.
It does seem that China has implemented some impressive surveillance in Xinjiang. And it does seem that Uighurs are being targeted. And the methods were developed in Tibet. But racial profiling isn't the focus of the article. It focuses on the methods.
Also, although there may be some China bashing in the background, I don't see anything about the US being better. And it doesn't take much imagination to see how such total surveillance is becoming normalized here.
Also, although there may be some China bashing in the background, I don't see anything about the US being better. And it doesn't take much imagination to see how such total surveillance is becoming normalized here.
> I don't see anything about the US being better.
There is a lot bad going on in the US, but China is ten or a hundred times worse. For instance, the web is massively censored, and political dissidents get sent to jail by the hundreds or thousands.
Furthermore, in the US we still have enough freedom of speech that we can criticize surveillance at places like HN, and even organize efforts to resist it, even political campaigns, but in China that is completely impossible.
It seems to me that if people were to come to believe that things are as hopeless in the US as in China, then they would give up all efforts at resistance. I think that would be a terrible mistake.
There is a lot bad going on in the US, but China is ten or a hundred times worse. For instance, the web is massively censored, and political dissidents get sent to jail by the hundreds or thousands.
Furthermore, in the US we still have enough freedom of speech that we can criticize surveillance at places like HN, and even organize efforts to resist it, even political campaigns, but in China that is completely impossible.
It seems to me that if people were to come to believe that things are as hopeless in the US as in China, then they would give up all efforts at resistance. I think that would be a terrible mistake.
I agree. Surveillance in the US is by no means as bad as it is in China. However, consider that the NSA intercepts all Internet traffic, excerpts and indexes the data, and makes it available through a Google-like interface.
But they claim that there's no substantive surveillance until some human queries that data. Arguably, even AI processing would not be considered to be surveillance.
And sure, they claim that they're not looking at traffic between US citizens. However, there's the SOD program:[0]
> The unit of the DEA that distributes the information is called the Special Operations Division, or SOD. Two dozen partner agencies comprise the unit, including the FBI, CIA, NSA, Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Homeland Security. It was created in 1994 to combat Latin American drug cartels and has grown from several dozen employees to several hundred.
> Today, much of the SOD's work is classified, and officials asked that its precise location in Virginia not be revealed. The documents reviewed by Reuters are marked "Law Enforcement Sensitive," a government categorization that is meant to keep them confidential.
> "Remember that the utilization of SOD cannot be revealed or discussed in any investigative function," a document presented to agents reads. The document specifically directs agents to omit the SOD's involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use "normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD." DEA even has a history of SOD online.[1]
That is, parallel construction. And given the secrecy about SOD-based evidence, we have no idea how widely it's used. Potentially, the full power of the NSA could be turned against anything that federal investigators consider as legitimate targets.
I could go on at length. And I won't. But consider the situation at the Mexican border. Consider surveillance around presidential conventions, WTO meetings, etc. Consider reports about Stingray units cited near USCIS offices. And those surveillance aircraft circling over areas of interest.
Sure, things aren't "as hopeless in the US as in China", but they're getting there in some ways. And all it would take is some serious crisis and drama, real or manufactured.
0) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dea-sod/exclusive-u-s-dir...
1) https://www.deamuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/042215-...
But they claim that there's no substantive surveillance until some human queries that data. Arguably, even AI processing would not be considered to be surveillance.
And sure, they claim that they're not looking at traffic between US citizens. However, there's the SOD program:[0]
> The unit of the DEA that distributes the information is called the Special Operations Division, or SOD. Two dozen partner agencies comprise the unit, including the FBI, CIA, NSA, Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Homeland Security. It was created in 1994 to combat Latin American drug cartels and has grown from several dozen employees to several hundred.
> Today, much of the SOD's work is classified, and officials asked that its precise location in Virginia not be revealed. The documents reviewed by Reuters are marked "Law Enforcement Sensitive," a government categorization that is meant to keep them confidential.
> "Remember that the utilization of SOD cannot be revealed or discussed in any investigative function," a document presented to agents reads. The document specifically directs agents to omit the SOD's involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use "normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD." DEA even has a history of SOD online.[1]
That is, parallel construction. And given the secrecy about SOD-based evidence, we have no idea how widely it's used. Potentially, the full power of the NSA could be turned against anything that federal investigators consider as legitimate targets.
I could go on at length. And I won't. But consider the situation at the Mexican border. Consider surveillance around presidential conventions, WTO meetings, etc. Consider reports about Stingray units cited near USCIS offices. And those surveillance aircraft circling over areas of interest.
Sure, things aren't "as hopeless in the US as in China", but they're getting there in some ways. And all it would take is some serious crisis and drama, real or manufactured.
0) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dea-sod/exclusive-u-s-dir...
1) https://www.deamuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/042215-...
Belated edit: "DEA even has ..." doesn't belong in the quoted text. And "sited", not "cited".
> Also, although there may be some China bashing in the background, I don't see anything about the US being better.
There is a surprising amount of people that think of China as the bad communist state and the US as the superior nation. Even here on HN where I usually would expect the average commenter to have even some basic education.
It is the same population, I suspect, that is totally oblivious of the state of surveillance in their country and how this actually is bad and won't stop crime of any sort.
There is a surprising amount of people that think of China as the bad communist state and the US as the superior nation. Even here on HN where I usually would expect the average commenter to have even some basic education.
It is the same population, I suspect, that is totally oblivious of the state of surveillance in their country and how this actually is bad and won't stop crime of any sort.
this was my impression as well. "look at all these bad things we do, that the chinese also do-- oh yeah, but they also do OTHER stuff that's horrible too"
the line between a surveillance state and an oppressive political state doesn't exist, as surveillance is oppressive-- but it's not the only form of oppression. the article seems to forget that oppression has many effectors. it is too convenient of a slip.
the political oppression of the uighurs is, as the article notes, uniquely chinese-- but these things could have easily happened without any real surveillance whatsoever.
harassing minorities for arbitrary reasons doesn't need the evidence that surveillance can provide-- malice is not based on evidence to begin with.
as far as the chinese idea of han ethnic supremacy: it isn't new. in fact, it's old. the leaders' chinese vision of their country is that of a han chinese monoculture with a very particular apoliticism (they wrap passivity in many different terms). i was about to say that they aren't genocidal yet, but i dunno if that's really true; they have done quite a number on tibet, but my knowledge of the situation is very shallow.
the line between a surveillance state and an oppressive political state doesn't exist, as surveillance is oppressive-- but it's not the only form of oppression. the article seems to forget that oppression has many effectors. it is too convenient of a slip.
the political oppression of the uighurs is, as the article notes, uniquely chinese-- but these things could have easily happened without any real surveillance whatsoever.
harassing minorities for arbitrary reasons doesn't need the evidence that surveillance can provide-- malice is not based on evidence to begin with.
as far as the chinese idea of han ethnic supremacy: it isn't new. in fact, it's old. the leaders' chinese vision of their country is that of a han chinese monoculture with a very particular apoliticism (they wrap passivity in many different terms). i was about to say that they aren't genocidal yet, but i dunno if that's really true; they have done quite a number on tibet, but my knowledge of the situation is very shallow.
Personally I don't see the problem with surveillance. I have a problem with people who abuse powers they may have.
I mean honestly:
- Use Android? Chances are you're being watched by Google.
- Facebook tracks literally hundreds of millions.
- Post on HN? Guess what, you can't delete your posts after a while. Advances in stylometry in addition to more and more data being on the internet will mean your identity on here will be compromised eventually.
---
However, using Android allows Google to have literally minute-by-minute traffic updates which allows our cars to move more efficiently.
Facebook's tracking of millions may aid in allowing smaller organizations to connect in a more programmatic way.
HN well, obviously is allowing you to read this now.
Things like privacy were forfeit the minute we gained the technology. If people have problems with these technologies being used in bad ways, we should punish the people using the technologies in such a bad way. The spooky "surveillance state" is a red herring imo.
I mean honestly:
- Use Android? Chances are you're being watched by Google.
- Facebook tracks literally hundreds of millions.
- Post on HN? Guess what, you can't delete your posts after a while. Advances in stylometry in addition to more and more data being on the internet will mean your identity on here will be compromised eventually.
---
However, using Android allows Google to have literally minute-by-minute traffic updates which allows our cars to move more efficiently.
Facebook's tracking of millions may aid in allowing smaller organizations to connect in a more programmatic way.
HN well, obviously is allowing you to read this now.
Things like privacy were forfeit the minute we gained the technology. If people have problems with these technologies being used in bad ways, we should punish the people using the technologies in such a bad way. The spooky "surveillance state" is a red herring imo.
Isn't it blindingly obvious that the abusers usually have power and money and can't be punished?
The googlefaces hire all sorts of behavioural scientists, paychologists, statisticians to get people more addicted to their ecosystem, spend millions on lobbying to bend the laws and generally do whatever they want.
People caring about this topic waste their time explaining for the millionth time why surveillance is bad to every innocent soul who bent their mind into a pretzel coming up with excuses for surveillance and spyware.
The googlefaces hire all sorts of behavioural scientists, paychologists, statisticians to get people more addicted to their ecosystem, spend millions on lobbying to bend the laws and generally do whatever they want.
People caring about this topic waste their time explaining for the millionth time why surveillance is bad to every innocent soul who bent their mind into a pretzel coming up with excuses for surveillance and spyware.
So what exactly do you suggest?
1) Ban surveillance. Not going to happen, if what you just stated is to be believed.
2) Complain about it.
3) Try to enact means to punish abusers.
1) Ban surveillance. Not going to happen, if what you just stated is to be believed.
2) Complain about it.
3) Try to enact means to punish abusers.
> Personally I don't see the problem with surveillance.
Maybe that's because you don't actually SEE the surveillance.
Surely you close the door when you try on clothes at a mall, or when you use a toilet?
You're making claims that because we interact on the web we should not expect any safety. That's fine... but what about those of us who specifically don't use Google, Facebook, etc... we are STILL surveilled, constantly. The US Gov't is STILL trying to break encryption (for everybody) in order to surveil more completely.
Privacy is forfeit by participation in these types of forums (centrally administered), but not all forums are like these.
As distributed networks continue to develop, the arguments you've used to advocate a carelessness about your post-privacy lifestyle will no longer be valid. But the state apparatus and oppressive outcomes that type of intellectual laziness enables/encourages will persist.
Maybe that's because you don't actually SEE the surveillance.
Surely you close the door when you try on clothes at a mall, or when you use a toilet?
You're making claims that because we interact on the web we should not expect any safety. That's fine... but what about those of us who specifically don't use Google, Facebook, etc... we are STILL surveilled, constantly. The US Gov't is STILL trying to break encryption (for everybody) in order to surveil more completely.
Privacy is forfeit by participation in these types of forums (centrally administered), but not all forums are like these.
As distributed networks continue to develop, the arguments you've used to advocate a carelessness about your post-privacy lifestyle will no longer be valid. But the state apparatus and oppressive outcomes that type of intellectual laziness enables/encourages will persist.
I don't have a problem with surveillance either as long as the laws are fair, they are deterministically enforced and the judicial system is willing to let minor mishaps slide.
I don't think we'll be able to stop the surveillance state, but we should push for the right legal and judicial culture.
I don't think we'll be able to stop the surveillance state, but we should push for the right legal and judicial culture.
The laws aren't fair. They aren't deterministically enforced. And the judicial system is a fucking joke.
There is no Rule of Law.
But you may be right about trying to stop the surveillance monster... perhaps if you don't mind it we can put the cameras in your bedroom first.
There is no Rule of Law.
But you may be right about trying to stop the surveillance monster... perhaps if you don't mind it we can put the cameras in your bedroom first.
So, you call me silly and naive because I want to fight for a rule of law.
And then you call me complacent for not wanting fight against surveillance.
So, do you believe that political fights are worth it or not? Make up your mind and stop bringing bedroom stuff into the discussion.
And then you call me complacent for not wanting fight against surveillance.
So, do you believe that political fights are worth it or not? Make up your mind and stop bringing bedroom stuff into the discussion.
> So, do you believe that political fights are worth it or not?
I do not. They are a sideshow. Our systems have already been coopted by powerful, monied interests with armed guards.
Recent 702 vote made it perfectly fucking clear who's in charge (if it wasn't already clear from "this is how we know we're a family") and whose opinion matters.
It wouldn't be very nice of me to assume you're ignorant (and I don't, tbh), but I do find it frustrating that people feel there is room for returning to an imagined better place, where authority wasn't corrupt. In history, it seems to me, the news wasn't as thorough and the well-connected just as oppressive.
I do not. They are a sideshow. Our systems have already been coopted by powerful, monied interests with armed guards.
Recent 702 vote made it perfectly fucking clear who's in charge (if it wasn't already clear from "this is how we know we're a family") and whose opinion matters.
It wouldn't be very nice of me to assume you're ignorant (and I don't, tbh), but I do find it frustrating that people feel there is room for returning to an imagined better place, where authority wasn't corrupt. In history, it seems to me, the news wasn't as thorough and the well-connected just as oppressive.
I feel your frustration. But history also shows us that things can get better sometimes. The country I live in went from totalitarian to democratic at some point in history.
Lots of people are doing it, so it must be okay.
Sorry, not down with your logic one bit.
Sorry, not down with your logic one bit.
Did you reply to the wrong comment? That couldn't be further from my point. My point is that if we have a problem with people doing bad things with technology, we should replace those people with people we trust, not the technology.
If we had mechanisms to identify people who were perfectly trustworthy, ensure these people are perpetually and exclusively in power, and construct perfect security for all involved computer systems then this reasoning would make sense.
It's impossible to trust people with power due to perverse incentives. That's why the ideas of democracy and whistleblowing exist. Those who find "trustworthy authority" less ridiculous than any other oxymoron might better enjoy living in a country whose government was not founded on the core values of accountability for those wielding power like maybe Saudi Arabia
You can trust a person you choose, perhaps. What about that person's successors? Data is forever, people change, people are coerced or bribed, and stuff gets stolen or compromised (or subpeonaed). Over time, databases are leaky.
Take the long view. I guarantee that the people collecting the data do.
Take the long view. I guarantee that the people collecting the data do.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I eventually found a map of China showing state borders. Xinjiang and Tibet are a massive portion of China, and also give China border access to many countries. Normal state imperatives to keep territory aside, these are comparatively important territories for China's global influence.