3 ms·

>Sure they can get my info. Or anyone's info. And they could totally reconstruct my life. But they only have the resources of to do this to maybe a couple thous

by graeme 11y ago

>Sure they can get my info. Or anyone's info. And they could totally reconstruct my life. But they only have the resources of to do this to maybe a couple thousand people. Out of a billion westeRners. What most people haven't thought of is that the government doesn't NEED to do that to everyone to massively impact society. I lived in Cuba for a while. Almost everyone was left alone to speak as they pleased. But the government had data on what was said, who associated with who, etc. It was collected by neighborhood watch groups. They knew when someone actually became a threat and had the means to make their life difficult. Oppressive systems only need to oppress those who would make waves.

lifeisstillgood 11y ago
With respect to your experiences - is it not the actual use as opposed to the potential use. Cuba's administration would jail opponents or I prison or torture on the strength of surveillance. And this was known / publicised. So the knowledge of the surveillance then kept people in line to the extent they feared the amount of retaliation brought. If the UK government was to re-educate everyone who voted libdem then we would all know the extent to which the surveillance would be used - and then adjust our behaviours. So it seems surveillance is always "in potentia", and oppression is enabled by it. I'm not sure where I am going with this other than, don't feel disgust, just violently revolt the minute they over step "the" mark.
- graeme 11y ago
  Right. But that system of using the day to influence instigators is the logical negative way the data can be used. I don't think people have considered that. It wouldn't be every libdem supporter btw. It would be 300-3000 key actors, or less. That's all you really need to target. Most people stay in line without prompting. I mean that in a statistical, not a critical way.

by graeme 11y ago

lifeisstillgood 11y ago

With respect to your experiences - is it not the actual use as opposed to the potential use. Cuba's administration would jail opponents or I prison or torture on the strength of surveillance. And this was known / publicised. So the knowledge of the surveillance then kept people in line to the extent they feared the amount of retaliation brought. If the UK government was to re-educate everyone who voted libdem then we would all know the extent to which the surveillance would be used - and then adjust our behaviours. So it seems surveillance is always "in potentia", and oppression is enabled by it. I'm not sure where I am going with this other than, don't feel disgust, just violently revolt the minute they over step "the" mark.

graeme 11y ago
Right. But that system of using the day to influence instigators is the logical negative way the data can be used. I don't think people have considered that. It wouldn't be every libdem supporter btw. It would be 300-3000 key actors, or less. That's all you really need to target. Most people stay in line without prompting. I mean that in a statistical, not a critical way.