6 ms·

Not everyone agrees with you that the tech sector is contributing to the building of a surveillance society or police state. There are a lot of people who have

Not everyone agrees with you that the tech sector is contributing to the building of a surveillance society or police state. There are a lot of people who have carefully considered the issue and come to the conclusion that facebook knowing what posts you liked or ad networks knowing which pages your IP address has visited is not a Bad Thing. It's clear that you don't agree and all debate is welcome, but I caution you not to trip in your rush to claim the moral high ground. I don't think there's any need to rehash the debate here. Simply, I and many others do not believe that any western government is going to use information gathered by tech companies to preempt threats to entrenched interests and the status quo. I've seen the same arguments made here for years, and none of it is convincing. It's admirable that you are so certain in your beliefs. If you don't like what the tech sector is doing, please by all means continue to advocate. Shout it from the mountain tops, go to work for the EFF. But don't discount people that legitimately disagree with you as being irresponsible. At least some of us have made the effort to understand your point of view. The least you could do is to try to understand ours.

Shivetya 11y ago
Privacy is similar to property rights in this guise. Facebook is like your backyard or even your home for many, you don't mind people you invite in see the pictures on the mantle, wall, or whatnot. You would mind if they start rummaging through the house though. So in regards to privacy we treat it like property. Governments which don't support good property rights are not going to care one whit about privacy and those who come after privacy will eventually tread on property rights. People need to understand it as something to be protected just as you would your physical stuff and work towards having it treated similarly in government.
blub 11y ago
Your whole post is written in bad faith and frankly revolting. Which sector is building startup after startup for data mining, tracking, building profiles? This in addition to the already established companies. Then you're trying to downplay the issue to trivial actions such Facebook likes or tracking of IP addresses, a toy version of the state of the art. Finally, the sarcasm, showing how reasonable you are and putting the OP in a bad light for not being "more understanding". It's quite simple: the topic of privacy is central to a free society and it's enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the past, we have seen a rich history of abuses, lies and deceit from huge organizations with massive resources at their disposal. Private or not. The majority of people go on with their lives without caring, as long as they have their basic needs met. The very few that take a stand, pay the price. Otherwise, some criticism of the behavior of these organizations can be found online, but not much because of: 1) Chilling effects. Funny how I had to think before posting this message, living comfortably in a democratic country, with freedom of thought and freedom of speech. 2) "Helpful people", quick to jump to the defense of said organizations, explaining away abuses, making up excuses, muddying the waters, asking for fairness and understanding their point of view. So thanks for keeping the balance karmacondon. They might have mountains of money, lawyers, shills, PR people and most resources imaginable really, BUT we wouldn't want to unfairly hurt their feelings. I do apologize for that.
- golergka 11y ago
  > Which sector is building startup after startup for data mining, tracking, building profiles? You talk about it like it's necessarily a bad thing, by default, for everyone. Why?
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Because information is power and power tends to be abused over the longer term, all fig-leaves about 'improving the world' to the contrary.
    - golergka 11y ago
      > Because information is power and power tends to be abused over the longer term, all fig-leaves about 'improving the world' to the contrary. This sounds more like a uncompromising proclamation instead of thorough analysis.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        It's simply an observation made over history, it's not a proclamation and there is no analysis involved. Anybody that has been following the applications of information technology from the earliest of times would most likely come to that same conclusion. The ancients had it as 'power corrupts', the abuses are plentiful and that every company that engages in these practices (and the government agencies as well) do this to ostensibly make our lives easier or keep us 'safe' is very well known and advertised. If you have evidence to the contrary feel free to share it but that's where we currently stand.
        golergka 11y ago
        > The ancients had it as 'power corrupts' Well, then logical thing would be not to give anyone any power, ever. My point is, if you take general principles and blindly apply it with "no analysis involved", you're likely to get to a pretty ridiculous state.
jacquesm 11y ago
> But don't discount people that legitimately disagree with you as being irresponsible. Why not? You may disagree, that doesn't mean you can't be flat-out wrong. Having an opinion does not automatically give that opinion equal weight when history has proven to us again and again that that particular opinion ends up with making society either dangerous or at a minimum uncomfortable. I'm sure there were border guards in former East Germany that were entirely convinced that their state was the greatest and that's why they had to keep people in at all costs, including shooting them if they persisted in believing otherwise and tried to simply leave. After all, that was best for them. But that particular opinion turned out to be very wrong in the long term. People can rationalize the most absurd stuff to themselves and to others, especially when their pay-check depends on it, but that's not a requirement. All those that try to pretend that there is some kind of 'reasonable disagreement' possible about the erosion of privacy and that directly and indirectly help to rush in the surveillance state have quite possibly not thought as carefully and have not considered these things with the degree of gravity required as they claim they have. Having a mortgage to pay may factor in there somewhere too. Usually this is a combination of being too young, too optimistic and in general living too sheltered a life to know what can happen to you, your family and your friends when the tide turns. And the tide always turns, nothing is forever. > Simply, I and many others do not believe that any western government is going to use information gathered by tech companies to preempt threats to entrenched interests and the status quo. I hope you're right but history is not on your side in this case. > I've seen the same arguments made here for years, and none of it is convincing. Yes, it isn't going to convince you any more than that border guard would be convinced that his job is a net negative to society. Every stream, no matter how reprehensible will always have its fans and cheerleaders. And later on they will never remember that they had agency all along and were perfectly capable of making a different decision. Responsibility is weird that way. > It's admirable that you are so certain in your beliefs. It is not admirable that you are so certain in yours. May I suggest a couple of talks with some holocaust survivors to get a better feel for what the true power of information can get you? Or maybe the family members of some people that were killed while trying to flee the former SovBlock? Or maybe some first generation immigrants to the US or Canada or wherever you live to give you some eye witness accounts on what it was like to live in those countries before the wall fell down? 'It can't happen here' is an extremely naive point of view. http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide Agreed with your advocacy advice. > The least you could do is to try to understand ours. That's 'mine' not 'ours', you speak for yourself.
SomeStupidPoint 11y ago
> Simply, I and many others do not believe that any western government is going to use information gathered by tech companies to preempt threats to entrenched interests and the status quo. It's simply hard to take your stance as one made in good faith. The US government has a long history of using its national police, the FBI, to infiltrate and subvert domestic political movements that the powers that be found unpleasant -- including using their police powers against modern groups such as the Occupy movement. Further, we know that the US government has used records held by tech companies to create massive cross-referenced databases of people, including domestic activities. The recent leaks about surveillance programs has made that abundantly clear. Your position is literally that an organization with a history of doing this kind of activity won't use the technology we already know the government possesses to keep doing the same thing. So I think there is a need for you to rehash the debate here, because it's not clear how you sincerely hold that position. Because rather than a rational view, what you describe sounds like irrational denial.
- karmacondon 11y ago
  You're saying, "We should not trust the government because they did things that I didn't agree with in the past". This seems like an unfair standard to hold any person or group of people to. I would be unhappy if people said "I think that karmacondon has made mistakes in the past, so he shouldn't be trusted to do his job ever again." I understand what you're saying, and I think I get where you're coming from. But like the GGP post, you're begging the question and assuming that your beliefs are so correct that anyone who disagrees with them must be insincere. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the government monitoring potentially criminal groups or building databases. That's what we pay them to do. If they get out of hand then we, the people, will deal with it.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > I would be unhappy if people said "I think that karmacondon has made mistakes in the past, so he shouldn't be trusted to do his job ever again." It's not about mistakes. Mistakes are - usually - a sign that someone needed to learn. They do not as a rule include wanton intent. And if a person were to make too many mistakes then they probably should not be trusted. > I understand what you're saying, and I think I get where you're coming from. But like the GGP post, you're begging the question and assuming that your beliefs are so correct that anyone who disagrees with them must be insincere. No, that's the opposite. You have beliefs that you state are so correct that they stand on their own, in spite of a bunch of historical evidence to the contrary, starting roughly at the time that we invented writing going all the way into the present. That's a pretty gullible position. > I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the government monitoring potentially criminal groups or building databases. That's what we pay them to do. If they get out of hand then we, the people, will deal with it. Potentially criminal groupls: everybody. You're apparently one of the people where the 'fear' button has been pressed, don't let your fear get the better of you. Btw, I note that you write all these 'reasonable disagreement' things from the position of an anonymous coward which makes me think that maybe you do realize the value of your privacy after all.
tobbyb 11y ago
The question is 'not a bad thing' for whom? That phrase comes across a bit of doublespeak. Can self serving advocacy by those who financially benefit from surveillance be termed a 'debate', as they are the only ones who make that point. I don't know of anyone clamoring for surveillance as 'its a good thing'. Is it a social good? The ability of power or authority to lock you up, take your property or worse your life is protected by rule of law and due process. Having a debate of the rule of law or due process is similar to having a debate on privacy or a surveillance state. The consequences are negative for the individual and society as a whole, even though they may benefit some stakeholders in the short term who will of course advocate for it but on the whole it's not a social good. The only thing we have to come to this conclusion is history, a wide body of knowledge and reason. We can thus say with some degree of confidence that a society without rule of law or due process is not a good thing similar to a society with surveillance is not a good thing. We don’t use the ‘moral high ground’ but reason and historical experience to make these conclusions. This is not a moral issue but a practical one that has consequences for our societies. The ethical issue is the social good for the people who build these systems. Since we are discussing the social good the alternative view needs to be backed by reason on how surveillance can be good for society as a whole, beyond offering naive presumptions suggesting people are good and will not abuse the power, or how knowing details of everyone’s activities may be beneficial to an individual or company because while that may be true they do not address the social good. And the only thing we use in these discussions is reason, let's not make it personal.
cryoshon 11y ago
What about Palantir, then? Very hard to suggest they aren't supporting the police state. It's unquestionable that the tech sector is directly culpable for supporting the cops and the politicians to spy on us... to affirm otherwise is counterfactual. The moral high ground belongs to the people who don't collaborate with those who would rather have us dumb and controlled. It's pretty hard to respect the pro-surveillance view because it seems flatly head-in-sand ignorant of reality time and time again. We have evidence of surveillance state wrongdoing in hand, and no successes to point to while simultaneously experiencing multiple terror attacks, and yet the pro-surveillance types are steadfast in their position, as though it's a religion. The Snowden files showed us explicitly that disrupting political groups is actually done via GCHQ! This is very far from protecting the citizens, and is instead stifling them purposefully. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Threat_Research_Intellig... I actively am discounting the opinion of people that do not understand this threat realized, currently unfolding threat to our democracy. An informed opinion doesn't sound like one passed via the government through the media.
m1sta_ 11y ago
I'm more worried about a lack of government transparency than I am about personal privacy.
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  Por que no los dos? I'm worried about both, and I can't say which I'm worried about more. What are the reasons you are concerned about one more than the other?
  - m1sta_ 11y ago
    Governments are exceptionally powerful. In theory they have control of 50% of my income, as well as the police, legal system, and military. Genuinely corrupt government is one of the scariest things I can imagine. If the government is not corrupt, I have optimism in being able to get through a personal attack.

Shivetya 11y ago

Privacy is similar to property rights in this guise. Facebook is like your backyard or even your home for many, you don't mind people you invite in see the pictures on the mantle, wall, or whatnot. You would mind if they start rummaging through the house though. So in regards to privacy we treat it like property. Governments which don't support good property rights are not going to care one whit about privacy and those who come after privacy will eventually tread on property rights. People need to understand it as something to be protected just as you would your physical stuff and work towards having it treated similarly in government.

blub 11y ago

Your whole post is written in bad faith and frankly revolting. Which sector is building startup after startup for data mining, tracking, building profiles? This in addition to the already established companies. Then you're trying to downplay the issue to trivial actions such Facebook likes or tracking of IP addresses, a toy version of the state of the art. Finally, the sarcasm, showing how reasonable you are and putting the OP in a bad light for not being "more understanding". It's quite simple: the topic of privacy is central to a free society and it's enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the past, we have seen a rich history of abuses, lies and deceit from huge organizations with massive resources at their disposal. Private or not. The majority of people go on with their lives without caring, as long as they have their basic needs met. The very few that take a stand, pay the price. Otherwise, some criticism of the behavior of these organizations can be found online, but not much because of: 1) Chilling effects. Funny how I had to think before posting this message, living comfortably in a democratic country, with freedom of thought and freedom of speech. 2) "Helpful people", quick to jump to the defense of said organizations, explaining away abuses, making up excuses, muddying the waters, asking for fairness and understanding their point of view. So thanks for keeping the balance karmacondon. They might have mountains of money, lawyers, shills, PR people and most resources imaginable really, BUT we wouldn't want to unfairly hurt their feelings. I do apologize for that.

golergka 11y ago
> Which sector is building startup after startup for data mining, tracking, building profiles? You talk about it like it's necessarily a bad thing, by default, for everyone. Why?
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Because information is power and power tends to be abused over the longer term, all fig-leaves about 'improving the world' to the contrary.
  - golergka 11y ago
    > Because information is power and power tends to be abused over the longer term, all fig-leaves about 'improving the world' to the contrary. This sounds more like a uncompromising proclamation instead of thorough analysis.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      It's simply an observation made over history, it's not a proclamation and there is no analysis involved. Anybody that has been following the applications of information technology from the earliest of times would most likely come to that same conclusion. The ancients had it as 'power corrupts', the abuses are plentiful and that every company that engages in these practices (and the government agencies as well) do this to ostensibly make our lives easier or keep us 'safe' is very well known and advertised. If you have evidence to the contrary feel free to share it but that's where we currently stand.
      - golergka 11y ago
        > The ancients had it as 'power corrupts' Well, then logical thing would be not to give anyone any power, ever. My point is, if you take general principles and blindly apply it with "no analysis involved", you're likely to get to a pretty ridiculous state.

jacquesm 11y ago

> But don't discount people that legitimately disagree with you as being irresponsible. Why not? You may disagree, that doesn't mean you can't be flat-out wrong. Having an opinion does not automatically give that opinion equal weight when history has proven to us again and again that that particular opinion ends up with making society either dangerous or at a minimum uncomfortable. I'm sure there were border guards in former East Germany that were entirely convinced that their state was the greatest and that's why they had to keep people in at all costs, including shooting them if they persisted in believing otherwise and tried to simply leave. After all, that was best for them. But that particular opinion turned out to be very wrong in the long term. People can rationalize the most absurd stuff to themselves and to others, especially when their pay-check depends on it, but that's not a requirement. All those that try to pretend that there is some kind of 'reasonable disagreement' possible about the erosion of privacy and that directly and indirectly help to rush in the surveillance state have quite possibly not thought as carefully and have not considered these things with the degree of gravity required as they claim they have. Having a mortgage to pay may factor in there somewhere too. Usually this is a combination of being too young, too optimistic and in general living too sheltered a life to know what can happen to you, your family and your friends when the tide turns. And the tide always turns, nothing is forever. > Simply, I and many others do not believe that any western government is going to use information gathered by tech companies to preempt threats to entrenched interests and the status quo. I hope you're right but history is not on your side in this case. > I've seen the same arguments made here for years, and none of it is convincing. Yes, it isn't going to convince you any more than that border guard would be convinced that his job is a net negative to society. Every stream, no matter how reprehensible will always have its fans and cheerleaders. And later on they will never remember that they had agency all along and were perfectly capable of making a different decision. Responsibility is weird that way. > It's admirable that you are so certain in your beliefs. It is not admirable that you are so certain in yours. May I suggest a couple of talks with some holocaust survivors to get a better feel for what the true power of information can get you? Or maybe the family members of some people that were killed while trying to flee the former SovBlock? Or maybe some first generation immigrants to the US or Canada or wherever you live to give you some eye witness accounts on what it was like to live in those countries before the wall fell down? 'It can't happen here' is an extremely naive point of view. http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide Agreed with your advocacy advice. > The least you could do is to try to understand ours. That's 'mine' not 'ours', you speak for yourself.

SomeStupidPoint 11y ago

> Simply, I and many others do not believe that any western government is going to use information gathered by tech companies to preempt threats to entrenched interests and the status quo. It's simply hard to take your stance as one made in good faith. The US government has a long history of using its national police, the FBI, to infiltrate and subvert domestic political movements that the powers that be found unpleasant -- including using their police powers against modern groups such as the Occupy movement. Further, we know that the US government has used records held by tech companies to create massive cross-referenced databases of people, including domestic activities. The recent leaks about surveillance programs has made that abundantly clear. Your position is literally that an organization with a history of doing this kind of activity won't use the technology we already know the government possesses to keep doing the same thing. So I think there is a need for you to rehash the debate here, because it's not clear how you sincerely hold that position. Because rather than a rational view, what you describe sounds like irrational denial.

karmacondon 11y ago
You're saying, "We should not trust the government because they did things that I didn't agree with in the past". This seems like an unfair standard to hold any person or group of people to. I would be unhappy if people said "I think that karmacondon has made mistakes in the past, so he shouldn't be trusted to do his job ever again." I understand what you're saying, and I think I get where you're coming from. But like the GGP post, you're begging the question and assuming that your beliefs are so correct that anyone who disagrees with them must be insincere. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the government monitoring potentially criminal groups or building databases. That's what we pay them to do. If they get out of hand then we, the people, will deal with it.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > I would be unhappy if people said "I think that karmacondon has made mistakes in the past, so he shouldn't be trusted to do his job ever again." It's not about mistakes. Mistakes are - usually - a sign that someone needed to learn. They do not as a rule include wanton intent. And if a person were to make too many mistakes then they probably should not be trusted. > I understand what you're saying, and I think I get where you're coming from. But like the GGP post, you're begging the question and assuming that your beliefs are so correct that anyone who disagrees with them must be insincere. No, that's the opposite. You have beliefs that you state are so correct that they stand on their own, in spite of a bunch of historical evidence to the contrary, starting roughly at the time that we invented writing going all the way into the present. That's a pretty gullible position. > I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the government monitoring potentially criminal groups or building databases. That's what we pay them to do. If they get out of hand then we, the people, will deal with it. Potentially criminal groupls: everybody. You're apparently one of the people where the 'fear' button has been pressed, don't let your fear get the better of you. Btw, I note that you write all these 'reasonable disagreement' things from the position of an anonymous coward which makes me think that maybe you do realize the value of your privacy after all.

tobbyb 11y ago

The question is 'not a bad thing' for whom? That phrase comes across a bit of doublespeak. Can self serving advocacy by those who financially benefit from surveillance be termed a 'debate', as they are the only ones who make that point. I don't know of anyone clamoring for surveillance as 'its a good thing'. Is it a social good? The ability of power or authority to lock you up, take your property or worse your life is protected by rule of law and due process. Having a debate of the rule of law or due process is similar to having a debate on privacy or a surveillance state. The consequences are negative for the individual and society as a whole, even though they may benefit some stakeholders in the short term who will of course advocate for it but on the whole it's not a social good. The only thing we have to come to this conclusion is history, a wide body of knowledge and reason. We can thus say with some degree of confidence that a society without rule of law or due process is not a good thing similar to a society with surveillance is not a good thing. We don’t use the ‘moral high ground’ but reason and historical experience to make these conclusions. This is not a moral issue but a practical one that has consequences for our societies. The ethical issue is the social good for the people who build these systems. Since we are discussing the social good the alternative view needs to be backed by reason on how surveillance can be good for society as a whole, beyond offering naive presumptions suggesting people are good and will not abuse the power, or how knowing details of everyone’s activities may be beneficial to an individual or company because while that may be true they do not address the social good. And the only thing we use in these discussions is reason, let's not make it personal.

cryoshon 11y ago

What about Palantir, then? Very hard to suggest they aren't supporting the police state. It's unquestionable that the tech sector is directly culpable for supporting the cops and the politicians to spy on us... to affirm otherwise is counterfactual. The moral high ground belongs to the people who don't collaborate with those who would rather have us dumb and controlled. It's pretty hard to respect the pro-surveillance view because it seems flatly head-in-sand ignorant of reality time and time again. We have evidence of surveillance state wrongdoing in hand, and no successes to point to while simultaneously experiencing multiple terror attacks, and yet the pro-surveillance types are steadfast in their position, as though it's a religion. The Snowden files showed us explicitly that disrupting political groups is actually done via GCHQ! This is very far from protecting the citizens, and is instead stifling them purposefully. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Threat_Research_Intellig... I actively am discounting the opinion of people that do not understand this threat realized, currently unfolding threat to our democracy. An informed opinion doesn't sound like one passed via the government through the media.

m1sta_ 11y ago

I'm more worried about a lack of government transparency than I am about personal privacy.

CaptSpify 11y ago
Por que no los dos? I'm worried about both, and I can't say which I'm worried about more. What are the reasons you are concerned about one more than the other?
- m1sta_ 11y ago
  Governments are exceptionally powerful. In theory they have control of 50% of my income, as well as the police, legal system, and military. Genuinely corrupt government is one of the scariest things I can imagine. If the government is not corrupt, I have optimism in being able to get through a personal attack.