5 ms·

It's because everyone can understand someone listening in to their phone calls, but computers are magic. What we need is computer literacy and for people to be

It's because everyone can understand someone listening in to their phone calls, but computers are magic. What we need is computer literacy and for people to be educated of their rights as users of the world wide web.

2close4comfort 11y ago
This is brought to you by an intelligence community that thinks that using your AOL email address is good enough for classified information.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  To be fair, the intelligence community is outraged. It's their bosses that are downplaying the issue.
hodwik 11y ago
The government can tap pretty much any call, and has been collecting meta-data on all calls, and the public does not seem to mind. I think you're overestimating how much the public's indifference has to do with computer illiteracy. That's like saying gun control advocates only argue as they do because they don't understand guns. It's a really silly argument.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > That's like saying gun control advocates only argue as they do because they don't understand guns. It's a really silly argument. It's a completely valid argument in both cases. Banning only the scary-looking guns has no productive effect. And if you ask normal people whether they think government employees should be able to read steamy messages between husband and wife, the answer is going to be no. Also keep in mind that push polling is a thing. Every time you hear a statistic like "only 27% of Americans oppose mass surveillance," expect that the question was whether the government should be able to tap your phone if it was the only possible way to prevent a terrorist attack that would kill you. If you ask whether large numbers of government employees and contractors should be able to know everything about your business and sex life if it would have the same effectiveness in catching terrorists as a variety of alternative methods that would shovel fewer tax dollars into the pockets of large government contractors, you get a different answer.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    > And if you ask normal people whether they think government employees should be able to read steamy messages between husband and wife, the answer is going to be no. Disagree. The person imagines a constrained government, which would only be reading private messages when there is reason for suspicion. The only time another human would be invading their privacy is in an exceptional situation that happens to others (since they themselves are good), which can be just-worlded to the required degree. And of course mass media distorts their priors to think that suspicion strongly implies guilt - a TV show would be quite boring if there were no wrongdoing. I suspect tech is so (relatively) resistant to mass surveillance because we've perceived how horribly wrong group dynamics go and, rather than accepting being compliant herd followers, found our own outlets and created our own kingdoms. We are the outliers - we will never have the majority on our side.
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      > The person imagines a constrained government, which would only read private messages when there is reason for suspicion. That's the point. People who support mass surveillance or encryption bans only do so because they're uninformed (or have been purposely misinformed by others). You teach regular people how it actually works and they change their tune.
      - mindslight 11y ago
        Except the chance of a human seeing those messages is still constrained. I don't think your 'average' person is creeped out by a computer analyzing their messages. To the extent some might be, they have so little digital autonomy (gmail etc) that the only way they can change that is to avoid electronic communication for the things they'd like to keep private. And the majority are clearly not doing that for the bulk of their communication.
      - griffinmb 11y ago
        My parents are okay with mass surveillance. I've tried running them through how it actually works, but it turned out that they really don't seem to care about this kind of privacy. They are very much about the idea that "if it even saves just one person" it's worth it. On the subject of encryption bans and backdoors, I explained that this would make it easier for them to be the target of hacks and fraud. This concerned them, but ultimately they are under the impression that the people handling it know more than me and I can't be correct. I don't think they are particularly out-of-the-ordinary, so I don't think the solution is a simple act of informing people. I think people who do care about this stuff largely need to accept the possibility that this isn't important to the majority of the population, and that it never will be (no matter how informed the public is). Instead, we need to continue build the tools and the infrastructure to secure ourselves regardless of policy and legislation.
- al3xnull 11y ago
  Apologies if this devolves, but I have to comment: Except that many gun control advocates do argue as they do because they don't understand guns and the processes around them. Not so silly.
cm2187 11y ago
I think it's more generally "what you can't see doesn't exist". If there is a dodgy-looking guy staring at you when you go home, you get frightened. If he watching you through the CCTV then it's all fine. A bit like if you have a video of a guy getting killed on youtube it's horrible, but if it's a one liner in a newspaper about a drone bombing a house then it's ok. If there is a video of a guy killing someone with a knife in the street of London, it will be remembered for years as a horrendous terrorist attack. But if the police publishes statistics about knife attacks in your neighborhood then it's just a bunch of boring numbers.
- mindslight 11y ago
  When I discuss the issue of mass surveillance with older people, it's in the context of phone conversations. A lot of times they bring up the idea of a "click" on the line. If only.

2close4comfort 11y ago

This is brought to you by an intelligence community that thinks that using your AOL email address is good enough for classified information.

humanrebar 11y ago
To be fair, the intelligence community is outraged. It's their bosses that are downplaying the issue.

hodwik 11y ago

The government can tap pretty much any call, and has been collecting meta-data on all calls, and the public does not seem to mind. I think you're overestimating how much the public's indifference has to do with computer illiteracy. That's like saying gun control advocates only argue as they do because they don't understand guns. It's a really silly argument.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> That's like saying gun control advocates only argue as they do because they don't understand guns. It's a really silly argument. It's a completely valid argument in both cases. Banning only the scary-looking guns has no productive effect. And if you ask normal people whether they think government employees should be able to read steamy messages between husband and wife, the answer is going to be no. Also keep in mind that push polling is a thing. Every time you hear a statistic like "only 27% of Americans oppose mass surveillance," expect that the question was whether the government should be able to tap your phone if it was the only possible way to prevent a terrorist attack that would kill you. If you ask whether large numbers of government employees and contractors should be able to know everything about your business and sex life if it would have the same effectiveness in catching terrorists as a variety of alternative methods that would shovel fewer tax dollars into the pockets of large government contractors, you get a different answer.
- mindslight 11y ago
  > And if you ask normal people whether they think government employees should be able to read steamy messages between husband and wife, the answer is going to be no. Disagree. The person imagines a constrained government, which would only be reading private messages when there is reason for suspicion. The only time another human would be invading their privacy is in an exceptional situation that happens to others (since they themselves are good), which can be just-worlded to the required degree. And of course mass media distorts their priors to think that suspicion strongly implies guilt - a TV show would be quite boring if there were no wrongdoing. I suspect tech is so (relatively) resistant to mass surveillance because we've perceived how horribly wrong group dynamics go and, rather than accepting being compliant herd followers, found our own outlets and created our own kingdoms. We are the outliers - we will never have the majority on our side.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    > The person imagines a constrained government, which would only read private messages when there is reason for suspicion. That's the point. People who support mass surveillance or encryption bans only do so because they're uninformed (or have been purposely misinformed by others). You teach regular people how it actually works and they change their tune.
    - mindslight 11y ago
      Except the chance of a human seeing those messages is still constrained. I don't think your 'average' person is creeped out by a computer analyzing their messages. To the extent some might be, they have so little digital autonomy (gmail etc) that the only way they can change that is to avoid electronic communication for the things they'd like to keep private. And the majority are clearly not doing that for the bulk of their communication.
    - griffinmb 11y ago
      My parents are okay with mass surveillance. I've tried running them through how it actually works, but it turned out that they really don't seem to care about this kind of privacy. They are very much about the idea that "if it even saves just one person" it's worth it. On the subject of encryption bans and backdoors, I explained that this would make it easier for them to be the target of hacks and fraud. This concerned them, but ultimately they are under the impression that the people handling it know more than me and I can't be correct. I don't think they are particularly out-of-the-ordinary, so I don't think the solution is a simple act of informing people. I think people who do care about this stuff largely need to accept the possibility that this isn't important to the majority of the population, and that it never will be (no matter how informed the public is). Instead, we need to continue build the tools and the infrastructure to secure ourselves regardless of policy and legislation.
al3xnull 11y ago
Apologies if this devolves, but I have to comment: Except that many gun control advocates do argue as they do because they don't understand guns and the processes around them. Not so silly.

cm2187 11y ago

I think it's more generally "what you can't see doesn't exist". If there is a dodgy-looking guy staring at you when you go home, you get frightened. If he watching you through the CCTV then it's all fine. A bit like if you have a video of a guy getting killed on youtube it's horrible, but if it's a one liner in a newspaper about a drone bombing a house then it's ok. If there is a video of a guy killing someone with a knife in the street of London, it will be remembered for years as a horrendous terrorist attack. But if the police publishes statistics about knife attacks in your neighborhood then it's just a bunch of boring numbers.

mindslight 11y ago
When I discuss the issue of mass surveillance with older people, it's in the context of phone conversations. A lot of times they bring up the idea of a "click" on the line. If only.