4 ms·

I wish there was a book detailing historic government abuses of data. It should focus on: what data was used, how was that data collected what the orig

I wish there was a book detailing historic government abuses of data. It should focus on: what data was used, how was that data collected what the original purpose of the collection How did the data move from the collecting administration to abusive administration It seems like there should be a wealth of historical examples. What data did the Stasi have, Mao's china, the purges of intellectuals in russia and SE Asia. I bet there are even records of Torquemada's Inquisition. It'd be interesting to learn something like guilt has historically been assigned based on friendships or family relationships rather than evidence of wrongdoing- that would be pretty damning in the context of metadata collection.

metasean 11y ago
Groups, government or otherwise, have done great evil with very little information (by today's standards) - http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide
- awakeasleep 11y ago
  The author is on the right track talking about how the Amsterdam census was used by the Nazis to track down Jewish people. But it's just a passing reference in a blog post about why "nothing to hide" is a bad idea. My point is, an authoratative reference listing all the available historical examples could be an important educational tool as policymakers and the public try and decide how our society should treat data.
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    Agreed. If somebody starts to writes this book, put me down for a few copies on "pre-order" now.
PeterPat 11y ago
Edward Snowden has documented extensively what is NSA is doing with big data, same goes for British intelligence. But it always them(Russians, bad asians, stazi) but not us (democratic Americans, westerners etc etc). You get my point eh?
- waterhouse 11y ago
  At least the NSA hasn't used the data to conduct large-scale campaigns of imprisonment and murder (so far). In an investigation of the sort the GP describes, it would make sense to start with the worst abuses of the data; though less-bad abuses should also be included.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > large-scale campaigns of imprisonment and murder That's counterproductive, because it's very bad PR in the long run. The modern way to abuse data is through "parallel construction", which allows for very efficient COINTELPRO-style targeting of anyone that would bring people together. There's a reason modern mass-surveillance technology is mapping relationships. Limiting our right to assemble has been happening for a long time (remember "free speech zones"?). Before any serious challenge to a power can happen, the people involved first have to realize other like-minded people exist, that they don't have to challenge power alone. (if anybody things this is implausible, I suggest re-reading the documents about JTRIG)
    - wodenokoto 11y ago
      How is the right to assembly practically limited?
      - waterhouse 11y ago
        "COINTELPRO-style" appears to mean for FBI/NSA agents to ""expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, neutralize or otherwise eliminate" the activities of these movements and their leaders." The obvious use-case that comes to mind would be for a leader of a politically inconvenient movement (ideally in the early stages) to have embarrassing, ideally career-ending or even jail-time-giving secrets exposed, to stop them from posing any further threat. "Parallel construction" would be orchestrating a scenario in which the secret gets revealed in a way that isn't obviously the work of the FBI. Let's say... arranging for a suspicious item of clothing belonging to a secret lover to be "accidentally" left behind for the spouse to find; staging some kind of mundane theft, getting the local police to get a warrant and search the target's residence and discover his recreational drug collection; perhaps even trumping up a crime entirely (ideally something like rape or possession of child pornography, the scandal of which would probably ruin the target's effectiveness as a leader even if a court acquits them sometime later). Exercise your imagination. If the above ideas are stupid and outlandish, well, I thought of them while writing this post; a large agency that systematizes the approach and applies it routinely could probably do much better. Harassment of any sort is probably useful in reducing a target's effectiveness; perhaps they first send disruptive internet commenters, then do more advanced things only if the target is still a threat. The question is, how much do they actually do, and what effect do they have? The JTRIG Wiki article gives some examples; I think I'd have to read more to evaluate their effectiveness.

metasean 11y ago

Groups, government or otherwise, have done great evil with very little information (by today's standards) - http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide

awakeasleep 11y ago
The author is on the right track talking about how the Amsterdam census was used by the Nazis to track down Jewish people. But it's just a passing reference in a blog post about why "nothing to hide" is a bad idea. My point is, an authoratative reference listing all the available historical examples could be an important educational tool as policymakers and the public try and decide how our society should treat data.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  Agreed. If somebody starts to writes this book, put me down for a few copies on "pre-order" now.

PeterPat 11y ago

Edward Snowden has documented extensively what is NSA is doing with big data, same goes for British intelligence. But it always them(Russians, bad asians, stazi) but not us (democratic Americans, westerners etc etc). You get my point eh?

waterhouse 11y ago
At least the NSA hasn't used the data to conduct large-scale campaigns of imprisonment and murder (so far). In an investigation of the sort the GP describes, it would make sense to start with the worst abuses of the data; though less-bad abuses should also be included.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > large-scale campaigns of imprisonment and murder That's counterproductive, because it's very bad PR in the long run. The modern way to abuse data is through "parallel construction", which allows for very efficient COINTELPRO-style targeting of anyone that would bring people together. There's a reason modern mass-surveillance technology is mapping relationships. Limiting our right to assemble has been happening for a long time (remember "free speech zones"?). Before any serious challenge to a power can happen, the people involved first have to realize other like-minded people exist, that they don't have to challenge power alone. (if anybody things this is implausible, I suggest re-reading the documents about JTRIG)
  - wodenokoto 11y ago
    How is the right to assembly practically limited?
    - waterhouse 11y ago
      "COINTELPRO-style" appears to mean for FBI/NSA agents to ""expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, neutralize or otherwise eliminate" the activities of these movements and their leaders." The obvious use-case that comes to mind would be for a leader of a politically inconvenient movement (ideally in the early stages) to have embarrassing, ideally career-ending or even jail-time-giving secrets exposed, to stop them from posing any further threat. "Parallel construction" would be orchestrating a scenario in which the secret gets revealed in a way that isn't obviously the work of the FBI. Let's say... arranging for a suspicious item of clothing belonging to a secret lover to be "accidentally" left behind for the spouse to find; staging some kind of mundane theft, getting the local police to get a warrant and search the target's residence and discover his recreational drug collection; perhaps even trumping up a crime entirely (ideally something like rape or possession of child pornography, the scandal of which would probably ruin the target's effectiveness as a leader even if a court acquits them sometime later). Exercise your imagination. If the above ideas are stupid and outlandish, well, I thought of them while writing this post; a large agency that systematizes the approach and applies it routinely could probably do much better. Harassment of any sort is probably useful in reducing a target's effectiveness; perhaps they first send disruptive internet commenters, then do more advanced things only if the target is still a threat. The question is, how much do they actually do, and what effect do they have? The JTRIG Wiki article gives some examples; I think I'd have to read more to evaluate their effectiveness.