3 ms·

I actually looked up the Pew polling data before posting. You found a contradictory point, but not a solid case. Look at the public's reactions to the 'Echelo

by nickff 11y ago

I actually looked up the Pew polling data before posting. You found a contradictory point, but not a solid case. Look at the public's reactions to the 'Echelon' program for instance, and you will see their revulsion is ephemeral. In addition, the average citizen is against general surveillance, but in favor of suspect surveillance (as you will find if you look at the data a little more closely). The only way this works is to have backdoors, which everyone here knows are flawed.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> The only way this works is to have backdoors That is a lie. Targeted surveillance is easy if you can justify spending more resources per person than would be economical for mass surveillance. Because you don't need their own device to do the surveillance, you can use your device. Put a bug where the suspect is. You'll get surveillance of them entering their passphrase and then you can decrypt their device with it. No backdoor required. The Apple case is bizarre because the suspect is dead. Normally you don't investigate the dead because it's hard for the government to punish them.
striking 11y ago
This is the kind of discourse I was looking for! Is there anywhere I can read about the public's reactions to Echelon? And in terms of suspect surveillance, do you mean terrorist suspects? While it is true that most Americans are okay with terrorist surveillance (e.g. 64% think it's acceptable, ibid.) I don't think that equates with supporting blanket 4th-amendment-breaking government surveillance on US citizens.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
Or in other words: People always see themselves as good, then naively assume that therefore everyone else does, too, and that therefore obviously nobody would want to watch them, and therefore agree that surveillance of bad people is ok, as it couldn't possibly ever affect themselves. People generally aren't actually ok with surveillance, but rather they don't understand the dynamics of surveillance and thus ultimately don't actually understand the question they are answering in such a poll.

by nickff 11y ago

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

> The only way this works is to have backdoors That is a lie. Targeted surveillance is easy if you can justify spending more resources per person than would be economical for mass surveillance. Because you don't need their own device to do the surveillance, you can use your device. Put a bug where the suspect is. You'll get surveillance of them entering their passphrase and then you can decrypt their device with it. No backdoor required. The Apple case is bizarre because the suspect is dead. Normally you don't investigate the dead because it's hard for the government to punish them.

striking 11y ago

This is the kind of discourse I was looking for! Is there anywhere I can read about the public's reactions to Echelon? And in terms of suspect surveillance, do you mean terrorist suspects? While it is true that most Americans are okay with terrorist surveillance (e.g. 64% think it's acceptable, ibid.) I don't think that equates with supporting blanket 4th-amendment-breaking government surveillance on US citizens.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago

Or in other words: People always see themselves as good, then naively assume that therefore everyone else does, too, and that therefore obviously nobody would want to watch them, and therefore agree that surveillance of bad people is ok, as it couldn't possibly ever affect themselves. People generally aren't actually ok with surveillance, but rather they don't understand the dynamics of surveillance and thus ultimately don't actually understand the question they are answering in such a poll.