4 ms·

>But at the same time, we technologists as a class knew academically that these capabilities could be abused, but nobody actually believed they would be abused.

>But at the same time, we technologists as a class knew academically that these capabilities could be abused, but nobody actually believed they would be abused. Because why would you do that? It seemed so antisocial as a basic concept. What's with 'we?' The various classes of technologists that I've been a member of - from the teen hax0r BBS days thru the crypto lists and Usenet groups to actual working professionals have absolutely believed this. It takes a truly spectacular amount of naivety to believe the contrary. I have a deep and profound respect for Snowden, who has certainly sacrificed any possible semblance of a normal life in his native culture and likely narrowly escaped a worse fate, something he must certainly have known was a risk. It is his very naivety that made him such a perfect whistleblower : he's in there looking around and he's like "Holy crap! These guys are into some profoundly bad shit! I have to tell everyone!" There's probably a hiring policy moral for black ops shops in there somewhere.

sievebrain 11y ago
I think he's right. His statement is carefully phrased. Yes, of course, all sorts of intelligent people have argued that the tools of mass surveillance could be developed and could be abused. But only a very small number of people picked up on AT&T Room 101 and Echelon and so on, and saw their significance. Unfortunately those things were more like news stories than events that redefined people's thinking. Mass surveillance simply wasn't a part of the conversation for the vast majority of technologists who mattered, i.e. the ones building the products we all use. The NSA leaks changed all that. Now you have the guys running WhatsApp and Apple talking about this stuff. And even though for politeness reasons they sometimes talk in hypotheticals, "if we don't encrypt it could be abused by bad governments", it's as clear as day that what they really mean is "because we don't encrypt it is being abused by our governments".
- stevetrewick 11y ago
  Not could. Had been and were, for which there was growing evidence culminating with the Snowden files. I don't disagree that they had a considerably larger impact than what went before. You're absolutely right in the sense that once the stories of GCHQ's black boxes, the EUP's documented disclosure of Echelon [0], room 101 and so on and so forth got outside the circle of people who were familiar with them they became FOAF stories and conspiracy theories and weren't part of any mainstream discourse, but there was a bit more to [it] than abstract hypotheticals and general 'power corrupts' cynicism. [0] An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/jadis/2013_12/8.PE4_AP_PV!LIBE.1994_LIBE-199801260050EN.pdf http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/jadis/2013_12/8.PE4_AP_PV!... [edit]

sievebrain 11y ago

I think he's right. His statement is carefully phrased. Yes, of course, all sorts of intelligent people have argued that the tools of mass surveillance could be developed and could be abused. But only a very small number of people picked up on AT&T Room 101 and Echelon and so on, and saw their significance. Unfortunately those things were more like news stories than events that redefined people's thinking. Mass surveillance simply wasn't a part of the conversation for the vast majority of technologists who mattered, i.e. the ones building the products we all use. The NSA leaks changed all that. Now you have the guys running WhatsApp and Apple talking about this stuff. And even though for politeness reasons they sometimes talk in hypotheticals, "if we don't encrypt it could be abused by bad governments", it's as clear as day that what they really mean is "because we don't encrypt it is being abused by our governments".

stevetrewick 11y ago
Not could. Had been and were, for which there was growing evidence culminating with the Snowden files. I don't disagree that they had a considerably larger impact than what went before. You're absolutely right in the sense that once the stories of GCHQ's black boxes, the EUP's documented disclosure of Echelon [0], room 101 and so on and so forth got outside the circle of people who were familiar with them they became FOAF stories and conspiracy theories and weren't part of any mainstream discourse, but there was a bit more to [it] than abstract hypotheticals and general 'power corrupts' cynicism. [0] An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/jadis/2013_12/8.PE4_AP_PV!LIBE.1994_LIBE-199801260050EN.pdf http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/jadis/2013_12/8.PE4_AP_PV!... [edit]