4 ms·

> Really, spotting your name on a petition isn't mass surveillance. No. The goal of a petition is to show support for a course of action, and in this context,

by ygjb 10y ago

> Really, spotting your name on a petition isn't mass surveillance. No. The goal of a petition is to show support for a course of action, and in this context, exercising freedom of speech in a democracy. Taking the list of people who signed a petition, assigning a "risk score" to them because of their activism, storing it in a database for the future, and using that as a means to make decisions that affect those individuals freedoms is exactly the purpose of mass surveillance. In isolation, for one petition or one activity, it is a sensible thing. As a general practice it promotes the notion of thought-crime or pre-crime in which an individuals freedoms are curtailed because the individuals exercise of their freedoms is unpalatable to either the elected officials, or the entrenched bureaucracy.

bayesian_horse 10y ago
Even taking that list and using it to discredit people isn't mass surveillance, it may just be mean, or stupid or even evil. On the other hand, if I research someone for a position, I would rather not like to see their name on a petition for certain things. It always was this way. You just had to look harder for this information.
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  > it may just be mean, or stupid or even evil. Well, you could say that about the Nazis and Charles Manson, too. Couldn't you basically call anything just a "physical process" and get it over with? The rights of people are being violated by those sworn to protect them, and they feel helpless to change that. That is a problem, to put it mildly. > On the other hand, if I research someone for a position, I would rather not like to see their name on a petition for certain things. It always was this way. Yeah, it always was that way with too many people, and left unchecked, it will lead to the destruction of humanity. So I propose a new and much better way: when "researching" people, do not trust anyone who didn't give you positive confirmation of having spine, attention span and responsibility. I'm not saying signing a petition does that, but generally: go the other way. Do not waste your personal and professional time and energy on people who after all may remain on the wrong side of history. If the ground you stand on is not liberated ground at all times, reconsider your life. Don't be that guy obedient to what ultimately amounts to a bunch of deranged folk from a Stephen King novel or something. Realize that it would not be more than that, and that they too shall pass. The only open question is, whether they will take humanity with them, but there is no question in my mind about "their" (our) self-destructiveness. It's just not worth it to give in, in the really long run. > "Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand." -- from the movie "All the Presidents Men" (1976)
- ygjb 10y ago
  You are correct, taking a single data point and discrediting people with it isn't surveillance. Taking the list, and merging it with the myriad of other sets of metadata, reports, and other resources at the government's disposal is what makes it a contribution to surveillance. Taking all of those lists and resources, and performing that activity as a blanket activity across an entire population is what makes it mass. Your argument is entirely unhelpful because you are arguing one specific activity, which on it's own, against a single person or group of people, might be sensible, but across the general population, without any reasonable suspicion of ill intent, leads to exactly the kinds of problems that we all piss and moan about when we get on an airplane (security theatre, screening for brown people, not terrorists, etc, etc, etc). Also, unless that petition is material to their ability to do their job, what the hell does it matter?
- munchbunny 10y ago
  Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it's important to distinguish between two things. One is personal accountability for the views that you express, where people around you might dislike you for it. That's pretty unavoidable, but you can also choose who you associate with. The other is the government threatening or implying a threat to its citizens for thinking or believing a certain thing. This is very bad in the long run for minorities in race, opinion, or otherwise. Changing which government you live under is potentially quite difficult, certainly harder than choosing who you hang out with.

by ygjb 10y ago

bayesian_horse 10y ago

Even taking that list and using it to discredit people isn't mass surveillance, it may just be mean, or stupid or even evil. On the other hand, if I research someone for a position, I would rather not like to see their name on a petition for certain things. It always was this way. You just had to look harder for this information.

PavlovsCat 10y ago
> it may just be mean, or stupid or even evil. Well, you could say that about the Nazis and Charles Manson, too. Couldn't you basically call anything just a "physical process" and get it over with? The rights of people are being violated by those sworn to protect them, and they feel helpless to change that. That is a problem, to put it mildly. > On the other hand, if I research someone for a position, I would rather not like to see their name on a petition for certain things. It always was this way. Yeah, it always was that way with too many people, and left unchecked, it will lead to the destruction of humanity. So I propose a new and much better way: when "researching" people, do not trust anyone who didn't give you positive confirmation of having spine, attention span and responsibility. I'm not saying signing a petition does that, but generally: go the other way. Do not waste your personal and professional time and energy on people who after all may remain on the wrong side of history. If the ground you stand on is not liberated ground at all times, reconsider your life. Don't be that guy obedient to what ultimately amounts to a bunch of deranged folk from a Stephen King novel or something. Realize that it would not be more than that, and that they too shall pass. The only open question is, whether they will take humanity with them, but there is no question in my mind about "their" (our) self-destructiveness. It's just not worth it to give in, in the really long run. > "Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand." -- from the movie "All the Presidents Men" (1976)
ygjb 10y ago
You are correct, taking a single data point and discrediting people with it isn't surveillance. Taking the list, and merging it with the myriad of other sets of metadata, reports, and other resources at the government's disposal is what makes it a contribution to surveillance. Taking all of those lists and resources, and performing that activity as a blanket activity across an entire population is what makes it mass. Your argument is entirely unhelpful because you are arguing one specific activity, which on it's own, against a single person or group of people, might be sensible, but across the general population, without any reasonable suspicion of ill intent, leads to exactly the kinds of problems that we all piss and moan about when we get on an airplane (security theatre, screening for brown people, not terrorists, etc, etc, etc). Also, unless that petition is material to their ability to do their job, what the hell does it matter?
munchbunny 10y ago
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it's important to distinguish between two things. One is personal accountability for the views that you express, where people around you might dislike you for it. That's pretty unavoidable, but you can also choose who you associate with. The other is the government threatening or implying a threat to its citizens for thinking or believing a certain thing. This is very bad in the long run for minorities in race, opinion, or otherwise. Changing which government you live under is potentially quite difficult, certainly harder than choosing who you hang out with.