23 ms·

> Just like knowing the lock is useless for people who are willing to go into my house, I still shut the door and lock it every morning when I leave home. We ar

> Just like knowing the lock is useless for people who are willing to go into my house, I still shut the door and lock it every morning when I leave home. We are in a fking corrupted world, unfortunately. He fucking nailed it. This is what all of us are feeling. It's almost like, we are collectively being punished by trying to make shit more secure. It makes me dysphoric with hopelessness. I can no longer proudly claim the West is free. We are living in a surveillance state. It's going to be hard to point fingers at other authoritative regimes around the world using the same tools. I sometimes feel as if the West is a giant hypocrisy because of the double standards it upholds but relatively better than it's counterparts. Lesser evils.

r00fus 10y ago
We don't just live in a surveillance state, it's also an oligarchy. Don't fret though - the security state has been building for a long time: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html
Waterluvian 10y ago
The West, or the United States? I feel like many Western nations wouldn't do this crap if the Americans didn't just politically strongarm them.
- Someone1234 10y ago
  You mean the West who are in the Five Eyes intelligence collective[0]? Alright, I get it, German may not be doing this and a few Nordic countries, but overall The West is waist high in this type of stuff. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  The west. See UKUSA agreement [1] and echelon [2] for a primer on how global surveillance[3] started mid 20th century. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance
sillysaurus3 10y ago
I can no longer proudly claim the West is free. We are living in a surveillance state. That's a little disrespectful to those who actually lived in surveillance states. Is your neighbor watching you, ready to report you to the state for suspected subversive activities? Even if you were engaged in actual subversive activities, like reading and publishing terrorist propaganda or selling drugs at scale, Tor makes it possible to do this with relatively little risk to yourself. It's still risky, but nothing like it used to be. And even if the government knows that you do these things, how much of a threat do you need to pose before they'll act against you in particular? The governments of old would routinely act against large numbers of their population for far less. I'm not arguing for complacency, but it's important to keep perspective.
- pabloski 10y ago
  "Is your neighbor watching you, ready to report you to the state for suspected subversive activities?", No! Because there is no need for them ( three letter agencies ) to hire your neighbor when they can "hire" your smart TV.
  - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
    Exactly. Your neighbor doesn't need to report on you, because you do it yourself with the bug in your pocket that records every word you say and every move you make.
- touristtam 10y ago
  > That's a little disrespectful to those who actually lived in surveillance states. Is your neighbor watching you, ready to report you to the state for suspected subversive activities? No really disrespectful. It is a valid concern that what other had to suffer could be a real future potential, realized through technological mean. The human reporter is taking away from the equation. But I get where your are coming from having experienced this second hand.
- tripzilch 10y ago
  > That's a little disrespectful to those who actually lived in surveillance states. Is your neighbor watching you, ready to report you to the state for suspected subversive activities? What's worse, if your neighbour consented to watching you and is actively reporting, or if the surveillance state doesn't even need your neighbour's consent to watch you because these neighbours (and family, friends, partner, etc) are all on Facebook, voluntarily carrying GPS-tracked recording devices everywhere they go, even into your bedroom--thereby making any defensive choice you can make for yourself useless, not joining Facebook, taking care what happens to your phone, etc. Certainly you can argue it's more disheartening and chilling if, through propaganda, your neighbour voluntarily chooses to report you to the state. On the other hand, the part where the state doesn't even need consent, that they can watch you much more closely and accurately, all the while your neighbours believe everything is fine--that's also pretty bad. I'm all for perspective, but can we agree that it's just different? Maybe they don't carry people off to secret prisons quite as often any more. But the level and depth of surveillance is a lot worse, they know a lot more about everybody. And the propaganda, they don't need it to convince your neighbours to spy on you to make sure you're not doing anything subversive, no they control the Facebook feeds and the media's narrative to attack the concept of "subversive" itself. > And even if the government knows that you do these things, how much of a threat do you need to pose before they'll act against you in particular? The governments of old would routinely act against large numbers of their population for far less. But what if today, for the governments it is easier to not just act against you in particular, they defuse the whole threat on a much wider scale, the "terrorist propaganda" with a truckload of "fake news" (already there, just a little nudge into the spotlight). I suppose that yes, if you carefully add all the pros and cons together, these old surveillance states were in fact worse. Given that I believe torture is one of the worst possible things you can do to a person, and that happened on a much larger scale, if you're keeping score that really makes it worse. On the other hand what we have now in the West is also pretty bad. And the level and depth of surveillance and control is worse now. Just because something that was worse was called a "surveillance state", doesn't mean we are also living in one now, and that it's doing bad things to our freedoms. (granted your last line pretty much tried to say this, I felt like I needed to add some words)
ythn 10y ago
> I can no longer proudly claim the West is free. We are living in a surveillance state. Anarchy is the only true freedom. Any social contract (i.e. government) limits freedom. Still, saying the west is not free is disingenuous. One can still have many freedoms in a surveillance state. For example, I can criticize Trump without fear of being sent to a labor camp in a surveillance state. I can attempt to spread my religious beliefs without being randomly kidnapped.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- yakult 10y ago
  You can criticize the devil all you want in medieval europe, too. You can attempt to spread your religious beliefs without being kidnapped so long as your king and your bishop share the same beliefs. Try copypasting a few lines from 4chan's /pol/ in other mediums and see how far your freedom gets you.
  - ythn 10y ago
    Trump is the worst president ever and I hope he gets impeached. Are jack-booted federal thugs going to kick in my door tonight and kidnap me now? Tell me more about my lack of freedom as I shoot my glock out my car window while spinning donuts on my property. In Iran you go to prison for criticizing the president. In Malaysia (and other Muslim countries) you get kidnapped for trying to spread Christianity. In China you disappear if you start agitating for dissension on any medium. Someone merely observing you isn't taking away your freedom to say or do things.
    - yakult 10y ago
      Criticising Trump on HN is like criticizing US imperialism in China or criticizing Israeli settlements in Iran. It is a safe subject. Everybody agrees with you, including those who pays the people in jackboots. Obviously nobody will kick your door in. What happens to people with the unpopular opinions? Well, Berkeley.
vtange 10y ago
For what its worth I still hold the glimmer of hope in seeing people believe (or try to believe) and fight towards free societies. We still have a spirit that has been smothered in other authoritarian states. You will know it's really over when everyone simply gives up their liberties in exchange of security, economy or national pride.
nfin 10y ago
The more people read Culture&Empire (free: https://www.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/culture-empire/ https://www.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/culture-empire/) the better! Even though a few parts might (!) be lightly exagerated, overall we should read and fight!
djsumdog 10y ago
It's been that way. I mean you might be realizing it now, but we've been in a propaganda state since even before WW2. For people who still think we aren't, ask yourself why Americans think of breakfast when you say "Bacon and Eggs." That was an advertising campaign by Edward Bernays (Freud's nephew). He also helped the tobacco industry increase the number of women who smoked cigarettes (lookup "Torches of Freedom"). You might not think that product advertising relates to propaganda, but Bernays was the father of "Public Relations." The first public relations department was for the US government, and he chose that term because Propaganda had a bad connotation to it. Public Relations is literally a weasel word/phrase to replace Propaganda. These are important things to consider when you think about voting and "free will." Advertising has been used to make people think quality diamonds are rare (they're not), bacon and eggs are a standard breakfast and that tobacco is a symbol of womens' liberation. If you acknowledge that, you also have to realize advertising has convinced much of America there are only two political parties worth voting for, and that they're different (even thought they universally enact the same foreign policy. Bush Jr = 2 wars, Obama = 5 wars, Trump/Hillary = both will/would bring more war. I ask you, when has a war protest or congress ever stopped any of these wars from happening?) Finally, the CIA has admitted to having operatives in US magazines for decades, and they refuse to answer if they have operatives in US television (https://youtu.be/U1Qt6a-vaNM?t=2h30m35s https://youtu.be/U1Qt6a-vaNM?t=2h30m35s). We've been in 1984 for decades prior to 1984.
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  A little clarification, after world war I Bernays wanted to use war propaganda during peacetime to manipulate people and opinions which he thought were irrational and dangerous, and coined the name public relations to avoid the stigma propaganda had due its use by Germans during the war. He's also the guy behind "engineering of consent", the use of press releases, fear of communism during cold war, and much much more. I'm not so sure we've been in 1984, there is a valid case[1] for us living in a brave new world or at least a mix of both 1984 and a brave new world. [1]: https://biblioklept.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/huxley-orwell-amusing-ourselves-to-death.jpg https://biblioklept.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/huxley-orwel... http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/rrxW1.png http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/rrxW1.png

r00fus 10y ago

We don't just live in a surveillance state, it's also an oligarchy. Don't fret though - the security state has been building for a long time: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

Waterluvian 10y ago

The West, or the United States? I feel like many Western nations wouldn't do this crap if the Americans didn't just politically strongarm them.

Someone1234 10y ago
You mean the West who are in the Five Eyes intelligence collective[0]? Alright, I get it, German may not be doing this and a few Nordic countries, but overall The West is waist high in this type of stuff. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
bigbugbag 10y ago
The west. See UKUSA agreement [1] and echelon [2] for a primer on how global surveillance[3] started mid 20th century. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance

sillysaurus3 10y ago

I can no longer proudly claim the West is free. We are living in a surveillance state. That's a little disrespectful to those who actually lived in surveillance states. Is your neighbor watching you, ready to report you to the state for suspected subversive activities? Even if you were engaged in actual subversive activities, like reading and publishing terrorist propaganda or selling drugs at scale, Tor makes it possible to do this with relatively little risk to yourself. It's still risky, but nothing like it used to be. And even if the government knows that you do these things, how much of a threat do you need to pose before they'll act against you in particular? The governments of old would routinely act against large numbers of their population for far less. I'm not arguing for complacency, but it's important to keep perspective.

pabloski 10y ago
"Is your neighbor watching you, ready to report you to the state for suspected subversive activities?", No! Because there is no need for them ( three letter agencies ) to hire your neighbor when they can "hire" your smart TV.
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago
  Exactly. Your neighbor doesn't need to report on you, because you do it yourself with the bug in your pocket that records every word you say and every move you make.
touristtam 10y ago
> That's a little disrespectful to those who actually lived in surveillance states. Is your neighbor watching you, ready to report you to the state for suspected subversive activities? No really disrespectful. It is a valid concern that what other had to suffer could be a real future potential, realized through technological mean. The human reporter is taking away from the equation. But I get where your are coming from having experienced this second hand.
tripzilch 10y ago
> That's a little disrespectful to those who actually lived in surveillance states. Is your neighbor watching you, ready to report you to the state for suspected subversive activities? What's worse, if your neighbour consented to watching you and is actively reporting, or if the surveillance state doesn't even need your neighbour's consent to watch you because these neighbours (and family, friends, partner, etc) are all on Facebook, voluntarily carrying GPS-tracked recording devices everywhere they go, even into your bedroom--thereby making any defensive choice you can make for yourself useless, not joining Facebook, taking care what happens to your phone, etc. Certainly you can argue it's more disheartening and chilling if, through propaganda, your neighbour voluntarily chooses to report you to the state. On the other hand, the part where the state doesn't even need consent, that they can watch you much more closely and accurately, all the while your neighbours believe everything is fine--that's also pretty bad. I'm all for perspective, but can we agree that it's just different? Maybe they don't carry people off to secret prisons quite as often any more. But the level and depth of surveillance is a lot worse, they know a lot more about everybody. And the propaganda, they don't need it to convince your neighbours to spy on you to make sure you're not doing anything subversive, no they control the Facebook feeds and the media's narrative to attack the concept of "subversive" itself. > And even if the government knows that you do these things, how much of a threat do you need to pose before they'll act against you in particular? The governments of old would routinely act against large numbers of their population for far less. But what if today, for the governments it is easier to not just act against you in particular, they defuse the whole threat on a much wider scale, the "terrorist propaganda" with a truckload of "fake news" (already there, just a little nudge into the spotlight). I suppose that yes, if you carefully add all the pros and cons together, these old surveillance states were in fact worse. Given that I believe torture is one of the worst possible things you can do to a person, and that happened on a much larger scale, if you're keeping score that really makes it worse. On the other hand what we have now in the West is also pretty bad. And the level and depth of surveillance and control is worse now. Just because something that was worse was called a "surveillance state", doesn't mean we are also living in one now, and that it's doing bad things to our freedoms. (granted your last line pretty much tried to say this, I felt like I needed to add some words)

ythn 10y ago

> I can no longer proudly claim the West is free. We are living in a surveillance state. Anarchy is the only true freedom. Any social contract (i.e. government) limits freedom. Still, saying the west is not free is disingenuous. One can still have many freedoms in a surveillance state. For example, I can criticize Trump without fear of being sent to a labor camp in a surveillance state. I can attempt to spread my religious beliefs without being randomly kidnapped.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
yakult 10y ago
You can criticize the devil all you want in medieval europe, too. You can attempt to spread your religious beliefs without being kidnapped so long as your king and your bishop share the same beliefs. Try copypasting a few lines from 4chan's /pol/ in other mediums and see how far your freedom gets you.
- ythn 10y ago
  Trump is the worst president ever and I hope he gets impeached. Are jack-booted federal thugs going to kick in my door tonight and kidnap me now? Tell me more about my lack of freedom as I shoot my glock out my car window while spinning donuts on my property. In Iran you go to prison for criticizing the president. In Malaysia (and other Muslim countries) you get kidnapped for trying to spread Christianity. In China you disappear if you start agitating for dissension on any medium. Someone merely observing you isn't taking away your freedom to say or do things.
  - yakult 10y ago
    Criticising Trump on HN is like criticizing US imperialism in China or criticizing Israeli settlements in Iran. It is a safe subject. Everybody agrees with you, including those who pays the people in jackboots. Obviously nobody will kick your door in. What happens to people with the unpopular opinions? Well, Berkeley.

vtange 10y ago

For what its worth I still hold the glimmer of hope in seeing people believe (or try to believe) and fight towards free societies. We still have a spirit that has been smothered in other authoritarian states. You will know it's really over when everyone simply gives up their liberties in exchange of security, economy or national pride.

nfin 10y ago

The more people read Culture&Empire (free: https://www.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/culture-empire/ https://www.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/culture-empire/) the better! Even though a few parts might (!) be lightly exagerated, overall we should read and fight!

djsumdog 10y ago

It's been that way. I mean you might be realizing it now, but we've been in a propaganda state since even before WW2. For people who still think we aren't, ask yourself why Americans think of breakfast when you say "Bacon and Eggs." That was an advertising campaign by Edward Bernays (Freud's nephew). He also helped the tobacco industry increase the number of women who smoked cigarettes (lookup "Torches of Freedom"). You might not think that product advertising relates to propaganda, but Bernays was the father of "Public Relations." The first public relations department was for the US government, and he chose that term because Propaganda had a bad connotation to it. Public Relations is literally a weasel word/phrase to replace Propaganda. These are important things to consider when you think about voting and "free will." Advertising has been used to make people think quality diamonds are rare (they're not), bacon and eggs are a standard breakfast and that tobacco is a symbol of womens' liberation. If you acknowledge that, you also have to realize advertising has convinced much of America there are only two political parties worth voting for, and that they're different (even thought they universally enact the same foreign policy. Bush Jr = 2 wars, Obama = 5 wars, Trump/Hillary = both will/would bring more war. I ask you, when has a war protest or congress ever stopped any of these wars from happening?) Finally, the CIA has admitted to having operatives in US magazines for decades, and they refuse to answer if they have operatives in US television (https://youtu.be/U1Qt6a-vaNM?t=2h30m35s https://youtu.be/U1Qt6a-vaNM?t=2h30m35s). We've been in 1984 for decades prior to 1984.

bigbugbag 10y ago
A little clarification, after world war I Bernays wanted to use war propaganda during peacetime to manipulate people and opinions which he thought were irrational and dangerous, and coined the name public relations to avoid the stigma propaganda had due its use by Germans during the war. He's also the guy behind "engineering of consent", the use of press releases, fear of communism during cold war, and much much more. I'm not so sure we've been in 1984, there is a valid case[1] for us living in a brave new world or at least a mix of both 1984 and a brave new world. [1]: https://biblioklept.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/huxley-orwell-amusing-ourselves-to-death.jpg https://biblioklept.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/huxley-orwel... http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/rrxW1.png http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/rrxW1.png