4 ms·

We've just become very passive. No one makes a noise about being the most CCTV-ed nation in the world. Even when the leaks about the true nature of GCHQ surveil

by jansho 9y ago

We've just become very passive. No one makes a noise about being the most CCTV-ed nation in the world. Even when the leaks about the true nature of GCHQ surveillance came out, there wasn't much rage in the streets. I guess we are all secretly OK with it. "You shouldn't worry, unless you have something to hide."

spaceribs 9y ago
I was thinking about this in relation to the pirate radio history of the UK. Maybe people are apathetic because everyone knows no matter how "Nanny State" things get, smart people can skirt their draconian tendencies no matter what? If the more fascist members of society are placated by technical placebos, why not allow them to pretend they are actually in control of the "situation"? I'm personally keeping a close eye on lifi. In the US the FCC restrictions on the range of wifi networks restricts mesh networking substantially. If it's just invisible gigabit light communication from rooftop to rooftop, it could be a huge gamechanger.
- mattnewton 9y ago
  I don't think this is a real solution. I need to talk to my friends and family privately without installing conspicious hardware on their house. The right to encrypt and the right to privacy too are precedents that need to be defended, otherwise as soon as the law catches up and learns about the loophole, it will be closed quickly.
  - spaceribs 9y ago
    Sorry if I gave you the impression that it was a solution! What I'm saying is that the technical cat is already out of the bag, we're already moving forward with stronger encryption and a multilayered internet. Adding restrictions on the ISP level just creates a market to get around that restriction, be it mesh networks, li-fi, or low earth orbit satellites.
rogerbinns 9y ago
Do people in the UK see the police as adversarial, like they do in the US? To me (a perception) it seems like US police are expected to act disproportionately and have the system on their side. See for example advice on never talking to them, profiling, civil asset seizures, swat raids, plea bargains etc. It doesn't seem like UK police are seen the same way or even close. CCTV and internet control are additional tools for them.
- mike-cardwell 9y ago
  As a UK citizen, my impression is that the relationship is more adversarial in the US. But as far as the US side goes, all I have is what I see on the Internet. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that the Wikipedia list of people killed by the police in the UK since the year 2000 fits on 1 screen on my (admittedly large) monitor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
- pjc50 9y ago
  UK police are nowhere near close to US police in terms of everyday brutality. Generally people in the UK are comfortable with the police. There's a few big exceptions: policing in Northern Ireland was so sectarian it had to be rebuilt. The Met (London) police have a bit of a race relations problem, although again nowhere near as bad as most large US cities. And the police have a record of tracking and interfering with peaceful left-wing political groups to a disproportionate extent. There's cases outstanding relating to undercover officers who had relationships with women they were spying on.
- Silhouette 9y ago
  Do people in the UK see the police as adversarial, like they do in the US? No. Ordinary police officers that you might meet day to day are mostly just decent people who want to be approachable and have good relations with their local communities. The collective organisations that represent those officers within senior management and to the wider government often defend these principles. Policing by consent remains the foundation of our system, at least for now. I fear this will change over time, though, not because of the generally decent people working on the front lines in policing, but because of the authoritarian measures pushed through by their government masters and the bias in how they are used, the perception that if something does go seriously wrong then the police involved will not be held accountable, and probably also some element of having a lot of US TV shows and films where we see a theatrical portrayal of a very different kind of relationship.
anigbrowl 9y ago
I've found this extremely frustrating because people in hacking culture for the main part are unwilling to invest time to figure out the psychology of the larger population. Yes, most people are OK with it. Hackers' response to this datum tends to be 'well they shouldn't be because liberty and reasons,' but what hackers are missing is that most people are not logical an also there are far more of them than you so it's important to get to people where they are rather than where you would like them to be. It's the same thing when people get upset about the NSA or other spy agencies. I have been pointing out for years now that such agencies perform an important task of government (because no government, organization or nation prospers by being less informed or allowing others to gain an information asymmetry over it). Instead of acknowledging this social reality and developing strategies that incorporate, people demand absurd quixotic solutions that ignore everything we know about economics and human behavior. The sad reality is that most people (~80%) are passive and just go along with whatever they're told to. There's a small sadistic fringe at one end of the political spectrum that responds to all problems by blaming them on the weakest people they can find as scapegoats, and a small idealistic fringe at the other that clings to a nive idealism; both fringes are capable of totalitarianism. People in hacker culture decry this state of affairs, but most of them don't want to give up their cushy jobs or privileges or take any risks, and so they get co-opted into building the next iteration of oppressive technology by default.

by jansho 9y ago

spaceribs 9y ago

I was thinking about this in relation to the pirate radio history of the UK. Maybe people are apathetic because everyone knows no matter how "Nanny State" things get, smart people can skirt their draconian tendencies no matter what? If the more fascist members of society are placated by technical placebos, why not allow them to pretend they are actually in control of the "situation"? I'm personally keeping a close eye on lifi. In the US the FCC restrictions on the range of wifi networks restricts mesh networking substantially. If it's just invisible gigabit light communication from rooftop to rooftop, it could be a huge gamechanger.

mattnewton 9y ago
I don't think this is a real solution. I need to talk to my friends and family privately without installing conspicious hardware on their house. The right to encrypt and the right to privacy too are precedents that need to be defended, otherwise as soon as the law catches up and learns about the loophole, it will be closed quickly.
- spaceribs 9y ago
  Sorry if I gave you the impression that it was a solution! What I'm saying is that the technical cat is already out of the bag, we're already moving forward with stronger encryption and a multilayered internet. Adding restrictions on the ISP level just creates a market to get around that restriction, be it mesh networks, li-fi, or low earth orbit satellites.

rogerbinns 9y ago

Do people in the UK see the police as adversarial, like they do in the US? To me (a perception) it seems like US police are expected to act disproportionately and have the system on their side. See for example advice on never talking to them, profiling, civil asset seizures, swat raids, plea bargains etc. It doesn't seem like UK police are seen the same way or even close. CCTV and internet control are additional tools for them.

mike-cardwell 9y ago
As a UK citizen, my impression is that the relationship is more adversarial in the US. But as far as the US side goes, all I have is what I see on the Internet. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that the Wikipedia list of people killed by the police in the UK since the year 2000 fits on 1 screen on my (admittedly large) monitor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
pjc50 9y ago
UK police are nowhere near close to US police in terms of everyday brutality. Generally people in the UK are comfortable with the police. There's a few big exceptions: policing in Northern Ireland was so sectarian it had to be rebuilt. The Met (London) police have a bit of a race relations problem, although again nowhere near as bad as most large US cities. And the police have a record of tracking and interfering with peaceful left-wing political groups to a disproportionate extent. There's cases outstanding relating to undercover officers who had relationships with women they were spying on.
Silhouette 9y ago
Do people in the UK see the police as adversarial, like they do in the US? No. Ordinary police officers that you might meet day to day are mostly just decent people who want to be approachable and have good relations with their local communities. The collective organisations that represent those officers within senior management and to the wider government often defend these principles. Policing by consent remains the foundation of our system, at least for now. I fear this will change over time, though, not because of the generally decent people working on the front lines in policing, but because of the authoritarian measures pushed through by their government masters and the bias in how they are used, the perception that if something does go seriously wrong then the police involved will not be held accountable, and probably also some element of having a lot of US TV shows and films where we see a theatrical portrayal of a very different kind of relationship.

anigbrowl 9y ago

I've found this extremely frustrating because people in hacking culture for the main part are unwilling to invest time to figure out the psychology of the larger population. Yes, most people are OK with it. Hackers' response to this datum tends to be 'well they shouldn't be because liberty and reasons,' but what hackers are missing is that most people are not logical an also there are far more of them than you so it's important to get to people where they are rather than where you would like them to be. It's the same thing when people get upset about the NSA or other spy agencies. I have been pointing out for years now that such agencies perform an important task of government (because no government, organization or nation prospers by being less informed or allowing others to gain an information asymmetry over it). Instead of acknowledging this social reality and developing strategies that incorporate, people demand absurd quixotic solutions that ignore everything we know about economics and human behavior. The sad reality is that most people (~80%) are passive and just go along with whatever they're told to. There's a small sadistic fringe at one end of the political spectrum that responds to all problems by blaming them on the weakest people they can find as scapegoats, and a small idealistic fringe at the other that clings to a nive idealism; both fringes are capable of totalitarianism. People in hacker culture decry this state of affairs, but most of them don't want to give up their cushy jobs or privileges or take any risks, and so they get co-opted into building the next iteration of oppressive technology by default.