16 ms·

What It’s Like to Live in a Surveillance State

• outside1234 9y ago
  We know what it’s like - the question is, how do we, as hackers, stop it?
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • mark_edward 9y ago
    We won't. Many of the brightest and best paid of us are busily working at places like Google, building ever more powerful surveillance and analysis machinery to target ads. Of course it will be used for more than that.
    • cryoshon 9y ago
      speak for yourself. some of us refuse to answer when we are called to serve something we don't believe in-- even if answering the call causes us to miss out on prosperity.
      • jancsika 9y ago
        You're not necessarily disagreeing with the parent's first sentence. One can believe we won't "hack" our way out of this problem while also refusing to work for companies developing/leveraging the surveillance infrastructure.
        • mark_edward 9y ago
          Yeah, that's what I meant. The economic and political incentives for this are gigantic. There's no reason not to collect data if you can. Combine that with the lucrative pay for the workers and whatever... It's a bit like trying to convince coal miners to stop working because of global warming, but instead make coal mining a very cushy job with 3x the pay.
      • jimmies 9y ago
        Most people would do the same as you do, even people working for Facebook and Google. I have friends who work at Monsanto and are absolutely believing they are doing good for the humanity. Look at Agent Orange by Monsanto, I wouldn't think any scientist who worked on it thought it would be used as the something that made thousands of newborn lives to live in hell. They thought you made a herbicide to help the poor farmers, in reality, the government used it as a defoliant chemical in wars, and tens of years later, the real reality turned out to be deformed children. How do we know what happened to Agent Orange won't happen again with sweet corn, GMO, social profiling, facial recognition, voice profiling, etc? However, if we're afraid to do anything for fear of bad consequences, we could as well do nothing. I don't think that there is any way to know for sure. All we know is that right now, we do see here, a possibility for bad consequences to happen. Real-life situations are not as black and white as a call from Kim Jong Un asking us to nuke the world. We aren't smarter than the guys telling us to use the talents we have to serve their purpose. The only thing I could think of so far is to not depend on their pay or their recognition or personal fame.
        • germinalphrase 9y ago
          I have a family member who was associated with Monsanto and - by extension - the Manhattan Project. It's a fascinating, inspiring, and unsettling part of my family's history. It also reinforces how thoroughly internal narratives are developed to justify actions that may otherwise be against a person's moral code. Further, it reminds me that I can sit here clearheaded and accurately argue that I wouldn't support these companies or their choices - but, then, no one has ever said to me hundreds of thousands are dying in this war. What are you willing to do to stop it?
        • mark_edward 9y ago
          Those are nice analogies, but what is actually confusing about building gigantic data-mining and surveillance infrastructure, like working at FB and Google? At best it's used to manipulate and sell ads, at worst it gets turned over to the secret police.
          • jimmies 9y ago
    • emmelaich 9y ago
      Yeah I don't think you can. The only way to resist is to watch the watchers. Keep a camera/phone on you at all times. Distribute secret cameras near Govt buildings.
      • mr_spothawk 9y ago
        > Distribute secret cameras near Govt buildings. wat?
        • emmelaich 9y ago
          Ok, doesn't need to be secret. Perhaps better not being secret. It's merely demanding that politicians are subject to the same rules as the general public. Ideally, the press would do this job as in the link below. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10141790/Fury-caught-on-film-as-MEPs-sign-in-and-slope-off.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10141790...
      • wallace_f 9y ago
        Is there a good guide you're aware of for personal surveillance--wearing a camera, audio recorder? It's a good idea not just for civic pride, but for personal safety and liability--the same reason drivers use dash cams.
      • secfirstmd 9y ago
        You might be interested in a human rights organisation I helped build out of my student house and that now specialises in covert filming for human rights: "Videre: the secretive group on a mission to film human-rights abuses" http://www.wired.co.uk/article/videre http://www.wired.co.uk/article/videre "Hidden Cameras Film Injustice in Dangerous Places" https://www.ted.com/talks/oren_yakobovich_hidden_cameras_that_film_injustice_in_the_world_s_most_dangerous_places https://www.ted.com/talks/oren_yakobovich_hidden_cameras_tha... http://www.videreonline.org/ http://www.videreonline.org/
  • alphonsegaston 9y ago
    Labor organization with the express aim of putting an end to Surveillance Capitalism. Google and Facebook can’t withstand a sustained disruption of their workforce, which is why they spend so much time paying lip service to social issues. They have to create a constant illusion of concern for rights and justice to prevent their employees from actually demanding them.
    • HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
      > Labor organization with the express aim of putting an end to Surveillance Capitalism. The article is talking about the extensive surveillance of an authoritarian government that heads a planned economy. What does it have to do with capitalism?
      • hedora 9y ago
        Regulatory capture is a dominant force in western capitalism. To the extent that is “planning” the economy, the article could be talking about the US. We certainly have a more extensive surveillance apparatus. From what I can tell China keeps most of its oppression inside its borders, at least compared to the US. Look up forced labor in immigrant prisons, or the 1,000,000 current cholera cases in Yemen / estimated 7,000,000 victims of famine coming soon — the US is actively working to expand that humanitarian disaster as you read this. Also there are 100,000’s of legal immigrants we’re planning to send back to failed economies and war zones. All of that is happening today. If you go back a decade for more context, you can add torturing civilians to death, establishing narco states, etc, etc. I was going to add “funding terrorism” to my list of past events, but I just remembered we’re actually in the middle of active military strikes that are meant to help Al Qaeda ground forces. All of these violations of basic human rights were very profitable to campaign donors. To make it worse, from what I can tell, some members of our congress think it is appropriate to let the president replace the head of the FBI with a yes-man specifically to block an investigation into the president’s ties with organized crime and foreign powers. That will give him some degree of legal impunity, and also control of a massive domestic surveillance apparatus (much of which consists of commercial entities). How did this happen? Trump hired a foreign-owned company (Cambridge Analytica) to use the tools of surveillance capitalism to squeak through the electoral college with a record-low percentage of the popular vote. Sorry for the long-winded answer, but that roughly summarizes the state of survelliance capitalism in 2018, and what it has to do with the article.
  • cryoshon 9y ago
    nobody said it would be easy, but here are six ideas for stopping the problem. 1. don't work for companies that surveil or support surveillance and don't hire, associate, converse, or lend aid to anyone who has worked for those companies 2. don't work for companies that produce weapons that will be used against civilians and don't hire, associate, converse, or lend aid to anyone who has worked for those companies 3. don't pay taxes to a government that treats you like a prisoner, and don't hire, associate, converse, or lend aid to anyone who has worked for that government in an intelligence organization, surveillance organization, or police organization 4. organize with your neighbors and coworkers to work within the political system to prevent abuses (we have already failed this option in the USA) 5. sabotage internet infrastructure of companies and governments wherever possible 6. revolution none of these options are palatable, and none should be jumped into rashly. but do not assume that they are not necessary.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • mc32 9y ago
      I sincerely hope you know this very far fetched to achieve. Some are self-inflicting wounds, and for the most part untenable. And finally some way more harm than good (sabotage and revolution demand heavy prices, larger than the debt you're trying to get out from under).
      • cryoshon 9y ago
        the beauty of it is that most of the items are easy to achieve. individuals can do steps 1, 2, and most of 3 without investing any actual effort. step 4 requires some minimal effort, and more people are getting there. finishing step 3 requires the confidence of having enough friends-- which is rapidly approaching for many people, tbqh. the other steps are for people more serious about making rapid change, and frankly i don't think most people are there yet-- but they would be if they thought they had friends who were. for now, it's step 4.
  • freshhawk 9y ago
    Since you used "we" and are on HN should I assume a typo? You probably meant "how do we stop building it?" Which is a bit of an easy question, just stop building surveillance systems. The hard part is how do we, as hackers, accept that most of our fellows will gladly do this for pay. Because it was fun to pretend they cared and be part of the subculture, but they never actually did.
    • avmich 9y ago
      We're building it, as the society. And we, too - or at least big part of us - want to stop it. Not only stop building it, but also stop that which we, other we, are building. That's a multipronged task.
  • flanbiscuit 9y ago
    I was just talking about this with a friend on the way home from work today. He mentioned an article[1] about how you could use makeup and weird hairstyles to confuse facial recognition AI and we joked about this becoming an actual near-future (cyberpunk!) style. I was wondering if there was some kind of device that could emit infrared light in all direction that would cause cameras only to see a bright reflection in place of your head but I don't know how actually feasible that is. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/makeup/374929/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/makeu...
  • woodandsteel 9y ago
    One way is working on one of the many internet (re-)decentralization projects, since that is one of their key goals.
• graeme 9y ago
  As a side note to the article, I used to wonder why China tried so hold to keep possession of Xinjiang and Tibet. Surely the regions might be more trouble than they were worth? I eventually found a map of China showing state borders. Xinjiang and Tibet are a massive portion of China, and also give China border access to many countries. Normal state imperatives to keep territory aside, these are comparatively important territories for China's global influence.
  • Stanleyc23 9y ago
    Taiwan, being a small island, seems counter to that pattern. I think it's simply that the chinese gov't relies on maintaining a brand of virtually absolute control. Even publicly entertaining the idea of letting territories go would be a strong signal for weakness. edit: maybe that's what you already implied by "Normal state imperatives"
    • cepth 9y ago
      Taiwan is a unique case. Technically, the Chinese Civil War never ended. There was no signing of a peace treaty, and all the way through the 90s you had military standoff’s between Taiwan and the Mainland, i.e. the two militaries shot at each other. The relationship between the mainland and Taiwan is legally analogous to the one between North and South Korea. The main reason mainland China can’t recognize Taiwan is because of the huge geopolitical and legal consequences. A pillar of US-China relations is the One China Policy. Recognizing Taiwan would throw that into flux. If China recognized Taiwan as Taiwan, or as the Republic of China, there are tons of uncomfortable questions. Would Taiwan be admitted into the UN? Could Taiwan compete in sporting events under a Republic of China flag, or would you continue calling it Chinese Taipei. There’s also Taiwanese domestic politics. Depending on the year, some Taiwanese parties still advocate for reconciliation, and perhaps eventual reunification with the mainland. Add to the fact that China is currently led by a leader not afraid to pull the nationalism lever, and you have a host of reasons why recognition of Taiwan is a nonstarter.
      • krapp 9y ago
• imhelpingu 9y ago
  Can somebody explain to me what racial profiling necessarily has to do with "what it's like to live in a surveillance state," or am I correct in my evaluation that this article is doing PR for our own surveillance state by conflating two forms of oppression?
  • skywhopper 9y ago
    I'm not seeing the "PR for our own surveillance state". But the fact is that surveillance regimes and racist propaganda and intimidation of othered ethnic, racial, or religious groups usually go hand in hand. Hyping invented criminality of or subversion by particular groups is key to convincing the populace that they are under threat and should give in to extremely intrusive measures. Each feeds into the other. Political regimes use lies about (often invented) outsider groups to justify their growing power. And then true believers and overzealous apparatchiks begin harassing members of that group, often using those very tools, which leads to a growing perception that yes these people who are receiving international calls are clearly terrorists or terrorist supporters, who need to be surveilled. Etc.
  • cryoshon 9y ago
    this was my impression as well. "look at all these bad things we do, that the chinese also do-- oh yeah, but they also do OTHER stuff that's horrible too" the line between a surveillance state and an oppressive political state doesn't exist, as surveillance is oppressive-- but it's not the only form of oppression. the article seems to forget that oppression has many effectors. it is too convenient of a slip. the political oppression of the uighurs is, as the article notes, uniquely chinese-- but these things could have easily happened without any real surveillance whatsoever. harassing minorities for arbitrary reasons doesn't need the evidence that surveillance can provide-- malice is not based on evidence to begin with. as far as the chinese idea of han ethnic supremacy: it isn't new. in fact, it's old. the leaders' chinese vision of their country is that of a han chinese monoculture with a very particular apoliticism (they wrap passivity in many different terms). i was about to say that they aren't genocidal yet, but i dunno if that's really true; they have done quite a number on tibet, but my knowledge of the situation is very shallow.
  • 9y ago
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• tabeth 9y ago
  Personally I don't see the problem with surveillance. I have a problem with people who abuse powers they may have. I mean honestly: - Use Android? Chances are you're being watched by Google. - Facebook tracks literally hundreds of millions. - Post on HN? Guess what, you can't delete your posts after a while. Advances in stylometry in addition to more and more data being on the internet will mean your identity on here will be compromised eventually. --- However, using Android allows Google to have literally minute-by-minute traffic updates which allows our cars to move more efficiently. Facebook's tracking of millions may aid in allowing smaller organizations to connect in a more programmatic way. HN well, obviously is allowing you to read this now. Things like privacy were forfeit the minute we gained the technology. If people have problems with these technologies being used in bad ways, we should punish the people using the technologies in such a bad way. The spooky "surveillance state" is a red herring imo.
  • nugi 9y ago
    Lots of people are doing it, so it must be okay. Sorry, not down with your logic one bit.
    • tabeth 9y ago
      Did you reply to the wrong comment? That couldn't be further from my point. My point is that if we have a problem with people doing bad things with technology, we should replace those people with people we trust, not the technology.
      • detcader 9y ago
        It's impossible to trust people with power due to perverse incentives. That's why the ideas of democracy and whistleblowing exist. Those who find "trustworthy authority" less ridiculous than any other oxymoron might better enjoy living in a country whose government was not founded on the core values of accountability for those wielding power like maybe Saudi Arabia
      • TTPrograms 9y ago
        If we had mechanisms to identify people who were perfectly trustworthy, ensure these people are perpetually and exclusively in power, and construct perfect security for all involved computer systems then this reasoning would make sense.
• newscracker 9y ago
  One or two governments practicing these techniques only serves to inspire many more to do it covertly or overtly. Looking at the entire world, I feel it's shameful that more time and effort is spent on building better surveillance and control systems than decentralized and privacy protecting (to the extent possible) systems. It's as if all our freedoms are slipping by, leaving either an illusion of having freedoms with no practical use or freedoms curbed by governments with no concern about the well being of people or the government's reputation. We've known about China and North Korea for a long time. Then we came to know about Five Eyes and Fourteen Eyes. It worries me that we may have One Hundred and Fifty Eyes in the next few decades (just a rough count of all countries minus a small percentage).