4 ms·

Would a government that has a CCTV on every street enact legislation to limit its surveillance abilities? I agree that it's a good ideal, it's just incredibly

Would a government that has a CCTV on every street enact legislation to limit its surveillance abilities? I agree that it's a good ideal, it's just incredibly naive to think that it will be achieved. Even if legislation were passed, it would very likely make things worse, in that the government wouldn't stop surveilling - they would just do it even more covertly.

confounded 9y ago
There’s already quite a bit of legislation about how CCTV can be used in the UK. Our democracies have lots of problems, but they basically work, and on issues like this, the main issue is apathy. I’m a firm believer that if people are informed and they care legislation like the above could be enacted.
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  > on issues like this, the main issue is apathy Is it? Or is it the notion that if you scream about something you don't like enough, someone else will fix it, through legislation, so you can stop worrying about it? And, of course, that legislation will work perfectly and never be abused or radically reinterpreted a generation down the line. I'm for the belief that if you don't like something then don't partake in it - short of it being something being physically forced on you.
  - confounded 9y ago
    > is it the notion that if you scream about something you don't like enough, someone else will fix it, through legislation, so you can stop worrying about it? This notion is often called collective action, and it’s how most of the social change of the last couple hundred years was achieved in the US (and elsewhere), from black people and women attaining the right to vote, to the end of child labor, to gay marriage, to the existence of weekends. This 'screaming' is the basis of representative democracies; the system of government that we live under. > if you don't like something then don't partake in it - short of it being something being physically forced on you. In every country I'm aware of, surveillance of at least some physical space is non-optional, and could be called 'forced'. The dichotomy of "physically forced" and (by implication) 'voluntary' doesn't seem useful. Very few of the current and hypothetical problems with surveillance are because it's physically-forced on people; it's that a cost-benefit equation is engineered to make it practically irresistible. Let’s say you’re a poor high-school student. To participate in classes you need to use the school issued Chromebook and an associated Google account. You could resist and not participate in class, but even given a full understanding of the privacy cost, this would be irrational and self-destructive. If you'd like to join your residents' association that may require a Facebook account, if you'd like to travel on an airplane that likely entails video-surveillance which will be used for facial recognition, if you take a job at a company with significant-IP (or not much cash), you're very likely to be working on a machine containing a surveillance-rootkit etc. etc. ad nauseam. This article is about solutions to the societal problem of mass-surveillance (both from the state and industry). Retreating from society for your own protection (while things get worse for everyone else) is never going to be helpful for addressing the societal problem. Perhaps you think the status quo is fantastic and shouldn't be changed. Perhaps you have the resources to live a puritanical life avoiding surveillance; I'm impressed! But the fact that you have the freedom to do so is a direct result of the collective action of others.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  they basically work, and on issues like this, the main issue is apathy People are apathetic because their democracies don't basically work. Elections and occasional referendums are very crude kinds of representation and are easily manipulated by those who have a lot of cash. Legislation is great but the reality is that you're on camera almost all the time in a large city like Londonand no politician is going to lay themselves open to easy attacks by proposing to dismantle that infrastructure. Bentham's panopticon was a design for a prison, a mill "for grinding rogues honest." Now the whole society is constructed around that idea; you have legal rights but the implicit premise is that people are rogues. You're not free. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

confounded 9y ago

There’s already quite a bit of legislation about how CCTV can be used in the UK. Our democracies have lots of problems, but they basically work, and on issues like this, the main issue is apathy. I’m a firm believer that if people are informed and they care legislation like the above could be enacted.

fortythirteen 9y ago
> on issues like this, the main issue is apathy Is it? Or is it the notion that if you scream about something you don't like enough, someone else will fix it, through legislation, so you can stop worrying about it? And, of course, that legislation will work perfectly and never be abused or radically reinterpreted a generation down the line. I'm for the belief that if you don't like something then don't partake in it - short of it being something being physically forced on you.
- confounded 9y ago
  > is it the notion that if you scream about something you don't like enough, someone else will fix it, through legislation, so you can stop worrying about it? This notion is often called collective action, and it’s how most of the social change of the last couple hundred years was achieved in the US (and elsewhere), from black people and women attaining the right to vote, to the end of child labor, to gay marriage, to the existence of weekends. This 'screaming' is the basis of representative democracies; the system of government that we live under. > if you don't like something then don't partake in it - short of it being something being physically forced on you. In every country I'm aware of, surveillance of at least some physical space is non-optional, and could be called 'forced'. The dichotomy of "physically forced" and (by implication) 'voluntary' doesn't seem useful. Very few of the current and hypothetical problems with surveillance are because it's physically-forced on people; it's that a cost-benefit equation is engineered to make it practically irresistible. Let’s say you’re a poor high-school student. To participate in classes you need to use the school issued Chromebook and an associated Google account. You could resist and not participate in class, but even given a full understanding of the privacy cost, this would be irrational and self-destructive. If you'd like to join your residents' association that may require a Facebook account, if you'd like to travel on an airplane that likely entails video-surveillance which will be used for facial recognition, if you take a job at a company with significant-IP (or not much cash), you're very likely to be working on a machine containing a surveillance-rootkit etc. etc. ad nauseam. This article is about solutions to the societal problem of mass-surveillance (both from the state and industry). Retreating from society for your own protection (while things get worse for everyone else) is never going to be helpful for addressing the societal problem. Perhaps you think the status quo is fantastic and shouldn't be changed. Perhaps you have the resources to live a puritanical life avoiding surveillance; I'm impressed! But the fact that you have the freedom to do so is a direct result of the collective action of others.
anigbrowl 9y ago
they basically work, and on issues like this, the main issue is apathy People are apathetic because their democracies don't basically work. Elections and occasional referendums are very crude kinds of representation and are easily manipulated by those who have a lot of cash. Legislation is great but the reality is that you're on camera almost all the time in a large city like Londonand no politician is going to lay themselves open to easy attacks by proposing to dismantle that infrastructure. Bentham's panopticon was a design for a prison, a mill "for grinding rogues honest." Now the whole society is constructed around that idea; you have legal rights but the implicit premise is that people are rogues. You're not free. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon