5 ms·

This post is 100% spot on. Ask the folks at Palantir under what conditions a person stops being identified as a 'target' in their database... Hint: everything y

This post is 100% spot on. Ask the folks at Palantir under what conditions a person stops being identified as a 'target' in their database... Hint: everything you do, on a daily basis, can be construed as incriminating. Source: Worked in an intelligence battalion for 5 years.

solotronics 8y ago
yes but what do we do about it? mesh networks? private data security? (GDPR doesn't apply to police/state security...)
- mirimir 8y ago
  My solution is not attracting attention. Basically through compartmentalization. My meatspace identity is entirely unremarkable. I'm not outspoken about privacy. Or about anything, really. I do hit the Internet through a VPN, but that's fairly common in my country.
  - vitno 8y ago
    That's not "not attracting attention", that's called living in fear. I don't know the particulars of where you live, but it makes me sad you feel this is necessary.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Maybe so. But fear is rational sometimes. I wouldn't have survived long as an acid dealer without extreme discretion. Alternatives include conforming to unjust laws, or violating openly and ending up imprisoned. Neither sound like fun. Or, yes, going somewhere else. But in my experience, there's really nowhere to go. So hey.
  - stareatgoats 8y ago
    At a certain point on this trajectory, that strategy will raise red flags too. Mass surveillance is a direct violation of the fourth amendment, outlawing it completely is the only reasonable solution.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      So you say. And perhaps eventually, adversaries will trace every VPN connection. But as I said, VPN usage is pretty common, so that'd be challenging. I'm betting that I'll be dead first. And I guess that we'll see. It's easy to cite the Fourth Amendment. But it's all in the interpretation. The War on Drugs arguably violates the Bill of Rights in numerous ways. But try telling that to a judge. And anyway, as I frequently note, the NSA is a military COMSEC organization. And the US is perpetually at war. So the NSA ignores the Constitution and law. At best, it pretends respect.
  - sdoering 8y ago
    What you describe reminds me of the stories my significant other's parents tell about living under Stasi in the GDR. Ok, without the VPN part.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Indeed. The insight is that virtually all modern states are authoritarian. Some just have better PR. And there are too many assholes in the stateless places. In the former Soviet Union, there weren't VPNs, Tor and stuff. But there was samizat. And much conversation, fueled by vodka and bad cigarettes. It ended up working well enough. Except that Reagan, Bush and Carter went on to screw Russia so badly that it embraced Putin.
      - sdoering 8y ago
        Thanks a lot. Never heard of samizat. Had to ask Google and was intrigued. Interesting stuff and something new I learned.
- aaronbrethorst 8y ago
  Go talk to your Congressperson or their staff. Get a satisfactory answer. Or, if you don't, go talk to their primary or general election opponent (or their staff). Make it clear what's important to you.
  - alter_eco123 8y ago
    > Make it clear what's important to you. Do you think they don't know the tax cattle don't want a police state? If we only let them know, then they'll just stop establishing absolute power over us all? "Gosh, what were we thinking?!"
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    Ignoring that you need to fight against both major parties to attempt to put someone against this in office, think of all the dirt this database could uncover on the politician.
    - XorNot 8y ago
      Urgh this is the worst point HN keep making vis-a-vis surveillance. Dirt on politicians is evidence of actual crimes and wrongdoings - not supposition and heresay. Surveillance doesn't magically generate blackmail material on politicians if they haven't done anything wrong, and politicians have a vastly reduced right to privacy compared to the rest of us. "Politicians could be blackmailed!" is a weak as hell argument because if they can be blackmailed then they are corrupt and should be exposed. The problem is what happens to all the rest of us - private citizens who do not wield power and influence, do not write the laws, and as is noted in the OP here, who suffer very real consequences to our lives from being categorized by intelligence systems.
      - cat199 8y ago
        > Dirt on politicians is evidence of actual crimes and wrongdoings - not supposition and heresay. $politician went with some supporters to a strip club. News at 11. You think that won't affect the electoral outcome, even if it is perfectly legal? And if it does, that it could not be used in collusion with security forces to preserve an entrenched power?
oldcynic 8y ago
Trouble with all this guilt by association is we don't choose friends and neighbours via criminal and national security background checks. Friends come from mutual situations such as work, or events, and chance via already existing friends and you just get along (or are attracted). If you live nearby you might even be visiting a possible terrorist for barbeque or beer entirely innocently. I suspect few will be discussing, or have any idea of, their plans for a bank raid. We may have a lot of data and meta data but we seem to be asking very unintelligent questions worthy of McCarthy / Stasi era paranoia.
ekovarski 8y ago
Stalins' sidekick was fond of saying, "Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime." --- Lavrentiy Beria
- InfiniteBeing 8y ago
  Thought his name was Mueller...
  - um_ya 8y ago
    ^ true

solotronics 8y ago

yes but what do we do about it? mesh networks? private data security? (GDPR doesn't apply to police/state security...)

mirimir 8y ago
My solution is not attracting attention. Basically through compartmentalization. My meatspace identity is entirely unremarkable. I'm not outspoken about privacy. Or about anything, really. I do hit the Internet through a VPN, but that's fairly common in my country.
- vitno 8y ago
  That's not "not attracting attention", that's called living in fear. I don't know the particulars of where you live, but it makes me sad you feel this is necessary.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Maybe so. But fear is rational sometimes. I wouldn't have survived long as an acid dealer without extreme discretion. Alternatives include conforming to unjust laws, or violating openly and ending up imprisoned. Neither sound like fun. Or, yes, going somewhere else. But in my experience, there's really nowhere to go. So hey.
- stareatgoats 8y ago
  At a certain point on this trajectory, that strategy will raise red flags too. Mass surveillance is a direct violation of the fourth amendment, outlawing it completely is the only reasonable solution.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    So you say. And perhaps eventually, adversaries will trace every VPN connection. But as I said, VPN usage is pretty common, so that'd be challenging. I'm betting that I'll be dead first. And I guess that we'll see. It's easy to cite the Fourth Amendment. But it's all in the interpretation. The War on Drugs arguably violates the Bill of Rights in numerous ways. But try telling that to a judge. And anyway, as I frequently note, the NSA is a military COMSEC organization. And the US is perpetually at war. So the NSA ignores the Constitution and law. At best, it pretends respect.
- sdoering 8y ago
  What you describe reminds me of the stories my significant other's parents tell about living under Stasi in the GDR. Ok, without the VPN part.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Indeed. The insight is that virtually all modern states are authoritarian. Some just have better PR. And there are too many assholes in the stateless places. In the former Soviet Union, there weren't VPNs, Tor and stuff. But there was samizat. And much conversation, fueled by vodka and bad cigarettes. It ended up working well enough. Except that Reagan, Bush and Carter went on to screw Russia so badly that it embraced Putin.
    - sdoering 8y ago
      Thanks a lot. Never heard of samizat. Had to ask Google and was intrigued. Interesting stuff and something new I learned.
aaronbrethorst 8y ago
Go talk to your Congressperson or their staff. Get a satisfactory answer. Or, if you don't, go talk to their primary or general election opponent (or their staff). Make it clear what's important to you.
- alter_eco123 8y ago
  > Make it clear what's important to you. Do you think they don't know the tax cattle don't want a police state? If we only let them know, then they'll just stop establishing absolute power over us all? "Gosh, what were we thinking?!"
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  Ignoring that you need to fight against both major parties to attempt to put someone against this in office, think of all the dirt this database could uncover on the politician.
  - XorNot 8y ago
    Urgh this is the worst point HN keep making vis-a-vis surveillance. Dirt on politicians is evidence of actual crimes and wrongdoings - not supposition and heresay. Surveillance doesn't magically generate blackmail material on politicians if they haven't done anything wrong, and politicians have a vastly reduced right to privacy compared to the rest of us. "Politicians could be blackmailed!" is a weak as hell argument because if they can be blackmailed then they are corrupt and should be exposed. The problem is what happens to all the rest of us - private citizens who do not wield power and influence, do not write the laws, and as is noted in the OP here, who suffer very real consequences to our lives from being categorized by intelligence systems.
    - cat199 8y ago
      > Dirt on politicians is evidence of actual crimes and wrongdoings - not supposition and heresay. $politician went with some supporters to a strip club. News at 11. You think that won't affect the electoral outcome, even if it is perfectly legal? And if it does, that it could not be used in collusion with security forces to preserve an entrenched power?

oldcynic 8y ago

Trouble with all this guilt by association is we don't choose friends and neighbours via criminal and national security background checks. Friends come from mutual situations such as work, or events, and chance via already existing friends and you just get along (or are attracted). If you live nearby you might even be visiting a possible terrorist for barbeque or beer entirely innocently. I suspect few will be discussing, or have any idea of, their plans for a bank raid. We may have a lot of data and meta data but we seem to be asking very unintelligent questions worthy of McCarthy / Stasi era paranoia.

ekovarski 8y ago

Stalins' sidekick was fond of saying, "Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime." --- Lavrentiy Beria

InfiniteBeing 8y ago
Thought his name was Mueller...
- um_ya 8y ago
  ^ true