5 ms·

We tend to view this as a technology problem. The real question: Why do we let governments get away with this kind of behavior? Fighting a technology arms rac

We tend to view this as a technology problem. The real question: Why do we let governments get away with this kind of behavior? Fighting a technology arms race with the government is a losing battle. They can ask for private keys to be handed over - on threat of jail time if you don't comply. We need to start at the ballot box.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
It's drastically easier to roll out a new technology than change a government policy which all major political parties are more or less comfortable with. Governments take time to adapt to new technology, so keep the new technology moving faster than the government knows how to deal with it........
prolikewh0a 8y ago
>The real question: Why do we let governments get away with this kind of behavior? Not many care anymore about privacy except basically, us, the tech power user community and then a few stragglers. This new generation just doesn't care because they never really grew up with any in the first place, just shoved right into Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat. They probably didn't go too depth into privacy laws, why your privacy matters in their grade school either.
- yardie 8y ago
  Just from observing my kid and his friends I think they are amazingly adept at privacy even if they don't realize it, yet. They are more concerned about trolling, being trolled, and in extreme cases, swatting. They share stuff on FB-IG-SC-YT but are conscious to give out just enough information. No real names, no addresses, no phone numbers. Now the older generations (boomers, GenX, Xillenials) share way too much information, in my opinion. They get on FB, tag everyone in the photo, even those without a FB account. And share their phone number and directions to their house.
barrkel 8y ago
It is a technology problem. Technology created the centralisation that makes the target so juicy, and courts treat stuff entrusted to third parties with less care than stuff you keep in your mind. The closer the storage is to you, the bigger a hurdle the government needs to jump to access it. Closer tech is more private tech. It's also much more expensive to snoop on. The ballot box approach will last exactly as long as the next terrorist crisis.
- smolder 8y ago
  I agree we should be divesting from centralized data management for the reasons you stated. The parent poster also had a good point, though. If the public is going to bend over at every crisis and lose rights, how long until residential customers can only hook approved walled-garden devices up to the internet, with no true privacy respecting tools permitted in their app stores?
fipple 8y ago
Because surveillance isn’t an issue of left vs right, it’s an issue of predator vs prey, and all of the elected officials are the predators as much as the voters are prey.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
larkeith 8y ago
The essential problem is that the great majority of voters are vastly apathetic when it comes to privacy, and there are strong incentives for governments to infringe upon it, especially in law enforcement.
GarrisonPrime 8y ago
The ballot box is a scam. An illusion of control to keep us complacent. In reality, they have the guns and jails, write the laws, and can change their mind as they see fit as to what the laws even mean. Playing in a rigged game.
jliptzin 8y ago
I'm curious at what point people decide that the government spying on them begins to be ok? How does the average person feel about the following: 1. A spouse going through your cell phone without your knowledge 2. A landlord requiring cameras in all rooms of your house to catch potential property destruction 3. A boss logging all computer activity at all times I'd imagine the average person would be pretty pissed about all of the above. At some point though, when it gets scaled up to the federal government effectively having the power to go through anybody's phone records, cloud data, email, search history, and now surveillance cameras, a lot of people seem to be okay with that, because terrorism. Terrorism is bad, but police states are worse, because at that point the government becomes the terrorist. If you're that afraid of terrorists that you're willing to give the government the power to spy on you (which is not even guaranteed to prevent terror attacks), maybe you should move to a rural location far away from any population center. Otherwise, it should be treated like any other crime. Perhaps we should think about why people become terrorists in the first place, and maybe get at the root of the problem, instead of increasing police power endlessly to try to solve the symptom and not the cure.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  As someone from the first generation to live in democracy after 41 years of dictatorship, I would say people ignore the signs and when they finally decide to start taking action is too late.
- Qwertious 8y ago
  All three of those examples are one person asking for themselves to be granted access to your private info. They're not really any less personal. To some extent, I'm just describing separation of powers, but there's also a difference between an individual with motives, and an organisation. A better example might be an exec passing a policy requiring HR to have permission to see your X.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

It's drastically easier to roll out a new technology than change a government policy which all major political parties are more or less comfortable with. Governments take time to adapt to new technology, so keep the new technology moving faster than the government knows how to deal with it........

prolikewh0a 8y ago

>The real question: Why do we let governments get away with this kind of behavior? Not many care anymore about privacy except basically, us, the tech power user community and then a few stragglers. This new generation just doesn't care because they never really grew up with any in the first place, just shoved right into Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat. They probably didn't go too depth into privacy laws, why your privacy matters in their grade school either.

yardie 8y ago
Just from observing my kid and his friends I think they are amazingly adept at privacy even if they don't realize it, yet. They are more concerned about trolling, being trolled, and in extreme cases, swatting. They share stuff on FB-IG-SC-YT but are conscious to give out just enough information. No real names, no addresses, no phone numbers. Now the older generations (boomers, GenX, Xillenials) share way too much information, in my opinion. They get on FB, tag everyone in the photo, even those without a FB account. And share their phone number and directions to their house.

barrkel 8y ago

It is a technology problem. Technology created the centralisation that makes the target so juicy, and courts treat stuff entrusted to third parties with less care than stuff you keep in your mind. The closer the storage is to you, the bigger a hurdle the government needs to jump to access it. Closer tech is more private tech. It's also much more expensive to snoop on. The ballot box approach will last exactly as long as the next terrorist crisis.

smolder 8y ago
I agree we should be divesting from centralized data management for the reasons you stated. The parent poster also had a good point, though. If the public is going to bend over at every crisis and lose rights, how long until residential customers can only hook approved walled-garden devices up to the internet, with no true privacy respecting tools permitted in their app stores?

fipple 8y ago

Because surveillance isn’t an issue of left vs right, it’s an issue of predator vs prey, and all of the elected officials are the predators as much as the voters are prey.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

larkeith 8y ago

The essential problem is that the great majority of voters are vastly apathetic when it comes to privacy, and there are strong incentives for governments to infringe upon it, especially in law enforcement.

GarrisonPrime 8y ago

The ballot box is a scam. An illusion of control to keep us complacent. In reality, they have the guns and jails, write the laws, and can change their mind as they see fit as to what the laws even mean. Playing in a rigged game.

jliptzin 8y ago

I'm curious at what point people decide that the government spying on them begins to be ok? How does the average person feel about the following: 1. A spouse going through your cell phone without your knowledge 2. A landlord requiring cameras in all rooms of your house to catch potential property destruction 3. A boss logging all computer activity at all times I'd imagine the average person would be pretty pissed about all of the above. At some point though, when it gets scaled up to the federal government effectively having the power to go through anybody's phone records, cloud data, email, search history, and now surveillance cameras, a lot of people seem to be okay with that, because terrorism. Terrorism is bad, but police states are worse, because at that point the government becomes the terrorist. If you're that afraid of terrorists that you're willing to give the government the power to spy on you (which is not even guaranteed to prevent terror attacks), maybe you should move to a rural location far away from any population center. Otherwise, it should be treated like any other crime. Perhaps we should think about why people become terrorists in the first place, and maybe get at the root of the problem, instead of increasing police power endlessly to try to solve the symptom and not the cure.

pjmlp 8y ago
As someone from the first generation to live in democracy after 41 years of dictatorship, I would say people ignore the signs and when they finally decide to start taking action is too late.
Qwertious 8y ago
All three of those examples are one person asking for themselves to be granted access to your private info. They're not really any less personal. To some extent, I'm just describing separation of powers, but there's also a difference between an individual with motives, and an organisation. A better example might be an exec passing a policy requiring HR to have permission to see your X.