12 ms·

I wish we would stop emphasizing the social justice/accuracy concerns so heavily when talking about this. Starting that way will cause a huge segment of the pop

I wish we would stop emphasizing the social justice/accuracy concerns so heavily when talking about this. Starting that way will cause a huge segment of the population to switch off as soon as you start talking. Imagine it works perfectly, and a three-letter agency with practically zero oversight, transparency, or accountability is collecting an accurate history of every single thing you do--everywhere you go, who you talk to, what you say to them, what content you consume and create, what emotions you feel, detailed biometric profiles, and so on. Are you ok with that?

wlesieutre 7y ago
And on the off chance someone reading this is OK with the government doing that for law enforcement purposes, also consider that >At least a dozen U.S. National Security Agency employees have been caught using secret government surveillance tools to spy on the emails or phone calls of their current or former spouses and lovers in the past decade, according to the intelligence agency’s internal watchdog. before giving them carte blanche to collect whatever information they want about everyone and store it in a database forever. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog/nsa-staff-used-spy-tools-on-spouses-ex-lovers-watchdog-idUSBRE98Q14G20130927 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog...
- mfer 7y ago
  I've spoken with people who have said they are ok with it. But, when I start asking questions or sharing details on how this has been abused I tend to find they have not thought it through and are often unaware. In some cases people think I'm crazy until I show them press coverage on it. I've learned that many don't have the depth of knowledge I have on the topic and have formed opinions with a puddles worth of information. Sometimes helping people learn more can change minds.
  - x220 7y ago
    Democracy was a mistake. These people shouldn't be allowed to vote.
    - cabaalis 7y ago
      That was a pretty common sentiment and even law for quite some time. A bunch of people died and/or devoted their lives to changing that.
      - 1000units 7y ago
        In some places this has happened in the opposite direction.
        throwaway2048 7y ago
        Where?
    - squarefoot 7y ago
      Or rather as Sir Winston Churchill said: "the best argument against democracy is a 5 minutes conversation with the average voter". A quote that is often at risk of being misunderstood like "soo, if Churchill was against democracy, how come they let him become England PM?". Actually that quote should focus the attention on how the power of democracy needs some level of culture to be used properly. Voters who keep listening to clowns appealing to their bellies during speeches will inevitably put those clowns (actually very clever people acting as such) in power who in return will keep shaping their country as a wonder park for other clowns, ruining it for everyone else. Therefore, that Churchill's quote should be read between the lines as "you want democracy? Fine, we all do, but that is a powerful tool just like a gun or a car, therefore here are the books, go study them and take some tests, then we talk about democracy".
    - leppr 7y ago
      The election system itself ensures that voters' opinions on most specific governance issues are entirely ignored. Since citizens vote for only one out of a very restricted pool of candidates, every five years, the rational decision is to only consider the candidates' stance on topics directly affecting one's material well-being (so mostly finance/employment-related decisions). Unless voters are very prosperous, secondary quality-of-life decisions like surveillance are systematically pushed aside in general elections, and that regardless of their education level.
  - throwaway_law 7y ago
    >I've spoken with people who have said they are ok with it, when I start asking questions or sharing details on how this has been abused I tend to find they have not thought it through In the future just ask them to unlock their phone and hand it to you so you can look at their email, text and browser history. Watch them hesitate and refuse.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      I do this. But more and more often, people are responding: "You're not the government." So it doesn't work as well as people think it does.
      - state_less 7y ago
        And my response would be, "My party voted in the government, so yeah, we voted for the right to look through your phone. Now hand it over or do you want to be a law breaking criminal too?"
        bilbo0s 7y ago
        And they'd still say, "You're not the government." And they'd be right. If you were part of the government, you wouldn't need to ask to see the data on her Facebook or whatever. You'd probably already have some secret access. I mean they're right. "You're not the government, and if you were you wouldn't need to ask." Point is, they trust the government implicitly. (And, for most voters, completely, in matters of security.)
        state_less 7y ago
        And I'd say, "My party cares enough about safety that we voted that any card carrying party member can do a citizen search if they sense anything suspicious about another citizen. So hand over the phone" Hopefully we can install a sense of where things can lead to. Most folks aren't familiar with such strong tactics, but hopefully they are starting to become more so with party sanctioned violence (e.g. punch that opposing guy in the face).
  - ddingus 7y ago
    This. One topic I use to get people thinking more about implications is speeding. Right now, in most places, there is balance. One can speed, and have reasons that are not to be judged at the moment, and there is some chance of it being detected and a ticket written. Could just be simple error too. Glance down at speedo, see +15 over, think "oops", and correct with no real worries. Happens all the time. Now, think about that android phone. Google actually knows when speeding happened, where, and all that. So far, the only action I have seen is Google alerting me to speed traps and a request for me to confirm they are still there. But, where will that lead? Does my insurer get that data? Can they get it? Should they get it? Etc... Then return to that balance bit. Say one gets a ticket. With, what I call old world balance in play, the general response is to just be a bit more careful and avoid future tickets. Simple, easy, reasonable. Now, with all that data collected, a ticket could be just the beginning. A review of your last year of driving reveals chronic behavior! To get past the ticket, monitoring is needed, your car may be required to limit speed to the legal limit at all times, and on it goes! Same scenario, same person, but two very different outcomes and perceptions! Should there be. Why? Or, say one is not popular politically, or got sucked into some sort of investigation just by poor timing and proximity, or maybe an unfortunate surname similarity. What could happen? One morning you get up to find your license to drive has been revoked and you owe a ton of fines. That happens despite never even being pulled over for years, or ever. Maybe it happens at random, like a drug test too. One day, boom. Your life is forever different, because data. All of us are extremely likely to be guilty enough to see the worst max penalty allowed for in the law too. True right now, today for me, you, everyone we know who drives. What should happen? Why? What public good does it serve? These are questions of balance. All of that mass data hoovering going on in pretty much all aspects of our lives is not balanced at all. The human factors we are accustomed to do not exist. The watchers are perfect. Or near perfect enough to be a concern. The first time Google prompted me about a speed trap, I thought, "spiffy" and saw it as a nice help / value add to Maps. Then later down the road I thought about where it can all lead. Nowhere good without some new rules, and even with those, trust is difficult. Frankly, I want to put my phone in a faraday cage after thinking about it all. People vary in their responses, but I can say this line of discussion can often get them thinking about these matters and it is all pretty easy to talk about. People, even those with light knowledge of these things, can picture their own driving, the phone, and potential outcomes.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Unfortunate reality is that, abuse and all, the larger society, ie - outside the privacy activist bubble, completely supports this sort of thing. The police will just tell the average soccer mom that we need to track everything so that we know who to watch in order to stop the next mass shooter. And that soccer mom will applaud the police and say, "Hurry up! Keep the crazies away from my kids' school!" That some person somewhere has to deal with a snooping spouse is about as meaningful to your average voter as some black kid getting picked up because the system doesn't work on black people. Most don't care. Sorry, but that's just the cold reality. To think they will care, is to ignore human nature. To count on them caring in order to stop the government from implementing mass surveillance, is to be not terribly pragmatic.
  - mokus 7y ago
    It’s especially weird to me when taken together with the fact that one or the other of our last three presidents was literally the reincarnation of Hitler according to about 75% of all the people I know... but everyone simultaneously seems to think that the government is by nature the same as whichever party they do like.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      And all of those people likely had 100% confidence that, were it necessary, the government would take power from whatever president those people considered to be Hitler. And what's worse, they would have applauded that president's removal. Don't misunderstand, I see the dynamic you see. At one time, I even shared your confusion with its dichotomous nature. Then I figured out that people trust the government and military far more than they trust politicians. Which was a concerning realization, and also, sadly, entirely understandable.
- thelittleone 7y ago
  > and store it in a database forever. This is an important point. Most people are deciding what they're ok with based on today's circumstances, government etc. What happens if some years from now, your past behavior is at odds with the current government. You will be flagged and there will undoubtedly be consequences, which, even if minor are still negative. E.g., flagged for searches at border crossings.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    It can be much worse than what you mentioned. At some point this surveillance technology will trickle into the hands of every government and they will take advantage of it. What's the chance that none of the warlords in countries in conflict will use this for their advantage? And that could easily be used for mass murder.
  - LeftHandPath 7y ago
    It's interesting that people worry about "the basilisk" and all of this happening with AI, but not about the fact that future governments and revolutionaries are equally likely to look back on old data and judge you for it - and have a much greater capability to use that data to do you harm.
rapind 7y ago
Most of this could be said about smartphones already and the masses don't care. Maybe their approach of focusing on the consequences for minorities could raise some concern (or not, who knows). I don't think most people will care about privacy until it has a direct or near direct affect on them.
dorchadas 7y ago
Sadly, I know a lot of people who are ok with that. They're very much of the opinion, "Well, I'm doing nothing wrong, so I don't care. Especially if it helps catch bad guys". Not really sure how to fight that.
- csdreamer7 7y ago
  Agreed, I have heard at least one person say that exact same thing. Others just shrug, too ashamed to say it out loud.
- the-new-guy 7y ago
  "Give me your phone please, unlocked."
- maximente 7y ago
  - do you know anyone who has been stalked, harassed, worse? or: do you have kids? - yes (hopefully) - would you tolerate use of software that allows users to more effectively stalk, harass, or worse? [especially your kids?] - no (hopefully) - are you aware that software with that power exists today, and that since at least 2007 some of its users have been convicted of using it for stalking/harassing/worse? - no, tell me more (hopefully)
  - jlgaddis 7y ago
    > - would you tolerate use of software that allows users to more effectively stalk, harass, or worse? [especially your kids?] It's easy to dream up ideal scenarios, such as the above (even though they are almost never realistic). For example, one possible unexpected response to the above question might very well be: > "Such as Tor?"
    - dorchadas 7y ago
      Or, the one I get the most, "But it's our government and I have nothing to hide from them." So while they wouldn't want private actors to have that information, they're fine with the government having it because they still believe the law is actually fair and impartial and such.
nullc 7y ago
> the social justice/accuracy concerns Unfortunately there has been a major cultural shift in the national ACLU. They are now largely uninterested in defending strong sense personal freedom and instead much more interested in social justice. :( (The frown isn't that I think such causes are bad, but only that I don't think that the loss of a strong defense of constitutional free speech is good). If you think I'm exaggerating, you might find this eye opening: https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621AC... I'm not aware of any large organization that is willing to defend deplorable persons and groups like the westborough church trolls for the sake of preserving the same freedoms for everyone, not like the ACLU of old did. I do understand that the social justice oriented activities have been utterly phenomenal for ACLU fundraising, however. Particularly because they achieve significant traction on social media... After all, who really gets all that excited about the ACLU defending some piece-of-crap pedophile? Unglamorous civil rights work just doesn't pay like riding the latest waves.
- andyburke 7y ago
  Here are just a couple of recent examples that invalidate your claim. They were pretty easy to find: https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/aclu-defends-article-linking-taylor-swift-to-white-supremacists https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/aclu-defends-article-l... https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/aclu-free-speech-white-supremacy/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/aclu-free-speech-whi...
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    > Here are just a couple of recent examples that invalidate your claim. They were pretty easy to find: These are several years old. Can you find something from the past year? Turnover happens, missions change. From the outside, looks like they've changed.
    - nl 7y ago
      Some in a snowmobile race in Alaska refused to talk to police. They found some excuse to arrest him. ACLU is suing for violation of first amendment: https://www.aclu.org/cases/nieves-v-bartlett-17-1174 https://www.aclu.org/cases/nieves-v-bartlett-17-1174 A guy setup a clothing brand called FUCT. Trademark denied because Brunetti’s application was refused on the ground that FUCT is “scandalous.” In reaching that conclusion the Board also noted that Brunetti’s website and blog contained “anti-social imagery,” was “lacking in taste,” and contained themes of “misogyny” and “extreme nihilism.” https://www.aclu.org/cases/iancu-v-brunetti https://www.aclu.org/cases/iancu-v-brunetti
the_af 7y ago
> I wish we would stop emphasizing the social justice/accuracy concerns so heavily when talking about this Do you mean like the historical racism and anti-black bias of the FBI, as mentioned in the article? I want it emphasized. Like someone else said, a lot of people are fine with some authority they perceive as benevolent (or as fighting evildoers) to control every detail of their lives. They would answer your question with "yes, I don't have anything to hide." So it's important to remind them of examples of authorities grossly misbehaving while supposedly acting for the common good.
- pg_is_a_butt 7y ago
  But they aren't black. You really don't get this.
  - godelski 7y ago
    Which I think is the point. As a white person the racism part doesn't resonate with me as well (even though I think it is shameful and I agree with what the ACLU is saying and the suggestion of making the FBI more accountable). But what the OP is saying is that most people aren't black. And that to really reel in the FBI -- and other agencies -- we need unilateral support. The messaging in the article won't resonate with right wingers at all. Even though personal liberty and privacy are fundamental rights to the conservative party (even if they don't always vote in that manner. But that's likely lack of knowledge, see several sibling posts pointing this out). The article resonates with me because I care about my personal liberty and privacy. Because I believe that we are judged by how we treat the lowest of classes. Because they first came for the communists and I'm afraid no one will be left to speak for me. But that isn't directly said in the article. We've been fighting this uphill battle for awhile now and many are getting labeled as conspiracy theorists for suggesting the Orwellian nature of surveillance capitalism -- and how the government uses this to push a more authoritarian agenda (something right wingers are VERY afraid of). I believe the OP is trying to suggest the latter should be highlighted because it reaches a larger audience and we need bilateral support.
- Kalium 7y ago
  I believe the point being made is that those points are effective at reaching people who need little to no convincing and who are already politically supportive. The same points about historical wrongs done to other people unlike them are more likely to alienate the readers who are not currently politically supportive. To put it another way, preaching to the choir doesn't win you more votes.
kop316 7y ago
....people already let that happen with Google, and don't care. And they do it in the open. What is the fun kicker is because they do that, 4th amendment rights don't apply to that information on Google. So why would a three letter agency even bother with that when they can just subpoena Google?
triceratops 7y ago
> Starting that way will cause a huge segment of the population to switch off as soon as you start talking. Why is that? Is a huge segment of the population in favor of social injustice?
dredmorbius 7y ago
It's interesting to read back over past discussion of this question. Among the more interesting academics is Herbert Simon, and his 1977 essay "What Computers Mean for Man and Society" makes a strong case for the positive impacts of increased utilisation of computer technology. It also specifically discusses the privacy concerns, in one paragraph. That, unfortunately for Simon's case, contains an egregious factual error, though one which may not have been known to Simon at the time: The Nazis operated with horrifying effectiveness and thoroughness without the benefits of any kind of mechanized data processing. Screenshot: https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/103059230160200494 https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/103059230160200494 Source: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a9e7/33e25ee8f67d5e670b3b7dc4b8c3e00849ae.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a9e7/33e25ee8f67d5e670b3b7d... Unfortunately, we're now very well aware that this was not the case. Not only did Nazi German prosecute the Holocaust with the extensive aid of mechanised data processing technologies, but they did so using American technology, provided and supported, with full knowledge, by IBM: Edwin Black has documented this in his horrific book, IBM and the Holocaust (2012) https://ibmandtheholocaust.com https://ibmandtheholocaust.com https://www.worldcat.org/title/ibm-and-the-holocaust-the-strategic-alliance-between-nazi-germany-and-americas-most-powerful-corporation/oclc/966160844 https://www.worldcat.org/title/ibm-and-the-holocaust-the-str... To paraphrase Lord Acton, it appears that data corrupts, and absolute data corrupts absolutely.
lefstathiou 7y ago
Yes. I don't believe our government is inherently evil and unjust. They have and will continue to have access to all this information legally anyway (if it exists, they can legally get it). On the plus side, I see a lot of positives with this. I'm tired of graffiti everywhere. The other day I was walking home and some kid picked up a metal trash can on the corner of 37th and 8th, dumped it in the middle of the road and launched it at a storefront window and walked off. Outdoor restrooms, drugs use / dealing, random acts of violence, theft, vandalism... good bye. In Shenzhen, I'm told that if you jaywalk they will auto-deduct the ticket from your bank account by the time you cross the street. Think about the countless billions of dollars in lost productivity, environmental damage, waste whatever it is that you care about that blatant disrespect for other people's time and property costs us. All of these bad actors can be weeded out. The possibilities actually excite me.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > They have and will continue to have access to all this information legally anyway (if it exists, they can legally get it). There are checks in place for this so they don’t abuse their access; checks that we find so important that we put it directly into our Bill of Rights.
- 1996 7y ago
  I prefer to live with the occasional graffiti. You like mainland, go live there. One more sea turtle, everybody is happy.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > All of these bad actors can be weeded out. The possibilities actually excite me. Sure, right up until someone in power decides that you are the "bad actor" and weeds you out.
  - lefstathiou 7y ago
    The exercise was to imagine it working perfectly. : )
dredmorbius 7y ago
A fair point, thought the accuracy issue is a real one, and one that may get traction as more people deal with incorrect, misleading, false, and/or outdated information in various records such as credit reports or health records. At scale innacuracies enter into data stores, and are difficult to root out. They can persist for years. My rephrase of Acton's dictum cuts two ways: Data corrupts, and absolute data corrupts absolutely. That is, it both tends to corrupt the institutions, organisations, and individuals holding, accessing, or influencing it, and the information itself recorded tends to acquire errors and inaccuracies over time. Those inaccuracies will often be far more significant to the subjects of that information than the holders or collectors. (In fact the original formulation of that phrase referred to a case of data corruption, not institutional corruption, though both were manifestly apparent at the time.)
majormajor 7y ago
> Imagine it works perfectly, and a three-letter agency with practically zero oversight, transparency, or accountability is collecting an accurate history of every single thing you do--everywhere you go, who you talk to, what you say to them, what content you consume and create, what emotions you feel, detailed biometric profiles, and so on. Are you ok with that? A few years ago I met someone, they asked what I did, I said computer software. Their first response: "Oh, I hope there's no more of those Snowdens out there!" So I wouldn't assume everyone is opposed to law enforcement mass surveillence. We have to give them reasons to be opposed to it.
groby_b 7y ago
So, wait, targeting political expression with a tech that doesn't even work is less of a concern than some fantasy technology that doesn't even exist? Because talking about Social Justice is bad? And mentioning that black people are disproportionately affected is bad? Are you sure you aren't suggesting we should simply talk less about activists, minorities, and poor people, and more about affluent white people?
kevingadd 7y ago
It is ultimately a social justice issue no matter how you contextualize it. Think about it this way: If the government has complete access to your life, that simplifies targeting you for any reason they might select, and history has shown that social justice is a big factor because law enforcement has a history of targeting vulnerable minorities, even if they don't do it as much now. Are your politics uncommon? Is your skin color uncommon? Is your sexuality uncommon? Does someone in the local police department just plain dislike you? We used to perform witch-hunts on communists. Conservatives already observe (regardless of whether you believe this to be true) persecution by the government, and left-wing and far-right groups actively are subject to the same in some cases right now. Even if the technology is only partial surveillance and detection, it trivializes applying the "Give me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough in them to hang him" trope to literally anyone, because now they have access to most of the words we've said in our entire lives, including quotes. And they could do selective editing to recontextualize them.
swader999 7y ago
Snowden showed us that this is in fact happening. They know me better than my wife does. God like power.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 7y ago
Probably not accurate. Many more people will switch on due to the social justice angle than will respond to the libertarian aspect.
asveikau 7y ago
But the accuracy point is a big deal. The fact that it doesn't work well should frighten the people who claim they are OK with it because they have nothing to hide. (However much we disagree with them.) Imagine being thrown in jail because somebody who looks like you committed a crime. (You didn't like the social justice angle, but actually, racial minorities get that all the time in the US.) "The computer said so" is going to be convincing evidence to a lot of people, even if it shouldn't be.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Humans have a limited amount of attention. Imagine you're in a debate with somebody and you put out 2 hard hitting points of criticism and 18 easy to solve points of criticism. The other party can now counter/fix your 18 points of criticism and ignore the 2 hard hitting ones. To most people looking at the debate from the outside it will seem as though the other party has defended their argument, because they countered so many of your points. This same situation applies here. If the government somehow fixes or sidesteps the issue of discrimination, then it's only going to marginally make the mass surveillance issue better for society. What if they deployed this system in a racially homogenous country? Now the argument about discrimination is much less effective, yet the negative impact of mass surveillance is nearly the same.
staticassertion 7y ago
Why is that causing a huge part of the population to switch off? That's insane. Starting with a practical, serious, and concrete discriminatory problem sounds like a great place to start vs some general ethical issue with surveillance.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Because the discrimination problem is separate issue here. It leaves room for the idea that "if they just fix the discrimination problem, then this is fine". It's not, because privacy violations affect everyone. Even if they were somehow able to make these systems not discriminate, we would still not have moved even a little on the issue of mass surveillance.
  - staticassertion 7y ago
    I don't think it's a separate problem, and as I said this is a real, concrete problem. The end result isn't that it's fine after they fix this, but that doesn't matter at all, the goal isn't to end surveillance. The obvious, no two sides about it problem right now is discrimination.
kbos87 7y ago
Thank you! The error rate of facial recognition and similar technologies is a completely moot point and a very easy one for anyone to talk their way out of. The scariest thing isn’t the case where this technology gets it wrong, it’s when it’s used effectively for the wrong reasons.

wlesieutre 7y ago

And on the off chance someone reading this is OK with the government doing that for law enforcement purposes, also consider that >At least a dozen U.S. National Security Agency employees have been caught using secret government surveillance tools to spy on the emails or phone calls of their current or former spouses and lovers in the past decade, according to the intelligence agency’s internal watchdog. before giving them carte blanche to collect whatever information they want about everyone and store it in a database forever. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog/nsa-staff-used-spy-tools-on-spouses-ex-lovers-watchdog-idUSBRE98Q14G20130927 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog...

mfer 7y ago
I've spoken with people who have said they are ok with it. But, when I start asking questions or sharing details on how this has been abused I tend to find they have not thought it through and are often unaware. In some cases people think I'm crazy until I show them press coverage on it. I've learned that many don't have the depth of knowledge I have on the topic and have formed opinions with a puddles worth of information. Sometimes helping people learn more can change minds.
- x220 7y ago
  Democracy was a mistake. These people shouldn't be allowed to vote.
  - cabaalis 7y ago
    That was a pretty common sentiment and even law for quite some time. A bunch of people died and/or devoted their lives to changing that.
    - 1000units 7y ago
      In some places this has happened in the opposite direction.
      - throwaway2048 7y ago
        Where?
  - squarefoot 7y ago
    Or rather as Sir Winston Churchill said: "the best argument against democracy is a 5 minutes conversation with the average voter". A quote that is often at risk of being misunderstood like "soo, if Churchill was against democracy, how come they let him become England PM?". Actually that quote should focus the attention on how the power of democracy needs some level of culture to be used properly. Voters who keep listening to clowns appealing to their bellies during speeches will inevitably put those clowns (actually very clever people acting as such) in power who in return will keep shaping their country as a wonder park for other clowns, ruining it for everyone else. Therefore, that Churchill's quote should be read between the lines as "you want democracy? Fine, we all do, but that is a powerful tool just like a gun or a car, therefore here are the books, go study them and take some tests, then we talk about democracy".
  - leppr 7y ago
    The election system itself ensures that voters' opinions on most specific governance issues are entirely ignored. Since citizens vote for only one out of a very restricted pool of candidates, every five years, the rational decision is to only consider the candidates' stance on topics directly affecting one's material well-being (so mostly finance/employment-related decisions). Unless voters are very prosperous, secondary quality-of-life decisions like surveillance are systematically pushed aside in general elections, and that regardless of their education level.
- throwaway_law 7y ago
  >I've spoken with people who have said they are ok with it, when I start asking questions or sharing details on how this has been abused I tend to find they have not thought it through In the future just ask them to unlock their phone and hand it to you so you can look at their email, text and browser history. Watch them hesitate and refuse.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    I do this. But more and more often, people are responding: "You're not the government." So it doesn't work as well as people think it does.
    - state_less 7y ago
      And my response would be, "My party voted in the government, so yeah, we voted for the right to look through your phone. Now hand it over or do you want to be a law breaking criminal too?"
      - bilbo0s 7y ago
        And they'd still say, "You're not the government." And they'd be right. If you were part of the government, you wouldn't need to ask to see the data on her Facebook or whatever. You'd probably already have some secret access. I mean they're right. "You're not the government, and if you were you wouldn't need to ask." Point is, they trust the government implicitly. (And, for most voters, completely, in matters of security.)
        state_less 7y ago
        And I'd say, "My party cares enough about safety that we voted that any card carrying party member can do a citizen search if they sense anything suspicious about another citizen. So hand over the phone" Hopefully we can install a sense of where things can lead to. Most folks aren't familiar with such strong tactics, but hopefully they are starting to become more so with party sanctioned violence (e.g. punch that opposing guy in the face).
- ddingus 7y ago
  This. One topic I use to get people thinking more about implications is speeding. Right now, in most places, there is balance. One can speed, and have reasons that are not to be judged at the moment, and there is some chance of it being detected and a ticket written. Could just be simple error too. Glance down at speedo, see +15 over, think "oops", and correct with no real worries. Happens all the time. Now, think about that android phone. Google actually knows when speeding happened, where, and all that. So far, the only action I have seen is Google alerting me to speed traps and a request for me to confirm they are still there. But, where will that lead? Does my insurer get that data? Can they get it? Should they get it? Etc... Then return to that balance bit. Say one gets a ticket. With, what I call old world balance in play, the general response is to just be a bit more careful and avoid future tickets. Simple, easy, reasonable. Now, with all that data collected, a ticket could be just the beginning. A review of your last year of driving reveals chronic behavior! To get past the ticket, monitoring is needed, your car may be required to limit speed to the legal limit at all times, and on it goes! Same scenario, same person, but two very different outcomes and perceptions! Should there be. Why? Or, say one is not popular politically, or got sucked into some sort of investigation just by poor timing and proximity, or maybe an unfortunate surname similarity. What could happen? One morning you get up to find your license to drive has been revoked and you owe a ton of fines. That happens despite never even being pulled over for years, or ever. Maybe it happens at random, like a drug test too. One day, boom. Your life is forever different, because data. All of us are extremely likely to be guilty enough to see the worst max penalty allowed for in the law too. True right now, today for me, you, everyone we know who drives. What should happen? Why? What public good does it serve? These are questions of balance. All of that mass data hoovering going on in pretty much all aspects of our lives is not balanced at all. The human factors we are accustomed to do not exist. The watchers are perfect. Or near perfect enough to be a concern. The first time Google prompted me about a speed trap, I thought, "spiffy" and saw it as a nice help / value add to Maps. Then later down the road I thought about where it can all lead. Nowhere good without some new rules, and even with those, trust is difficult. Frankly, I want to put my phone in a faraday cage after thinking about it all. People vary in their responses, but I can say this line of discussion can often get them thinking about these matters and it is all pretty easy to talk about. People, even those with light knowledge of these things, can picture their own driving, the phone, and potential outcomes.
bilbo0s 7y ago
Unfortunate reality is that, abuse and all, the larger society, ie - outside the privacy activist bubble, completely supports this sort of thing. The police will just tell the average soccer mom that we need to track everything so that we know who to watch in order to stop the next mass shooter. And that soccer mom will applaud the police and say, "Hurry up! Keep the crazies away from my kids' school!" That some person somewhere has to deal with a snooping spouse is about as meaningful to your average voter as some black kid getting picked up because the system doesn't work on black people. Most don't care. Sorry, but that's just the cold reality. To think they will care, is to ignore human nature. To count on them caring in order to stop the government from implementing mass surveillance, is to be not terribly pragmatic.
- mokus 7y ago
  It’s especially weird to me when taken together with the fact that one or the other of our last three presidents was literally the reincarnation of Hitler according to about 75% of all the people I know... but everyone simultaneously seems to think that the government is by nature the same as whichever party they do like.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    And all of those people likely had 100% confidence that, were it necessary, the government would take power from whatever president those people considered to be Hitler. And what's worse, they would have applauded that president's removal. Don't misunderstand, I see the dynamic you see. At one time, I even shared your confusion with its dichotomous nature. Then I figured out that people trust the government and military far more than they trust politicians. Which was a concerning realization, and also, sadly, entirely understandable.
thelittleone 7y ago
> and store it in a database forever. This is an important point. Most people are deciding what they're ok with based on today's circumstances, government etc. What happens if some years from now, your past behavior is at odds with the current government. You will be flagged and there will undoubtedly be consequences, which, even if minor are still negative. E.g., flagged for searches at border crossings.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  It can be much worse than what you mentioned. At some point this surveillance technology will trickle into the hands of every government and they will take advantage of it. What's the chance that none of the warlords in countries in conflict will use this for their advantage? And that could easily be used for mass murder.
- LeftHandPath 7y ago
  It's interesting that people worry about "the basilisk" and all of this happening with AI, but not about the fact that future governments and revolutionaries are equally likely to look back on old data and judge you for it - and have a much greater capability to use that data to do you harm.

rapind 7y ago

Most of this could be said about smartphones already and the masses don't care. Maybe their approach of focusing on the consequences for minorities could raise some concern (or not, who knows). I don't think most people will care about privacy until it has a direct or near direct affect on them.

dorchadas 7y ago

Sadly, I know a lot of people who are ok with that. They're very much of the opinion, "Well, I'm doing nothing wrong, so I don't care. Especially if it helps catch bad guys". Not really sure how to fight that.

csdreamer7 7y ago
Agreed, I have heard at least one person say that exact same thing. Others just shrug, too ashamed to say it out loud.
the-new-guy 7y ago
"Give me your phone please, unlocked."
maximente 7y ago
- do you know anyone who has been stalked, harassed, worse? or: do you have kids? - yes (hopefully) - would you tolerate use of software that allows users to more effectively stalk, harass, or worse? [especially your kids?] - no (hopefully) - are you aware that software with that power exists today, and that since at least 2007 some of its users have been convicted of using it for stalking/harassing/worse? - no, tell me more (hopefully)
- jlgaddis 7y ago
  > - would you tolerate use of software that allows users to more effectively stalk, harass, or worse? [especially your kids?] It's easy to dream up ideal scenarios, such as the above (even though they are almost never realistic). For example, one possible unexpected response to the above question might very well be: > "Such as Tor?"
  - dorchadas 7y ago
    Or, the one I get the most, "But it's our government and I have nothing to hide from them." So while they wouldn't want private actors to have that information, they're fine with the government having it because they still believe the law is actually fair and impartial and such.

nullc 7y ago

> the social justice/accuracy concerns Unfortunately there has been a major cultural shift in the national ACLU. They are now largely uninterested in defending strong sense personal freedom and instead much more interested in social justice. :( (The frown isn't that I think such causes are bad, but only that I don't think that the loss of a strong defense of constitutional free speech is good). If you think I'm exaggerating, you might find this eye opening: https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621AC... I'm not aware of any large organization that is willing to defend deplorable persons and groups like the westborough church trolls for the sake of preserving the same freedoms for everyone, not like the ACLU of old did. I do understand that the social justice oriented activities have been utterly phenomenal for ACLU fundraising, however. Particularly because they achieve significant traction on social media... After all, who really gets all that excited about the ACLU defending some piece-of-crap pedophile? Unglamorous civil rights work just doesn't pay like riding the latest waves.

andyburke 7y ago
Here are just a couple of recent examples that invalidate your claim. They were pretty easy to find: https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/aclu-defends-article-linking-taylor-swift-to-white-supremacists https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/aclu-defends-article-l... https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/aclu-free-speech-white-supremacy/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/aclu-free-speech-whi...
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > Here are just a couple of recent examples that invalidate your claim. They were pretty easy to find: These are several years old. Can you find something from the past year? Turnover happens, missions change. From the outside, looks like they've changed.
  - nl 7y ago
    Some in a snowmobile race in Alaska refused to talk to police. They found some excuse to arrest him. ACLU is suing for violation of first amendment: https://www.aclu.org/cases/nieves-v-bartlett-17-1174 https://www.aclu.org/cases/nieves-v-bartlett-17-1174 A guy setup a clothing brand called FUCT. Trademark denied because Brunetti’s application was refused on the ground that FUCT is “scandalous.” In reaching that conclusion the Board also noted that Brunetti’s website and blog contained “anti-social imagery,” was “lacking in taste,” and contained themes of “misogyny” and “extreme nihilism.” https://www.aclu.org/cases/iancu-v-brunetti https://www.aclu.org/cases/iancu-v-brunetti

the_af 7y ago

> I wish we would stop emphasizing the social justice/accuracy concerns so heavily when talking about this Do you mean like the historical racism and anti-black bias of the FBI, as mentioned in the article? I want it emphasized. Like someone else said, a lot of people are fine with some authority they perceive as benevolent (or as fighting evildoers) to control every detail of their lives. They would answer your question with "yes, I don't have anything to hide." So it's important to remind them of examples of authorities grossly misbehaving while supposedly acting for the common good.

pg_is_a_butt 7y ago
But they aren't black. You really don't get this.
- godelski 7y ago
  Which I think is the point. As a white person the racism part doesn't resonate with me as well (even though I think it is shameful and I agree with what the ACLU is saying and the suggestion of making the FBI more accountable). But what the OP is saying is that most people aren't black. And that to really reel in the FBI -- and other agencies -- we need unilateral support. The messaging in the article won't resonate with right wingers at all. Even though personal liberty and privacy are fundamental rights to the conservative party (even if they don't always vote in that manner. But that's likely lack of knowledge, see several sibling posts pointing this out). The article resonates with me because I care about my personal liberty and privacy. Because I believe that we are judged by how we treat the lowest of classes. Because they first came for the communists and I'm afraid no one will be left to speak for me. But that isn't directly said in the article. We've been fighting this uphill battle for awhile now and many are getting labeled as conspiracy theorists for suggesting the Orwellian nature of surveillance capitalism -- and how the government uses this to push a more authoritarian agenda (something right wingers are VERY afraid of). I believe the OP is trying to suggest the latter should be highlighted because it reaches a larger audience and we need bilateral support.
Kalium 7y ago
I believe the point being made is that those points are effective at reaching people who need little to no convincing and who are already politically supportive. The same points about historical wrongs done to other people unlike them are more likely to alienate the readers who are not currently politically supportive. To put it another way, preaching to the choir doesn't win you more votes.

kop316 7y ago

....people already let that happen with Google, and don't care. And they do it in the open. What is the fun kicker is because they do that, 4th amendment rights don't apply to that information on Google. So why would a three letter agency even bother with that when they can just subpoena Google?

triceratops 7y ago

> Starting that way will cause a huge segment of the population to switch off as soon as you start talking. Why is that? Is a huge segment of the population in favor of social injustice?

dredmorbius 7y ago

It's interesting to read back over past discussion of this question. Among the more interesting academics is Herbert Simon, and his 1977 essay "What Computers Mean for Man and Society" makes a strong case for the positive impacts of increased utilisation of computer technology. It also specifically discusses the privacy concerns, in one paragraph. That, unfortunately for Simon's case, contains an egregious factual error, though one which may not have been known to Simon at the time: The Nazis operated with horrifying effectiveness and thoroughness without the benefits of any kind of mechanized data processing. Screenshot: https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/103059230160200494 https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/103059230160200494 Source: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a9e7/33e25ee8f67d5e670b3b7dc4b8c3e00849ae.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a9e7/33e25ee8f67d5e670b3b7d... Unfortunately, we're now very well aware that this was not the case. Not only did Nazi German prosecute the Holocaust with the extensive aid of mechanised data processing technologies, but they did so using American technology, provided and supported, with full knowledge, by IBM: Edwin Black has documented this in his horrific book, IBM and the Holocaust (2012) https://ibmandtheholocaust.com https://ibmandtheholocaust.com https://www.worldcat.org/title/ibm-and-the-holocaust-the-strategic-alliance-between-nazi-germany-and-americas-most-powerful-corporation/oclc/966160844 https://www.worldcat.org/title/ibm-and-the-holocaust-the-str... To paraphrase Lord Acton, it appears that data corrupts, and absolute data corrupts absolutely.

lefstathiou 7y ago

Yes. I don't believe our government is inherently evil and unjust. They have and will continue to have access to all this information legally anyway (if it exists, they can legally get it). On the plus side, I see a lot of positives with this. I'm tired of graffiti everywhere. The other day I was walking home and some kid picked up a metal trash can on the corner of 37th and 8th, dumped it in the middle of the road and launched it at a storefront window and walked off. Outdoor restrooms, drugs use / dealing, random acts of violence, theft, vandalism... good bye. In Shenzhen, I'm told that if you jaywalk they will auto-deduct the ticket from your bank account by the time you cross the street. Think about the countless billions of dollars in lost productivity, environmental damage, waste whatever it is that you care about that blatant disrespect for other people's time and property costs us. All of these bad actors can be weeded out. The possibilities actually excite me.

saagarjha 7y ago
> They have and will continue to have access to all this information legally anyway (if it exists, they can legally get it). There are checks in place for this so they don’t abuse their access; checks that we find so important that we put it directly into our Bill of Rights.
1996 7y ago
I prefer to live with the occasional graffiti. You like mainland, go live there. One more sea turtle, everybody is happy.
pdonis 7y ago
> All of these bad actors can be weeded out. The possibilities actually excite me. Sure, right up until someone in power decides that you are the "bad actor" and weeds you out.
- lefstathiou 7y ago
  The exercise was to imagine it working perfectly. : )

dredmorbius 7y ago

A fair point, thought the accuracy issue is a real one, and one that may get traction as more people deal with incorrect, misleading, false, and/or outdated information in various records such as credit reports or health records. At scale innacuracies enter into data stores, and are difficult to root out. They can persist for years. My rephrase of Acton's dictum cuts two ways: Data corrupts, and absolute data corrupts absolutely. That is, it both tends to corrupt the institutions, organisations, and individuals holding, accessing, or influencing it, and the information itself recorded tends to acquire errors and inaccuracies over time. Those inaccuracies will often be far more significant to the subjects of that information than the holders or collectors. (In fact the original formulation of that phrase referred to a case of data corruption, not institutional corruption, though both were manifestly apparent at the time.)

majormajor 7y ago

> Imagine it works perfectly, and a three-letter agency with practically zero oversight, transparency, or accountability is collecting an accurate history of every single thing you do--everywhere you go, who you talk to, what you say to them, what content you consume and create, what emotions you feel, detailed biometric profiles, and so on. Are you ok with that? A few years ago I met someone, they asked what I did, I said computer software. Their first response: "Oh, I hope there's no more of those Snowdens out there!" So I wouldn't assume everyone is opposed to law enforcement mass surveillence. We have to give them reasons to be opposed to it.

groby_b 7y ago

So, wait, targeting political expression with a tech that doesn't even work is less of a concern than some fantasy technology that doesn't even exist? Because talking about Social Justice is bad? And mentioning that black people are disproportionately affected is bad? Are you sure you aren't suggesting we should simply talk less about activists, minorities, and poor people, and more about affluent white people?

kevingadd 7y ago

It is ultimately a social justice issue no matter how you contextualize it. Think about it this way: If the government has complete access to your life, that simplifies targeting you for any reason they might select, and history has shown that social justice is a big factor because law enforcement has a history of targeting vulnerable minorities, even if they don't do it as much now. Are your politics uncommon? Is your skin color uncommon? Is your sexuality uncommon? Does someone in the local police department just plain dislike you? We used to perform witch-hunts on communists. Conservatives already observe (regardless of whether you believe this to be true) persecution by the government, and left-wing and far-right groups actively are subject to the same in some cases right now. Even if the technology is only partial surveillance and detection, it trivializes applying the "Give me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough in them to hang him" trope to literally anyone, because now they have access to most of the words we've said in our entire lives, including quotes. And they could do selective editing to recontextualize them.

swader999 7y ago

Snowden showed us that this is in fact happening. They know me better than my wife does. God like power.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 7y ago

Probably not accurate. Many more people will switch on due to the social justice angle than will respond to the libertarian aspect.

asveikau 7y ago

But the accuracy point is a big deal. The fact that it doesn't work well should frighten the people who claim they are OK with it because they have nothing to hide. (However much we disagree with them.) Imagine being thrown in jail because somebody who looks like you committed a crime. (You didn't like the social justice angle, but actually, racial minorities get that all the time in the US.) "The computer said so" is going to be convincing evidence to a lot of people, even if it shouldn't be.

Mirioron 7y ago
Humans have a limited amount of attention. Imagine you're in a debate with somebody and you put out 2 hard hitting points of criticism and 18 easy to solve points of criticism. The other party can now counter/fix your 18 points of criticism and ignore the 2 hard hitting ones. To most people looking at the debate from the outside it will seem as though the other party has defended their argument, because they countered so many of your points. This same situation applies here. If the government somehow fixes or sidesteps the issue of discrimination, then it's only going to marginally make the mass surveillance issue better for society. What if they deployed this system in a racially homogenous country? Now the argument about discrimination is much less effective, yet the negative impact of mass surveillance is nearly the same.

staticassertion 7y ago

Why is that causing a huge part of the population to switch off? That's insane. Starting with a practical, serious, and concrete discriminatory problem sounds like a great place to start vs some general ethical issue with surveillance.

Mirioron 7y ago
Because the discrimination problem is separate issue here. It leaves room for the idea that "if they just fix the discrimination problem, then this is fine". It's not, because privacy violations affect everyone. Even if they were somehow able to make these systems not discriminate, we would still not have moved even a little on the issue of mass surveillance.
- staticassertion 7y ago
  I don't think it's a separate problem, and as I said this is a real, concrete problem. The end result isn't that it's fine after they fix this, but that doesn't matter at all, the goal isn't to end surveillance. The obvious, no two sides about it problem right now is discrimination.

kbos87 7y ago

Thank you! The error rate of facial recognition and similar technologies is a completely moot point and a very easy one for anyone to talk their way out of. The scariest thing isn’t the case where this technology gets it wrong, it’s when it’s used effectively for the wrong reasons.