9 ms·

But no. This is not about phones. The same argument can (and has been) made about non-uniformed police officers, photography of crowds, video of demonstrations

But no. This is not about phones. The same argument can (and has been) made about non-uniformed police officers, photography of crowds, video of demonstrations, wiretaps, postal inspection etc. Yes, democracy can be threatened by the actions of governments and big business. Can be, has been. The solution is nothing to do with phones, or cameras. It is about good laws, enforced vigorously. And that requires us to vote, to become engaged and perhaps enraged. If anything is breaking democracy perhaps it is the realisation by government that they can get away with things that previously were unthinkable - that breaking the basic rules of democracy does not lead to destruction. And the only solution is our vote. But enough of us need to be engaged and outraged. The fault dear brutus is not in our stars, but in our selves.

saagarjha 7y ago
Phones are merely one of the common and accurate ways to track people. We clearly need legislation for everything related to this, but phones provide a good and visceral example of the dangers.
tsimionescu 7y ago
Voting is such a weak control system, that it is obviously not enough. Regular elections pack together so many decision points into so few options that it's barely worth participating. If we really want to influence politics, we need to get rid of this idea that voting is all that democracy means, and try to get people more organized, try to get many more people to participate directly in politics, get them to talk to their representatives regularly, get them to organize and pool resources together for important causes and so on. If you can convince 2 people to vote your way in an election, you've had a more meaningful impact on the election than if you voted yourself. If you can convince an elected representative to change their stance on some issue, you've had probably a hundred or a thousand times more impact on policy than your vote alone has. Until we recognize these things, the people who already do (mostly, but not exclusively, lobbyists and industry groups; and some religious organizations) will continue to effectively control policy. Would anyone ever imagine that, if say Mark Zuckerberg wanted a particular policy, he would do nothing until the next elections, and then would go to the polling station and vote for the candidate who seems to promise that policy?
- deith 7y ago
  >If we really want to influence politics, we need to get rid of this idea that voting is all that democracy means, and try to get people more organized, try to get many more people to participate directly in politics, get them to talk to their representatives regularly, get them to organize and pool resources together for important causes and so on. You think people have time and energy for this? If they did they could already do it. Usually you take the good with the bad and vote for the candidate that agrees with you on the issues that you care about the most, or the one that seems more reasonable overall.
  - nocturnial 7y ago
    Democracy isn't dead because it got defunded. > Usually you take the good with the bad and vote for the candidate that agrees with you on the issues that you care about the most, or the one that seems more reasonable overall. How is that working out in the US? I don't want to make an analysis of what's wrong or right in american politics. If someone got elected with the message they will burn down the house and everything and he doesn't care... I hope you read this message that after this presidency, you cannot go back to business as usual. Even if "you" win in the next election, it's going to be more brutal in the election after that one. The EU countries know this and are already planning for an exit of the US on the global stage.
  - tsimionescu 7y ago
    Not all people, obviously. But I'm tired of hearing that everything would be better if only people voted. People feel, correctly, that voting is not always an efficient way of influencing public policy. However, instead of hearing about all the other mechanisms which exist, they simply conclude that they can't influence public policy and abandon the stage completely. If we want to get more people involved in political matters, helping them find ways to influence what they care about with less effort than it takes right now would be the best way (not that I know what would be a real solution to that).
- vturner 7y ago
  Us Americans have an impractical revulsion to lobbying and industry groups. Most Americans simply do not have the time and, at least until recently, are not too concerned what someone a state away does. Unfortunately, like you pointed out, voting isn't a frequent enough control mechanism on the authoritarians or simply narcissistic politicians ready to hand out favors. So, what do we do if lobbying and industrial groups are automatically not an option?
carlob 7y ago
Allow me to use a leaky metaphor. We now know pretty well addiction has little to do with the specifics of the substances we abuse: one can be addicted to gambling or sex just as well as to various chemicals. However that argument doesn't mean heroin is safe or that one should approach opiates without care. I think the same can be said of smartphones: if the government or a company wants to track you they will find other ways to do that, but we're making it the game far too easy for them. Another issue is that smartphones are so pervasive that 1) it has become increasingly difficult and sometimes impossible to do some things without one; 2) the sole fact of choosing not to use or own one is suspect. So, yeah surveillance is not just about phones, but we need to have a serious discussions about whether it is at all an option to opt out and lead a normal life.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
_visgean 7y ago
The problem with that logic is that it completely ignores the effectiveness of the surveillance. You can't really dispatch non-uniformed police officer for every demonstrator to find out where they live. With location data you can.
talkingtab 7y ago
"The fault dear brutus is blah, blah, blah." I agree that smart phones in themselves are not the problem, but it is naive to think they are not the delivery vehicle for the problem.
edanm 7y ago
I agree in principle. > [The solution] is about good laws, enforced vigorously. This I agree with, but I think it does have to be more than just "good laws". It has to also be a constitution, or some check on the government that is outside the "regular" powers of government to overcome. I think of the US-style bill of rights as having the correct idea - make it clear that the government is a servant of the people, that the people have given it power over some things, but certainly not everything, and that there are some things which are completely off-limits for the government.
huffmsa 7y ago
The only solution is not just your vote. The tree of liberty occasionally needs to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. That's how it's always been, and probably always will be.
t34543 7y ago
> The solution is nothing to do with phones, or cameras. It is about good laws, enforced vigorously. I think this rationale is exactly what got us into this mess. Laws are sufficiently complex that navigating them successfully is only realistic with a lot of resources. Laws have become an instrument of power for wealthy people. In order to have unbiased enforcement we need to clean up and simplify the laws we already have.
Aperocky 7y ago
And you’ll be fed outrage on subject that the source want you to outrage on. And you will be outraged. An entire country will be. Just think about how many time you’ve experienced outrage over positive human experience some online content has? You’re already there, you want more outrage because you’re addicted to this mess. I agree that technology itself is not the problem. The problem imo is humans themselves, the natural and biological tendency to identify with a group and behave hostilely against another group.
lifeisstillgood 7y ago
Just to follow up on my post (too late for edits) - Yes voting is weak, but it is what counts. Please write to your MP / congresswoman, please join your local party, or volunteer at a refugee centre. All those things are vital life blood of democracy and I tip my hat to you if you have done any of those things. But the final thing is voting - it's what counts, what adds up. - We still need good laws. We still need them enforced. It would be lovely if we had a law that put politicians in jail if they lied. But just as Twitter and Facebook are finding, defining "political", "lie" and "truth" are hard problems. Like making NP-hard a walk in the park hard. - A new battlefront has opened. In the same way in the 1900s armed forces started saying, "Well I guess we are gonna need some pilots", we need "some coders". HN is probably the highest density of new pilots on the planets - and we are going to need the skills. Once I could read ten newspapers and know what information had been fed to millions of people - today that needs a university level observatory monitoring twitter and facebook firehouses. It will only get worse and the best we can hope for is to fight for the idea of objective truth agreed upon by millions. It's a fight well worth the coding. See you on the frontline.

saagarjha 7y ago

Phones are merely one of the common and accurate ways to track people. We clearly need legislation for everything related to this, but phones provide a good and visceral example of the dangers.

tsimionescu 7y ago

Voting is such a weak control system, that it is obviously not enough. Regular elections pack together so many decision points into so few options that it's barely worth participating. If we really want to influence politics, we need to get rid of this idea that voting is all that democracy means, and try to get people more organized, try to get many more people to participate directly in politics, get them to talk to their representatives regularly, get them to organize and pool resources together for important causes and so on. If you can convince 2 people to vote your way in an election, you've had a more meaningful impact on the election than if you voted yourself. If you can convince an elected representative to change their stance on some issue, you've had probably a hundred or a thousand times more impact on policy than your vote alone has. Until we recognize these things, the people who already do (mostly, but not exclusively, lobbyists and industry groups; and some religious organizations) will continue to effectively control policy. Would anyone ever imagine that, if say Mark Zuckerberg wanted a particular policy, he would do nothing until the next elections, and then would go to the polling station and vote for the candidate who seems to promise that policy?

deith 7y ago
>If we really want to influence politics, we need to get rid of this idea that voting is all that democracy means, and try to get people more organized, try to get many more people to participate directly in politics, get them to talk to their representatives regularly, get them to organize and pool resources together for important causes and so on. You think people have time and energy for this? If they did they could already do it. Usually you take the good with the bad and vote for the candidate that agrees with you on the issues that you care about the most, or the one that seems more reasonable overall.
- nocturnial 7y ago
  Democracy isn't dead because it got defunded. > Usually you take the good with the bad and vote for the candidate that agrees with you on the issues that you care about the most, or the one that seems more reasonable overall. How is that working out in the US? I don't want to make an analysis of what's wrong or right in american politics. If someone got elected with the message they will burn down the house and everything and he doesn't care... I hope you read this message that after this presidency, you cannot go back to business as usual. Even if "you" win in the next election, it's going to be more brutal in the election after that one. The EU countries know this and are already planning for an exit of the US on the global stage.
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  Not all people, obviously. But I'm tired of hearing that everything would be better if only people voted. People feel, correctly, that voting is not always an efficient way of influencing public policy. However, instead of hearing about all the other mechanisms which exist, they simply conclude that they can't influence public policy and abandon the stage completely. If we want to get more people involved in political matters, helping them find ways to influence what they care about with less effort than it takes right now would be the best way (not that I know what would be a real solution to that).
vturner 7y ago
Us Americans have an impractical revulsion to lobbying and industry groups. Most Americans simply do not have the time and, at least until recently, are not too concerned what someone a state away does. Unfortunately, like you pointed out, voting isn't a frequent enough control mechanism on the authoritarians or simply narcissistic politicians ready to hand out favors. So, what do we do if lobbying and industrial groups are automatically not an option?

carlob 7y ago

Allow me to use a leaky metaphor. We now know pretty well addiction has little to do with the specifics of the substances we abuse: one can be addicted to gambling or sex just as well as to various chemicals. However that argument doesn't mean heroin is safe or that one should approach opiates without care. I think the same can be said of smartphones: if the government or a company wants to track you they will find other ways to do that, but we're making it the game far too easy for them. Another issue is that smartphones are so pervasive that 1) it has become increasingly difficult and sometimes impossible to do some things without one; 2) the sole fact of choosing not to use or own one is suspect. So, yeah surveillance is not just about phones, but we need to have a serious discussions about whether it is at all an option to opt out and lead a normal life.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

_visgean 7y ago

The problem with that logic is that it completely ignores the effectiveness of the surveillance. You can't really dispatch non-uniformed police officer for every demonstrator to find out where they live. With location data you can.

talkingtab 7y ago

"The fault dear brutus is blah, blah, blah." I agree that smart phones in themselves are not the problem, but it is naive to think they are not the delivery vehicle for the problem.

edanm 7y ago

I agree in principle. > [The solution] is about good laws, enforced vigorously. This I agree with, but I think it does have to be more than just "good laws". It has to also be a constitution, or some check on the government that is outside the "regular" powers of government to overcome. I think of the US-style bill of rights as having the correct idea - make it clear that the government is a servant of the people, that the people have given it power over some things, but certainly not everything, and that there are some things which are completely off-limits for the government.

huffmsa 7y ago

The only solution is not just your vote. The tree of liberty occasionally needs to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. That's how it's always been, and probably always will be.

t34543 7y ago

> The solution is nothing to do with phones, or cameras. It is about good laws, enforced vigorously. I think this rationale is exactly what got us into this mess. Laws are sufficiently complex that navigating them successfully is only realistic with a lot of resources. Laws have become an instrument of power for wealthy people. In order to have unbiased enforcement we need to clean up and simplify the laws we already have.

Aperocky 7y ago

And you’ll be fed outrage on subject that the source want you to outrage on. And you will be outraged. An entire country will be. Just think about how many time you’ve experienced outrage over positive human experience some online content has? You’re already there, you want more outrage because you’re addicted to this mess. I agree that technology itself is not the problem. The problem imo is humans themselves, the natural and biological tendency to identify with a group and behave hostilely against another group.

lifeisstillgood 7y ago

Just to follow up on my post (too late for edits) - Yes voting is weak, but it is what counts. Please write to your MP / congresswoman, please join your local party, or volunteer at a refugee centre. All those things are vital life blood of democracy and I tip my hat to you if you have done any of those things. But the final thing is voting - it's what counts, what adds up. - We still need good laws. We still need them enforced. It would be lovely if we had a law that put politicians in jail if they lied. But just as Twitter and Facebook are finding, defining "political", "lie" and "truth" are hard problems. Like making NP-hard a walk in the park hard. - A new battlefront has opened. In the same way in the 1900s armed forces started saying, "Well I guess we are gonna need some pilots", we need "some coders". HN is probably the highest density of new pilots on the planets - and we are going to need the skills. Once I could read ten newspapers and know what information had been fed to millions of people - today that needs a university level observatory monitoring twitter and facebook firehouses. It will only get worse and the best we can hope for is to fight for the idea of objective truth agreed upon by millions. It's a fight well worth the coding. See you on the frontline.