22 ms·

You have to accept surveillance, as it increases security of everyone.

by boyadjian 7y ago

bobbydroptables 7y ago
No. It decreases the security of dissidents and many people living outside normal or legally approved modes.
- BickNowstrom 7y ago
  Which Western country uses their military surveillance to decrease the security of its dissidents? I can't find such as case, while I can find many cases of surveillance used to stop tragedy. Seems like military surveillance in the West is predominantly used correctly: to counter terrorism and illegal crime. Sharing military surveillance mitigation tricks is not unlike sharing 0-days against government systems, and can be seen as unethical and counterproductive: Military surveillance will try to improve their systems, and bad people will use it to avoid surveillance. It is too simplistic to deem any and all surveillance as inherently bad and invasive. No country can ensure the safety of its tax payers if it cripples their counterintelligence, foreign intelligence, border security, counterterrorism. People who deem national security as more important than individual security, or the security of anti-nation dissidents, or people living outside the legally approved modes, should be applauded. It is not very nice to decrease the security of me and my family to obtain an ideological goal.
  - iamnothere 7y ago
    > military surveillance Who said anything about military surveillance? Why on earth would you jump to the conclusion that military surveillance is what we are discussion? Most government-run domestic surveillance likely comes from law enforcement and agencies with a domestic purview like Homeland Security. The NSA is the exception, of course. I would expect that even most privacy advocates wouldn't have a problem with surveillance that is a part of actual military operations. > It is not very nice to decrease the security of me and my family to obtain an ideological goal. That's your opinion. Ben Franklin and many others would disagree, and we have a Bill of Rights in place specifically to disallow this kind of tradeoff. If you want absolute security at any cost, Singapore is always an option.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    Note how you have juxtaposed individual security with national security. But what is "national security", really? If it were the aggregate of individual security, then there would be no contradiction here - you achieve maximum national security by making everybody individually secure. That we see them as contradictory goals rather implies that "national security" is about something else. At which point I would say: yes, individual security is more important than "national security".
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    The UK has been flirting with declaring Extinction Rebellion (an environmental protest group with a preference for street theater) as an extremist group. The US did designate environmental and animal rights groups as terrorists in law back in the 90s.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      I bet that Earth First was one of them. https://earthfirstjournal.org/store/product/ecodefense-a-field-guide-to-monkeywrenching/ https://earthfirstjournal.org/store/product/ecodefense-a-fie...
      - anigbrowl 7y ago
        I've only seen the designation applied to Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, but my understanding is that there's considerable overlap between the latter and Earth First. They're an interesting legal example in that both groups explicitly disavow the destruction of human life and targeted their efforts toward property destruction, which is rather at odds with the popular understanding of 'terrorism' as discussed herein. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/R44921.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/R44921.pdf
  - bobbydroptables 7y ago
    My comment was not limited to Western countries. Most people don't live in the West after all. If you're going to make a ridiculously overbroad statement like "surveillance increases security" then I hope you have some very strong evidence or else be ready for people like me to point out that not really true across the board at all. Do you have any evidence that surveillance of citizens increases national security? Even we you did, it's not clear that it's worth the trade-off in freedom. And even then, that is irrelevant for what we're talking about, which is whether a given individual would benefit from submitting to the surveillance state (99% won't). Also, the West has a storied history of abusing it's surveillance powers. Are we just handwaving this away or what?
  - burner831234 7y ago
    It's possible that you aren't thinking of the west in terms of the last 100 years. I feel like sometimes when we're all discussing privacy on here, we forget surveillance is iterative as an industry as well. This isn't the first time that privacy has attempted to be eroded. Here are a few for you to consider: Post 9/11: the tracking of muslim american communities and all that came from Snowden's disclosures Interment of Japanese Americans: identify, tracked and literally interned during WWII WWII Axis decisions: the tracking, internment, and death of Jews, Slavs, gypsies and others WWI: The Wilson administration banned radical and Socialist journals from the mail system, jailed the leader of the Socialist party even though ~1% of the US population voted for the guy McCarthyism which was shown to be used against political rivals as much as it was against socialists The list honestly goes on and on. A government cannot be trusted with expanded surveillance tools and there just needs to be oversight. Its not to say it shouldnt exist, its to say it should always be viewed with a critical gaze. As far as the ideological goal sitting above your security, its important to remember that your ideological goal may be at odds. Democracy was at odds. Socialism is at odds. Freedom of religion in communist china and russia was at odds with the existing govt. Its easy to say these things when we feel like we're on the 'right' side and things will never change.
  - pmlnr 7y ago
    "illegal crime" Crime is, by definition, illegal.
- sircastor 7y ago
  Or just culturally approved modes
tim58 7y ago
The entire point of surveillance is to shift security between groups. The security cameras around my house make it less secure for those that try to steal from me and more secure for myself, my family and my possessions. Mass surveillance is often used in ways that don't promote general welfare.
twojacobtwo 7y ago
What would you say to those who were Jewish or another type of 'undesirable' in 1930/40s Germany, or one of the millions disappeared by the USSR secret security, or one of hundreds of thousands of Uighur peoples being oppressed/killed in modern day China?
- wruza 7y ago
  That they live in a pretty shitty country in their lifetime. First two groups weren’t very successful in evading that fate either, despite it was no cams back then. How on earth a country turns into an genocide state by simply implementing a surveillance? Why doesn’t South Korea oppress/kill anyone, having surveillance virtually everywhere except toilets? (Yes, there is an organization that prevents this.)
  - tehjoker 7y ago
    What if I told you that American society imprisons more people than any country in history? What if I told you that the US has a rich history of killing (effective) dissidents (e.g. Fred Hampton) and making life hell for others (e.g. Manning, Snowden)? That large scale abuses of minorities occurs every day? That things look like they are steadily getting worse?
    - wruza 7y ago
      I would say then that you cannot prevent this system imprisoning people, save Snowden or help minorities by reducing surveillance or leaving it as is. Unless there is a clear causal link pointing from it to these facts.
- intarga 7y ago
  I think the comment you're replying to was sarcasm
petilon 7y ago
"Surveillance has a chilling effect on freedom. People change their behavior when they live their lives under surveillance. They are less likely to speak freely and act individually. They self-censor. They become conformist. We simply aren’t as willing to be our individual selves when others are watching." See: https://www.wired.com/story/mcsweeneys-excerpt-the-right-to-experiment/ https://www.wired.com/story/mcsweeneys-excerpt-the-right-to-...

You have to accept surveillance, as it increases security of everyone.

bobbydroptables 7y ago

No. It decreases the security of dissidents and many people living outside normal or legally approved modes.

BickNowstrom 7y ago
Which Western country uses their military surveillance to decrease the security of its dissidents? I can't find such as case, while I can find many cases of surveillance used to stop tragedy. Seems like military surveillance in the West is predominantly used correctly: to counter terrorism and illegal crime. Sharing military surveillance mitigation tricks is not unlike sharing 0-days against government systems, and can be seen as unethical and counterproductive: Military surveillance will try to improve their systems, and bad people will use it to avoid surveillance. It is too simplistic to deem any and all surveillance as inherently bad and invasive. No country can ensure the safety of its tax payers if it cripples their counterintelligence, foreign intelligence, border security, counterterrorism. People who deem national security as more important than individual security, or the security of anti-nation dissidents, or people living outside the legally approved modes, should be applauded. It is not very nice to decrease the security of me and my family to obtain an ideological goal.
- iamnothere 7y ago
  > military surveillance Who said anything about military surveillance? Why on earth would you jump to the conclusion that military surveillance is what we are discussion? Most government-run domestic surveillance likely comes from law enforcement and agencies with a domestic purview like Homeland Security. The NSA is the exception, of course. I would expect that even most privacy advocates wouldn't have a problem with surveillance that is a part of actual military operations. > It is not very nice to decrease the security of me and my family to obtain an ideological goal. That's your opinion. Ben Franklin and many others would disagree, and we have a Bill of Rights in place specifically to disallow this kind of tradeoff. If you want absolute security at any cost, Singapore is always an option.
- int_19h 7y ago
  Note how you have juxtaposed individual security with national security. But what is "national security", really? If it were the aggregate of individual security, then there would be no contradiction here - you achieve maximum national security by making everybody individually secure. That we see them as contradictory goals rather implies that "national security" is about something else. At which point I would say: yes, individual security is more important than "national security".
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  The UK has been flirting with declaring Extinction Rebellion (an environmental protest group with a preference for street theater) as an extremist group. The US did designate environmental and animal rights groups as terrorists in law back in the 90s.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    I bet that Earth First was one of them. https://earthfirstjournal.org/store/product/ecodefense-a-field-guide-to-monkeywrenching/ https://earthfirstjournal.org/store/product/ecodefense-a-fie...
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      I've only seen the designation applied to Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, but my understanding is that there's considerable overlap between the latter and Earth First. They're an interesting legal example in that both groups explicitly disavow the destruction of human life and targeted their efforts toward property destruction, which is rather at odds with the popular understanding of 'terrorism' as discussed herein. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/R44921.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/R44921.pdf
- bobbydroptables 7y ago
  My comment was not limited to Western countries. Most people don't live in the West after all. If you're going to make a ridiculously overbroad statement like "surveillance increases security" then I hope you have some very strong evidence or else be ready for people like me to point out that not really true across the board at all. Do you have any evidence that surveillance of citizens increases national security? Even we you did, it's not clear that it's worth the trade-off in freedom. And even then, that is irrelevant for what we're talking about, which is whether a given individual would benefit from submitting to the surveillance state (99% won't). Also, the West has a storied history of abusing it's surveillance powers. Are we just handwaving this away or what?
- burner831234 7y ago
  It's possible that you aren't thinking of the west in terms of the last 100 years. I feel like sometimes when we're all discussing privacy on here, we forget surveillance is iterative as an industry as well. This isn't the first time that privacy has attempted to be eroded. Here are a few for you to consider: Post 9/11: the tracking of muslim american communities and all that came from Snowden's disclosures Interment of Japanese Americans: identify, tracked and literally interned during WWII WWII Axis decisions: the tracking, internment, and death of Jews, Slavs, gypsies and others WWI: The Wilson administration banned radical and Socialist journals from the mail system, jailed the leader of the Socialist party even though ~1% of the US population voted for the guy McCarthyism which was shown to be used against political rivals as much as it was against socialists The list honestly goes on and on. A government cannot be trusted with expanded surveillance tools and there just needs to be oversight. Its not to say it shouldnt exist, its to say it should always be viewed with a critical gaze. As far as the ideological goal sitting above your security, its important to remember that your ideological goal may be at odds. Democracy was at odds. Socialism is at odds. Freedom of religion in communist china and russia was at odds with the existing govt. Its easy to say these things when we feel like we're on the 'right' side and things will never change.
- pmlnr 7y ago
  "illegal crime" Crime is, by definition, illegal.
sircastor 7y ago
Or just culturally approved modes

tim58 7y ago

The entire point of surveillance is to shift security between groups. The security cameras around my house make it less secure for those that try to steal from me and more secure for myself, my family and my possessions. Mass surveillance is often used in ways that don't promote general welfare.

twojacobtwo 7y ago

What would you say to those who were Jewish or another type of 'undesirable' in 1930/40s Germany, or one of the millions disappeared by the USSR secret security, or one of hundreds of thousands of Uighur peoples being oppressed/killed in modern day China?

wruza 7y ago
That they live in a pretty shitty country in their lifetime. First two groups weren’t very successful in evading that fate either, despite it was no cams back then. How on earth a country turns into an genocide state by simply implementing a surveillance? Why doesn’t South Korea oppress/kill anyone, having surveillance virtually everywhere except toilets? (Yes, there is an organization that prevents this.)
- tehjoker 7y ago
  What if I told you that American society imprisons more people than any country in history? What if I told you that the US has a rich history of killing (effective) dissidents (e.g. Fred Hampton) and making life hell for others (e.g. Manning, Snowden)? That large scale abuses of minorities occurs every day? That things look like they are steadily getting worse?
  - wruza 7y ago
    I would say then that you cannot prevent this system imprisoning people, save Snowden or help minorities by reducing surveillance or leaving it as is. Unless there is a clear causal link pointing from it to these facts.
intarga 7y ago
I think the comment you're replying to was sarcasm

petilon 7y ago

"Surveillance has a chilling effect on freedom. People change their behavior when they live their lives under surveillance. They are less likely to speak freely and act individually. They self-censor. They become conformist. We simply aren’t as willing to be our individual selves when others are watching." See: https://www.wired.com/story/mcsweeneys-excerpt-the-right-to-experiment/ https://www.wired.com/story/mcsweeneys-excerpt-the-right-to-...