3 ms·

“Focusing on one particular identification method misconstrues the nature of the surveillance society we’re in the process of building.”

jordanpg 7y ago
This. Much like the famed movie-plot terrorist threat and "security theater" coinages, Schneier correctly points out again that this is a distraction. The important detail is where we are inevitability headed, not the specifics of this or that technology. The use of the word "surveillance" to discuss this will become progressively more quaint because of the pejorative nature of that word, and the technologies that are the subject of this article will become ubiquitous, typical, and standard. The behavior of humans will change accordingly, well-behaved or otherwise.
dangerface 7y ago
I have watched as our privacy has been slowly eroded since 911 and the general public just doesn't care. I have complained about mass surveillance for years and every one said it was made up, Snowden proved it and still the mass public can't accept it / don't care. This is the first time I have seen the general public have any interest in protecting their privacy.
- Silhouette 7y ago
  I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I have many friends in their 20s and even 30s who have grown up in an Internet-enabled, mobile-connected, social-media-driven world. Many of them don't remember 9/11; they were too young to understand when it happened. They certainly don't remember a world without the pervasive surveillance we suffer today. Many of them are also in relatively privileged social groups, rather than the minorities that tend to suffer the worst from authoritarian measures and one-sided deals. Even so, having sometimes discussed these issues, it's clear that many of those friends don't approve of or condone such measures. They certainly don't like or encourage them. It's more a combination of not seeing better alternatives, and often for the non-techie crowd (which is most people), of having other priorities when it comes to any advocacy or political movements they want to support with whatever spare time and money they are willing to spend.

jordanpg 7y ago

This. Much like the famed movie-plot terrorist threat and "security theater" coinages, Schneier correctly points out again that this is a distraction. The important detail is where we are inevitability headed, not the specifics of this or that technology. The use of the word "surveillance" to discuss this will become progressively more quaint because of the pejorative nature of that word, and the technologies that are the subject of this article will become ubiquitous, typical, and standard. The behavior of humans will change accordingly, well-behaved or otherwise.

dangerface 7y ago

I have watched as our privacy has been slowly eroded since 911 and the general public just doesn't care. I have complained about mass surveillance for years and every one said it was made up, Snowden proved it and still the mass public can't accept it / don't care. This is the first time I have seen the general public have any interest in protecting their privacy.

Silhouette 7y ago
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I have many friends in their 20s and even 30s who have grown up in an Internet-enabled, mobile-connected, social-media-driven world. Many of them don't remember 9/11; they were too young to understand when it happened. They certainly don't remember a world without the pervasive surveillance we suffer today. Many of them are also in relatively privileged social groups, rather than the minorities that tend to suffer the worst from authoritarian measures and one-sided deals. Even so, having sometimes discussed these issues, it's clear that many of those friends don't approve of or condone such measures. They certainly don't like or encourage them. It's more a combination of not seeing better alternatives, and often for the non-techie crowd (which is most people), of having other priorities when it comes to any advocacy or political movements they want to support with whatever spare time and money they are willing to spend.