6 ms·

Surveillance pertains to asymmetric information, a situation where a few in the society (those in power) have access to the information of the rest of the socie

by aborsy 6y ago

Surveillance pertains to asymmetric information, a situation where a few in the society (those in power) have access to the information of the rest of the society (those not in power, namely, the public) but not conversely. The asymmetry of the information gives those in power great advantage over public. The rich and powerful claim, we monitor you to protect you, and to better serve you. The scope and the characteristics of the surveillance, the incentives and the historical evidence don’t support this claim. The harm is far more than potential benefits. The public should reread David Hume and stand up against this threat.

zionic 6y ago
What I don't see many talk about is how much harm the belief that they harvest everything is, on top of just the actual deed itself. If I am an organization that is well known to be spying on everyone and anything, that means I can very convincingly fabricate evidence against my enemies. It goes beyond simple spying, they now have the ability to manufacture whatever truth they'd like.
- eivarv 6y ago
  Though not exactly what you're referring to, my impression is that people discuss the chilling effect [0] quite a bit. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect#Chilling_effects_on_Wikipedia_users https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect#Chilling_effec...
  - HugeAcumen 6y ago
    Some people do - though likely not as many as discuss Love Island. I think the tech community in particular (with both the awareness and the means) has a duty to the public to make clear what is going on to those less tuned in. So far, it has failed in that to a rather astonishing degree. Probably for exactly the reasons yourself and the OP describe.
  - nicholasjarnold 6y ago
    Yes, and this so-called Chilling Effect can have a potentially very negative impact on the ability of a democratic society to thrive and possibly to even survive. Democracies require (open, honest) debate. If we self-censor then we hold back on fully-expressing views or positions during debate. This is one of the fundamental issues that I have with this proliferation of population-scale mass-surveillance (domestically in the US and abroad). It will not lead us into any sort of light, despite the promises about safety or less kiddie pr0n or whatever.
    - 3647e7ee7ru 6y ago
      I'll start caring about chilling effects on speech again when local governments quit encouraging the police to just let riots wear themselves out, damage and deaths be damned. Until that happens I don't really care if the federal government is engaging in these tactics as long as belligerantly violent groups are actually charged and receive jail time.
      - antonvs 6y ago
        > I'll start caring about chilling effects on speech again ... That's ok, responsible people will take care of it while you're busy supporting fascism.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- miketery 6y ago
  Not sure if also related or you meant to touch on this point. But reading that made me think the following; this means real evidence will be discounted as well since we perceive those in power to be able to conjure fake evidence. thus eroding trust wholly.
- Melting_Harps 6y ago
  > What I don't see many talk about is how much harm the belief that they harvest everything is, on top of just the actual deed itself. Snowden, Assange? They've both talk(ed) at great length about the perils of a Society that will self-censor due to the fear of retribution that follows when everything one has said be it in text/phone/online is constantly held in bulk collection. Moreover, if anyone has followed what has occurred in China where dissenters are forced into re-education black op sites and are forced into public apologies, or in other cases they're disappeared altogether, you have what then appears like a very forceful form of cohesive group think. This occurred in HK prior to the passing of the NSL, people were essentially trying to scrub their online presence for fear of retroactive punishment from the CCP [1], who only hours after forcefully passing the bill to great local and international condemnation, started to arrest 'violators.' Which gives the CCP the appearance of a forceful enforcer of its policy writ large, at least on the surface with low hanging fruit like journalists and physicians speaking out about COVID on the mainland, but in reality China is wrought with seemingly permissible corruption provided you have any connection to the CCP. In this respect this isn't a East Vs West issue, but rather one of the oppressed and the oppressors, if Government is to exist at all, I think a mandate of constant surveillance and absolute financial transparency should be in order. I fear Humanity refuses to accept we must create alternatives to the Nation State model, which this pandemic and economic crises has clearly demonstrated to have failed in every conceivable metric. There are outliers, but they tend to be more city-states, which I'm not entirely averse to but can also have the very same entrenched power traps that the nation state model has. If anyone has the time I highly recommend Snowden s recent talk with Naomi Kilne on Vice [2] discussing the path forward to circumvent the Surveillance State/Economy that has been created by the Tech Industry that has only been incredibly sped up in the aftermath of the COVID pandemic and the protest against police violence/crime. At the end the people talent, many of whom hang out here, are the one's that build this tech not the corrupt politician(s), nor the VC big wig. Having them re-evaluate their positions is critical moving forward, as both conclude that this much needed detour will simply not occur from the Leadership. 1: https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Hong-Kongers-erase-digital-footprints-ahead-of-security-laws https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Hong-Kongers-erase-digital-... 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUnbhXtXixc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUnbhXtXixc
  - 6y ago
twblalock 6y ago
One way around this is to make surveillance records available to the public through due process like other public government records. This removes the asymmetry and it also makes surveillance less attractive in the first place, because those responsible for the surveillance would be forced to expose surveillance records about themselves.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  That may slightly chip away at asymmetry but it doesn’t remove it. For one, if only LEO officers decide who gets surveillance then mysteriously senators who misbehave won’t get surveillance but poor people will.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >One way around this is to make surveillance records available to the public through due process like other public government records. I'm fairly sure they already are. Any records of interest get some sort of classified label preventing their release until long past when they matter.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > One way around this is to make surveillance records available to the public through due process like other public government records. I would agree that a person ought to be able to see whatever surveillance records exist on themselves. However, allowing any member of the public to see all surveillance records, on anyone, strikes me as just compounding the problem--now my private information isn't just seen by the government, it's seen by everybody.
  - twblalock 6y ago
    > now my private information isn't just seen by the government, it's seen by everybody. Right, but that's why no reasonable congressman would want your information, because that would also make his/hers available just like yours. The result would be that sensitive personal information would be very unlikely to be collected.
brobdingnagians 6y ago
There is also the implicit assumption of "superior goodness" of those in power, who will "benevolently assure our security". If anything, power corrupts. Trusting a certain small group to be ethically superior is insanity. If anything, history proves that, on average, those with more money are _less_ethical_. They often got the money by being that way, then convince everyone to give them more power.
- WealthVsSurvive 6y ago
  Oh, the worst part is that our system doesn't even require that people be convinced to give the wealthy more wealth. The relationship of State governance & powerful trade unions with the "world banks" functions like an insurance scam, whereby private losses are foisted upon an unwilling populace through all sorts of very fancy sounding financial tools. It's a charade. Why do you think they are so resistant to letting housing naturally crash? Can't have those plebs realize they can live and provide for themselves without debt, gotta inflate, inflate, inflate, so they'll be forced to work where we want, salary tiered by what we need. Hey, I wonder what happens if you do that, while at the same time ensuring that no one has access to capital? $10 bag o' chips. So much faith in our brave and fearless "leaders." Oh hey, look, someone's nephew is running for office. They are just so darn deserving. We've really come so far since feudalism.
- imheretolearn 6y ago
  >> If anything, power corrupts It is possible that power does not corrupt. If you generally agree with the forbes most powerful people list [0], it has people like the Pope, Bill Gates and Antonio Guterres as well. >> If anything, history proves that, on average, those with more money are _less_ethical_ This would also include a lot of HNers who work in FAANGs of the world since they are the people with more money than at least 80% of the world. The giving pledge[1] is also evidence to the contrary. Can you cite some sources to support your claims? [0] https://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/list/ https://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/list/ [1] https://givingpledge.org/ https://givingpledge.org/
jorblumesea 6y ago
Many of those that lead intelligence agencies are not rich and powerful but middle class bureaucrats. Many who hold top secret clearances aren't billionaires. That information isn't fed to society's wealthy but in defense of the state, which benefits the rich but also the public. There are many uses of intelligence and not all of it benefits the rich and powerful. To pretend that the intelligence world exists solely to provide tips to the well connected is ridiculous. It's not that it doesn't, it's just not that black and white. The world is far more nuanced compared to your abstracted sweeping examples.
clairity 6y ago
right, the asymmetry needs to go the other way, e.g., sunshine laws. those in power should only be able to exercise power with complete transparency to the public, because of their ability to adversely affect many others, especially via tiny, hard-to-notice slices from each of us that erode our collective liberty and prosperity.

by aborsy 6y ago

zionic 6y ago

What I don't see many talk about is how much harm the belief that they harvest everything is, on top of just the actual deed itself. If I am an organization that is well known to be spying on everyone and anything, that means I can very convincingly fabricate evidence against my enemies. It goes beyond simple spying, they now have the ability to manufacture whatever truth they'd like.

eivarv 6y ago
Though not exactly what you're referring to, my impression is that people discuss the chilling effect [0] quite a bit. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect#Chilling_effects_on_Wikipedia_users https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect#Chilling_effec...
- HugeAcumen 6y ago
  Some people do - though likely not as many as discuss Love Island. I think the tech community in particular (with both the awareness and the means) has a duty to the public to make clear what is going on to those less tuned in. So far, it has failed in that to a rather astonishing degree. Probably for exactly the reasons yourself and the OP describe.
- nicholasjarnold 6y ago
  Yes, and this so-called Chilling Effect can have a potentially very negative impact on the ability of a democratic society to thrive and possibly to even survive. Democracies require (open, honest) debate. If we self-censor then we hold back on fully-expressing views or positions during debate. This is one of the fundamental issues that I have with this proliferation of population-scale mass-surveillance (domestically in the US and abroad). It will not lead us into any sort of light, despite the promises about safety or less kiddie pr0n or whatever.
  - 3647e7ee7ru 6y ago
    I'll start caring about chilling effects on speech again when local governments quit encouraging the police to just let riots wear themselves out, damage and deaths be damned. Until that happens I don't really care if the federal government is engaging in these tactics as long as belligerantly violent groups are actually charged and receive jail time.
    - antonvs 6y ago
      > I'll start caring about chilling effects on speech again ... That's ok, responsible people will take care of it while you're busy supporting fascism.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
miketery 6y ago
Not sure if also related or you meant to touch on this point. But reading that made me think the following; this means real evidence will be discounted as well since we perceive those in power to be able to conjure fake evidence. thus eroding trust wholly.
Melting_Harps 6y ago
> What I don't see many talk about is how much harm the belief that they harvest everything is, on top of just the actual deed itself. Snowden, Assange? They've both talk(ed) at great length about the perils of a Society that will self-censor due to the fear of retribution that follows when everything one has said be it in text/phone/online is constantly held in bulk collection. Moreover, if anyone has followed what has occurred in China where dissenters are forced into re-education black op sites and are forced into public apologies, or in other cases they're disappeared altogether, you have what then appears like a very forceful form of cohesive group think. This occurred in HK prior to the passing of the NSL, people were essentially trying to scrub their online presence for fear of retroactive punishment from the CCP [1], who only hours after forcefully passing the bill to great local and international condemnation, started to arrest 'violators.' Which gives the CCP the appearance of a forceful enforcer of its policy writ large, at least on the surface with low hanging fruit like journalists and physicians speaking out about COVID on the mainland, but in reality China is wrought with seemingly permissible corruption provided you have any connection to the CCP. In this respect this isn't a East Vs West issue, but rather one of the oppressed and the oppressors, if Government is to exist at all, I think a mandate of constant surveillance and absolute financial transparency should be in order. I fear Humanity refuses to accept we must create alternatives to the Nation State model, which this pandemic and economic crises has clearly demonstrated to have failed in every conceivable metric. There are outliers, but they tend to be more city-states, which I'm not entirely averse to but can also have the very same entrenched power traps that the nation state model has. If anyone has the time I highly recommend Snowden s recent talk with Naomi Kilne on Vice [2] discussing the path forward to circumvent the Surveillance State/Economy that has been created by the Tech Industry that has only been incredibly sped up in the aftermath of the COVID pandemic and the protest against police violence/crime. At the end the people talent, many of whom hang out here, are the one's that build this tech not the corrupt politician(s), nor the VC big wig. Having them re-evaluate their positions is critical moving forward, as both conclude that this much needed detour will simply not occur from the Leadership. 1: https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Hong-Kongers-erase-digital-footprints-ahead-of-security-laws https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Hong-Kongers-erase-digital-... 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUnbhXtXixc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUnbhXtXixc
- 6y ago

twblalock 6y ago

One way around this is to make surveillance records available to the public through due process like other public government records. This removes the asymmetry and it also makes surveillance less attractive in the first place, because those responsible for the surveillance would be forced to expose surveillance records about themselves.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago
That may slightly chip away at asymmetry but it doesn’t remove it. For one, if only LEO officers decide who gets surveillance then mysteriously senators who misbehave won’t get surveillance but poor people will.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
>One way around this is to make surveillance records available to the public through due process like other public government records. I'm fairly sure they already are. Any records of interest get some sort of classified label preventing their release until long past when they matter.
pdonis 6y ago
> One way around this is to make surveillance records available to the public through due process like other public government records. I would agree that a person ought to be able to see whatever surveillance records exist on themselves. However, allowing any member of the public to see all surveillance records, on anyone, strikes me as just compounding the problem--now my private information isn't just seen by the government, it's seen by everybody.
- twblalock 6y ago
  > now my private information isn't just seen by the government, it's seen by everybody. Right, but that's why no reasonable congressman would want your information, because that would also make his/hers available just like yours. The result would be that sensitive personal information would be very unlikely to be collected.

brobdingnagians 6y ago

There is also the implicit assumption of "superior goodness" of those in power, who will "benevolently assure our security". If anything, power corrupts. Trusting a certain small group to be ethically superior is insanity. If anything, history proves that, on average, those with more money are _less_ethical_. They often got the money by being that way, then convince everyone to give them more power.

WealthVsSurvive 6y ago
Oh, the worst part is that our system doesn't even require that people be convinced to give the wealthy more wealth. The relationship of State governance & powerful trade unions with the "world banks" functions like an insurance scam, whereby private losses are foisted upon an unwilling populace through all sorts of very fancy sounding financial tools. It's a charade. Why do you think they are so resistant to letting housing naturally crash? Can't have those plebs realize they can live and provide for themselves without debt, gotta inflate, inflate, inflate, so they'll be forced to work where we want, salary tiered by what we need. Hey, I wonder what happens if you do that, while at the same time ensuring that no one has access to capital? $10 bag o' chips. So much faith in our brave and fearless "leaders." Oh hey, look, someone's nephew is running for office. They are just so darn deserving. We've really come so far since feudalism.
imheretolearn 6y ago
>> If anything, power corrupts It is possible that power does not corrupt. If you generally agree with the forbes most powerful people list [0], it has people like the Pope, Bill Gates and Antonio Guterres as well. >> If anything, history proves that, on average, those with more money are _less_ethical_ This would also include a lot of HNers who work in FAANGs of the world since they are the people with more money than at least 80% of the world. The giving pledge[1] is also evidence to the contrary. Can you cite some sources to support your claims? [0] https://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/list/ https://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/list/ [1] https://givingpledge.org/ https://givingpledge.org/

jorblumesea 6y ago

Many of those that lead intelligence agencies are not rich and powerful but middle class bureaucrats. Many who hold top secret clearances aren't billionaires. That information isn't fed to society's wealthy but in defense of the state, which benefits the rich but also the public. There are many uses of intelligence and not all of it benefits the rich and powerful. To pretend that the intelligence world exists solely to provide tips to the well connected is ridiculous. It's not that it doesn't, it's just not that black and white. The world is far more nuanced compared to your abstracted sweeping examples.

clairity 6y ago

right, the asymmetry needs to go the other way, e.g., sunshine laws. those in power should only be able to exercise power with complete transparency to the public, because of their ability to adversely affect many others, especially via tiny, hard-to-notice slices from each of us that erode our collective liberty and prosperity.