5 ms·

> A glimpse of the future for those supporting these kinds of laws because they have nothing to hide. This has been the reality in China for a while now and th

> A glimpse of the future for those supporting these kinds of laws because they have nothing to hide. This has been the reality in China for a while now and the result has been... largely fine. eg: This Reuter's piece from 2018 where you could get a picture of anyone's face for $1USD and a copy of their phone records for 50c: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-dataprivacy/data-dump-china-sees-surge-in-personal-information-up-for-sale-idUSKCN1L80IW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-dataprivacy/data-du... Like, if you ask a representative sample of people living in China what they feel the top 10 pros and cons of living in China were, that all of their personal information is for sale for a few bucks would not make it onto many people's lists on either side, it doesn't really affect your day to day life. There are a lot of theoretical privacy attacks that sound scarily creepy but privacy advocates tend to play up the hypothetical and not look at how empirically impactful such things end up being.

pmoriarty 6y ago
"There are a lot of theoretical privacy attacks that sound scarily creepy but privacy advocates tend to play up the hypothetical and not look at how empirically impactful such things end up being." Tragically, given the mass atrocities perpetrated throughout human history, it's inevitable that records of who people are, their race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation, and/or other data about them (which is now collected and distributed at a larger scale than at any time in human history) will be used to commit more mass atrocities. We are living on borrowed time.
- tim333 6y ago
  I think if you look at historical atrocities, most of them cracked ahead without needing records (eg Hutus vs Tutsis, Myanmar people vs Rohingya, US Settlers vs native Americans, whatever). Also in the last century governments have had records on almost everyone and for the majority they have not had atrocities. I think it's a mistake to blame one for the other. Even with the holocaust although IBM record keeping may have made things more efficient, anti Jewish pogroms had gone on for centuries before.
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    Technological advances and the normalization of surveillance state is just going to make such exterminations and atrocities more efficient. Whereas before some people could escape detection or escape being rounded up, the next time the slaughter will be much more effective. Also, in the past it was much harder to detect people who didn't stand out in some obvious way (through skin color, mode of dress, or obvious behavior), now there are records of people's interests and communications which make them much easier to target. That did not exist before except through a relatively primitive network of informants, or unless the people outed themselves through publishing their writing. Not to mention how much more advanced tracking technology is these days, and how much harder it is to hide. All of this put together makes the current surveillance aparatus infinitely more sophisticated and powerful than it was throughout almost all of the 20th Century. It really is just a matter of time until it gets used by people with an agenda and/or a grudge against some victim group(s). Saying it hasn't happened yet so it won't is just wishful thinking.
    - tim333 6y ago
      Well, tech advances have both upsides and downsides there. It's harder to get away with killing people when it gets videoed and uploaded to the world in minutes. I'm optimistic overall but we'll see.
      - pmoriarty 6y ago
        Video evidence is of little use when the people in charge turn a blind eye to it, are culpable themselves, or denounce it as "fake news". When the have the cooperation and participation of the military, the secret police, and the general population (as has often been the case in many atrocities, genocides, and pogroms in the past) it's even worse, and by the time the video evidence gets out (if it ever does) it's too late to save the victims, assuming there's even anyone in the position to do so.
- excusemesir 6y ago
  Not necessarily. "Mass atrocities" are difficult to carry out, and conceal, for very long.

pmoriarty 6y ago

"There are a lot of theoretical privacy attacks that sound scarily creepy but privacy advocates tend to play up the hypothetical and not look at how empirically impactful such things end up being." Tragically, given the mass atrocities perpetrated throughout human history, it's inevitable that records of who people are, their race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation, and/or other data about them (which is now collected and distributed at a larger scale than at any time in human history) will be used to commit more mass atrocities. We are living on borrowed time.

tim333 6y ago
I think if you look at historical atrocities, most of them cracked ahead without needing records (eg Hutus vs Tutsis, Myanmar people vs Rohingya, US Settlers vs native Americans, whatever). Also in the last century governments have had records on almost everyone and for the majority they have not had atrocities. I think it's a mistake to blame one for the other. Even with the holocaust although IBM record keeping may have made things more efficient, anti Jewish pogroms had gone on for centuries before.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  Technological advances and the normalization of surveillance state is just going to make such exterminations and atrocities more efficient. Whereas before some people could escape detection or escape being rounded up, the next time the slaughter will be much more effective. Also, in the past it was much harder to detect people who didn't stand out in some obvious way (through skin color, mode of dress, or obvious behavior), now there are records of people's interests and communications which make them much easier to target. That did not exist before except through a relatively primitive network of informants, or unless the people outed themselves through publishing their writing. Not to mention how much more advanced tracking technology is these days, and how much harder it is to hide. All of this put together makes the current surveillance aparatus infinitely more sophisticated and powerful than it was throughout almost all of the 20th Century. It really is just a matter of time until it gets used by people with an agenda and/or a grudge against some victim group(s). Saying it hasn't happened yet so it won't is just wishful thinking.
  - tim333 6y ago
    Well, tech advances have both upsides and downsides there. It's harder to get away with killing people when it gets videoed and uploaded to the world in minutes. I'm optimistic overall but we'll see.
    - pmoriarty 6y ago
      Video evidence is of little use when the people in charge turn a blind eye to it, are culpable themselves, or denounce it as "fake news". When the have the cooperation and participation of the military, the secret police, and the general population (as has often been the case in many atrocities, genocides, and pogroms in the past) it's even worse, and by the time the video evidence gets out (if it ever does) it's too late to save the victims, assuming there's even anyone in the position to do so.
excusemesir 6y ago
Not necessarily. "Mass atrocities" are difficult to carry out, and conceal, for very long.