6 ms·

I think the fight against mass surveillance needs first to be lost in order to even start. Right now the average citizen has not witnessed an impact on his life

I think the fight against mass surveillance needs first to be lost in order to even start. Right now the average citizen has not witnessed an impact on his life and there's no shortage of other problems he has to deal with. I'm not saying techies should just stay passive though. Special cases - journalists, activists, politically involved - need to be protected right now, and when the problem will be generally understood we need to have solutions ready for the average person: information, software, proposed legislation, etc.

no_time 5y ago
This is an interesting take. My only concern is that people consistently trade security for freedom in modern societies. I wonder how pervasive surveillance has to be to break this trend.
- foxpurple 5y ago
  I’ll happily trade some privacy for security. I live in an apartment building which has security cameras in every public space. Sure, technically they could build a record of when I leave and enter, but I can also report people who leave trash bags out and they can be held accountable. There is a point where it goes too far, but not all surveillance is bad.
Comevius 5y ago
We already live in a world where surveillance changed the way people think and act, causing us to suppress non-conformist opinions. It is why mass surveillance exist in the first place, to foster collective conformity. Unfortunately we are prone to accept authoritarianism these days. The more economical and ecological uncertainties there are the more we desire order and stability, no matter the cost. For many having to look the other way is a small price to pay.
- krapp 5y ago
  > We already live in a world where surveillance changed the way people think and act, causing us to suppress non-conformist opinions. I don't see many people suppressing non-conformist opinions anywhere. Rather, I see people defiantly shouting their non-conformist opinions from the rooftops at every opportunity. Spend an hour on Twitter or Facebook and tell me anyone is suppressing any of their radical hot takes on anything.
  - smichel17 5y ago
    I do.
    - krapp 5y ago
      Chances are any non-conformist beliefs you have (assuming they're legal,) have their own subreddits, Twitter tags, Facebook groups, Youtube videos, etc, so that's probably just you.
      - fighterpilot 5y ago
        Most of these are anonymous platforms where people are unafraid to speak their mind due to that anonymity. Also the existence of loud people on these platforms isn't evidence that the number of people self-censoring hasn't increased. A small, loud group of people is enough to create the effect that you see. Polling suggests that the number of people self-censoring has increased. It's especially common among college educated conservatives, who are in tune with what they're supposed to think and also aware that their thoughts do not line up with that, and so decide to keep quiet on political questions, probably because they have more to lose career-wise.
        krapp 5y ago
        It is circumstantial evidence, but I wouldn't expect an increase in radical activity on social media to occur in a society in which most people are afraid to express their views due to fear of omnipresent surveillance. Some people are self-suppressing, a lot of people aren't. And what is it that people are afraid to say? That they only believe in two genders, or innate gender roles? That the US should return to the gold standard? That they don't trust the consensus on COVID vaccinations? Most people's "radical" beliefs aren't that radical, and the truly radical beliefs (white supremacy, anti-semitism, violent revolutionary ideology, pro-pedophilia) have always been suppressed by society, so the existence of the surveillance state changes nothing in those cases. >It's especially common among college educated conservatives, who are in tune with what they're supposed to think and also aware that their thoughts do not line up with that, and so decide to keep quiet on political questions, probably because they have more to lose career-wise. I'm not aware of any mainstream Conservative beliefs that are suppressed in general discourse, or that would lead someone to lose their job. I don't think many people have ever been fired for believing in limited government or the free market. Conservatives have an entire political party and half a country that supports and welcomes their beliefs, and plenty of businesses that would hire them because of those beliefs.
chaosite 5y ago
This is called accelerationism. It doesn't really work, making something worse just to make it better isn't effective, changing things for the sake of "getting away from the status quo" is silly.
- zentiggr 5y ago
  Maybe instead of general accelerationism, it's time for politicians and business leaders to suffer the effects of lack of privacy first. Let's get some polls going on which politician / billionaire we should "reveal" first... then throw all their private info, backroom deals, what they had for lunch the other day that doesn't match up with their publicly stated diet preference, how many unregistered immigrants they have to take care of their mansions, all the stuff... throw it out in public. Let's do this to anyone and everyone who's voted for more surveillance powers. Or has sponsored or helped develop them. Like NSO Group employees - especially the CEO. And maybe if they start to see a problem, and some costs, maybe there will be some change.
skybrian 5y ago
The problem isn’t just that the average person hasn’t experienced harm. It’s that privacy advocates often don’t have good examples of average people experiencing harm. Theoretical arguments aren’t going to do it. If you want people to listen, you need stories to tell.

no_time 5y ago

This is an interesting take. My only concern is that people consistently trade security for freedom in modern societies. I wonder how pervasive surveillance has to be to break this trend.

foxpurple 5y ago
I’ll happily trade some privacy for security. I live in an apartment building which has security cameras in every public space. Sure, technically they could build a record of when I leave and enter, but I can also report people who leave trash bags out and they can be held accountable. There is a point where it goes too far, but not all surveillance is bad.

Comevius 5y ago

We already live in a world where surveillance changed the way people think and act, causing us to suppress non-conformist opinions. It is why mass surveillance exist in the first place, to foster collective conformity. Unfortunately we are prone to accept authoritarianism these days. The more economical and ecological uncertainties there are the more we desire order and stability, no matter the cost. For many having to look the other way is a small price to pay.

krapp 5y ago
> We already live in a world where surveillance changed the way people think and act, causing us to suppress non-conformist opinions. I don't see many people suppressing non-conformist opinions anywhere. Rather, I see people defiantly shouting their non-conformist opinions from the rooftops at every opportunity. Spend an hour on Twitter or Facebook and tell me anyone is suppressing any of their radical hot takes on anything.
- smichel17 5y ago
  I do.
  - krapp 5y ago
    Chances are any non-conformist beliefs you have (assuming they're legal,) have their own subreddits, Twitter tags, Facebook groups, Youtube videos, etc, so that's probably just you.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      Most of these are anonymous platforms where people are unafraid to speak their mind due to that anonymity. Also the existence of loud people on these platforms isn't evidence that the number of people self-censoring hasn't increased. A small, loud group of people is enough to create the effect that you see. Polling suggests that the number of people self-censoring has increased. It's especially common among college educated conservatives, who are in tune with what they're supposed to think and also aware that their thoughts do not line up with that, and so decide to keep quiet on political questions, probably because they have more to lose career-wise.
      - krapp 5y ago
        It is circumstantial evidence, but I wouldn't expect an increase in radical activity on social media to occur in a society in which most people are afraid to express their views due to fear of omnipresent surveillance. Some people are self-suppressing, a lot of people aren't. And what is it that people are afraid to say? That they only believe in two genders, or innate gender roles? That the US should return to the gold standard? That they don't trust the consensus on COVID vaccinations? Most people's "radical" beliefs aren't that radical, and the truly radical beliefs (white supremacy, anti-semitism, violent revolutionary ideology, pro-pedophilia) have always been suppressed by society, so the existence of the surveillance state changes nothing in those cases. >It's especially common among college educated conservatives, who are in tune with what they're supposed to think and also aware that their thoughts do not line up with that, and so decide to keep quiet on political questions, probably because they have more to lose career-wise. I'm not aware of any mainstream Conservative beliefs that are suppressed in general discourse, or that would lead someone to lose their job. I don't think many people have ever been fired for believing in limited government or the free market. Conservatives have an entire political party and half a country that supports and welcomes their beliefs, and plenty of businesses that would hire them because of those beliefs.

chaosite 5y ago

This is called accelerationism. It doesn't really work, making something worse just to make it better isn't effective, changing things for the sake of "getting away from the status quo" is silly.

zentiggr 5y ago
Maybe instead of general accelerationism, it's time for politicians and business leaders to suffer the effects of lack of privacy first. Let's get some polls going on which politician / billionaire we should "reveal" first... then throw all their private info, backroom deals, what they had for lunch the other day that doesn't match up with their publicly stated diet preference, how many unregistered immigrants they have to take care of their mansions, all the stuff... throw it out in public. Let's do this to anyone and everyone who's voted for more surveillance powers. Or has sponsored or helped develop them. Like NSO Group employees - especially the CEO. And maybe if they start to see a problem, and some costs, maybe there will be some change.

skybrian 5y ago

The problem isn’t just that the average person hasn’t experienced harm. It’s that privacy advocates often don’t have good examples of average people experiencing harm. Theoretical arguments aren’t going to do it. If you want people to listen, you need stories to tell.