6 ms·

Authoritarian governments have never needed preexisting technical gizmos in order to abuse their citizens. Look at what Russia and the Nazis did with no magic

Authoritarian governments have never needed preexisting technical gizmos in order to abuse their citizens. Look at what Russia and the Nazis did with no magic tech at all. Privacy stems from valuing human rights, not easily disproven lies about it being difficult to actually implement the spying.

kragen 5y ago
On the contrary, the reason Stalin and Hitler could enact repressive measures unprecedented in human history was precisely new technological developments like the telephone, the battle tank, and IBM cards. Bad people will never value human rights; getting privacy from bad people requires you to make it actually difficult to implement the spying, rather than just lie about it. That's why the slogan says, "cypherpunks write code."
- Grustaf 5y ago
  No, they could enact repressive measures because they had almost absolute power. The form that oppression took would obviously rely on the then current technology, but the fundamental enabler of oppression was power, not technology.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > but the fundamental enabler of oppression was power, not technology. But bad people will always have power.
  - vimacs2 5y ago
    Power which was extended through the use of said technology. I'm fine with focusing on regressive hierarchical systems as the fundamental root of oppression but pretending like the information and mechanical technology introduced in the late 19th century to early 20th century did not massively increase the reach of the state is just being ridiculous. Prior to motorised vehicles and the telegraph for example, borders were almost impossible to enforce on the general population without significant leakage. Ironically in spite of powered flight, freedom of movement is in a sense significantly less than even 200 years ago when it comes to movement between countries that do not already have diplomatic ties to one another allowing for state authorized travel. Incidentally, this is part of why many punishments in the medieval age were so extreme - the actual ability of the state to enforce the law was so pathetically limited by today's standards that they needed a strong element of fear to attempt to control the population.
    - kmeisthax 5y ago
      There's a flipside to this, too: technology doesn't just improve the ability of the state to enforce law (or social mores), it also improves the ability of it's subjects to violate it with impunity. Borders in medieval Europe weren't nearly as necessary because the physical ability to travel was limited. Forget traveling from Germany to France - just going to the next town over was a life-threatening affair without assistance and wealth. Legally speaking, most peasant farmers were property of their lord's manor. But practically speaking, leaving the manor would be quite difficult on your own. Many churches railed against motor vehicles because the extra freedom of movement they made possible also broke sexual mores - someone might use that car to engage in prostitution! You see similar arguments made today about birth control or abortion. Prior to the Internet, American mass communication was effectively censored by the government under a series of legally odd excuses about public interest in efficiently-allocated spectrum. In other words, this was a technical limitation of radio, weaponized to make an end-run around the 1st Amendment. Getting rid of that technical limitation increased freedom. Even today, getting banned from Facebook for spouting too much right-wing nonsense isn't as censorious as, say, the FCC fining you millions of dollars for an accidental swear word. Whether or not a technology actually winds up increasing or reducing freedom depends more on how it's distributed than on just how much of it there is. Technology doesn't care one way or the other about your freedom. However, freedom is intimately tied to another thing: equity. Systems that economically franchise their subjects, have low inequality, and keep their hierarchies in check, will see the "technology dividend" of increased freedom go to their subjects. Systems that impoverish people, have high inequality, and let their hierarchies grow without bound, will instead squander that dividend for themselves. This is a feedback effect, too. Most technology is invented in systems with freedom and equality, and then that technology goes on to reinforce those freedoms. Unequal systems squander their subjects' ability to invent new technologies. We didn't see this with Nazi Germany, because the Allies wiped them off the map too quickly; but the Soviet Union lost their technological edge over time. The political hierarchy they had established to replace the prior capitalist one made technological innovation impractical. So, the more you use technology to restrict, censor, or oppress people, the more likely that your country falls behind economically and stagnates. The elites at the top of any hierarchical system - aside from the harshest dictatorships - absolutely do not want that happening.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Razengan 5y ago
> Look at what Russia and the Nazis did Something strikes me as odd; Why do you say “Russia” but not “Germany”? Why not say “Soviets” or something similar? Is it because Russia is still portrayed as the bogeyman in the Anglosphere whereas the Germans are cool now?
sharikone 5y ago
True. You can have an authoritarian regime with little technology. But what people are afraid of is how little it takes when the technology is there. And how Western governments seem to morph towards that. And how some bastions of freedom are falling
vimacs2 5y ago
"easily disproven lies", what lies exactly? Even a Jew stuck in a ghetto in Nazi Germany enjoyed significantly better privacy at home from both the state and capital than a wealthy citizen in a typical western liberal nation today. Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany in fact prove the exact opposite of what point you think you're making. They were foremost in using the "magic tech" of their day - telecommunications and motorised vehicles. Even then, they had several rebellions and uprisings that were able to develop thanks to lacking the degree of surveillance tech found today.

kragen 5y ago

On the contrary, the reason Stalin and Hitler could enact repressive measures unprecedented in human history was precisely new technological developments like the telephone, the battle tank, and IBM cards. Bad people will never value human rights; getting privacy from bad people requires you to make it actually difficult to implement the spying, rather than just lie about it. That's why the slogan says, "cypherpunks write code."

Grustaf 5y ago
No, they could enact repressive measures because they had almost absolute power. The form that oppression took would obviously rely on the then current technology, but the fundamental enabler of oppression was power, not technology.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > but the fundamental enabler of oppression was power, not technology. But bad people will always have power.
- vimacs2 5y ago
  Power which was extended through the use of said technology. I'm fine with focusing on regressive hierarchical systems as the fundamental root of oppression but pretending like the information and mechanical technology introduced in the late 19th century to early 20th century did not massively increase the reach of the state is just being ridiculous. Prior to motorised vehicles and the telegraph for example, borders were almost impossible to enforce on the general population without significant leakage. Ironically in spite of powered flight, freedom of movement is in a sense significantly less than even 200 years ago when it comes to movement between countries that do not already have diplomatic ties to one another allowing for state authorized travel. Incidentally, this is part of why many punishments in the medieval age were so extreme - the actual ability of the state to enforce the law was so pathetically limited by today's standards that they needed a strong element of fear to attempt to control the population.
  - kmeisthax 5y ago
    There's a flipside to this, too: technology doesn't just improve the ability of the state to enforce law (or social mores), it also improves the ability of it's subjects to violate it with impunity. Borders in medieval Europe weren't nearly as necessary because the physical ability to travel was limited. Forget traveling from Germany to France - just going to the next town over was a life-threatening affair without assistance and wealth. Legally speaking, most peasant farmers were property of their lord's manor. But practically speaking, leaving the manor would be quite difficult on your own. Many churches railed against motor vehicles because the extra freedom of movement they made possible also broke sexual mores - someone might use that car to engage in prostitution! You see similar arguments made today about birth control or abortion. Prior to the Internet, American mass communication was effectively censored by the government under a series of legally odd excuses about public interest in efficiently-allocated spectrum. In other words, this was a technical limitation of radio, weaponized to make an end-run around the 1st Amendment. Getting rid of that technical limitation increased freedom. Even today, getting banned from Facebook for spouting too much right-wing nonsense isn't as censorious as, say, the FCC fining you millions of dollars for an accidental swear word. Whether or not a technology actually winds up increasing or reducing freedom depends more on how it's distributed than on just how much of it there is. Technology doesn't care one way or the other about your freedom. However, freedom is intimately tied to another thing: equity. Systems that economically franchise their subjects, have low inequality, and keep their hierarchies in check, will see the "technology dividend" of increased freedom go to their subjects. Systems that impoverish people, have high inequality, and let their hierarchies grow without bound, will instead squander that dividend for themselves. This is a feedback effect, too. Most technology is invented in systems with freedom and equality, and then that technology goes on to reinforce those freedoms. Unequal systems squander their subjects' ability to invent new technologies. We didn't see this with Nazi Germany, because the Allies wiped them off the map too quickly; but the Soviet Union lost their technological edge over time. The political hierarchy they had established to replace the prior capitalist one made technological innovation impractical. So, the more you use technology to restrict, censor, or oppress people, the more likely that your country falls behind economically and stagnates. The elites at the top of any hierarchical system - aside from the harshest dictatorships - absolutely do not want that happening.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Razengan 5y ago

> Look at what Russia and the Nazis did Something strikes me as odd; Why do you say “Russia” but not “Germany”? Why not say “Soviets” or something similar? Is it because Russia is still portrayed as the bogeyman in the Anglosphere whereas the Germans are cool now?

sharikone 5y ago

True. You can have an authoritarian regime with little technology. But what people are afraid of is how little it takes when the technology is there. And how Western governments seem to morph towards that. And how some bastions of freedom are falling

vimacs2 5y ago

"easily disproven lies", what lies exactly? Even a Jew stuck in a ghetto in Nazi Germany enjoyed significantly better privacy at home from both the state and capital than a wealthy citizen in a typical western liberal nation today. Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany in fact prove the exact opposite of what point you think you're making. They were foremost in using the "magic tech" of their day - telecommunications and motorised vehicles. Even then, they had several rebellions and uprisings that were able to develop thanks to lacking the degree of surveillance tech found today.