6 ms·
> ... it won't tell them where the next terror attack is going to take place or who will do it. No, but I'm convinced this isn't the goal. The goal is to mon
by comeonseriously 5y ago
> ... it won't tell them where the next terror attack is going to take place or who will do it.
No, but I'm convinced this isn't the goal. The goal is to monitor the unrest of the people.
- jacquesm 5y agoYou can just open the newspaper for that, no need to eavesdrop on everybody's interaction. This doesn't make any sense.
- mc32 5y agoUnrest isn’t always spontaneous and usually has a nascent stage and an accretion stage and finally critical mass. They probably would like to be on the inside before critical mass is reached.
- jacquesm 5y agoThen you better hope that you have an ear to the ground. The reason why plots get uncovered is usually because someone is stupid, not because of some exceedingly clever bit of code breaking. And let's be thankful for the fact that terrorism wouldn't work if all they were aiming for is mass death of their foes because for all of the fear that terrorists manage to sow they are cumulatively less effective over the course of 40 years than three days worth of COVID deaths,
- newaccount2021 5y agoit makes sense when Eurocrats tell their citizens that this is imperative for containing "Trumpism" and they all slobber in agreement
- GekkePrutser 5y agoOf course but they probably want to know about it before it happens ;) Dark forces stirring up riots are indeed a thing, the same way QAnon is. I absolutely don't agree it's worth sacrificing our privacy though.
- kelseyfrog 5y agoI agree but for a different reason. It's simply not effective. Unrest can never be ameliorated by squashing it because censorship will always be routed around. Any attempt at pushing it down will result in it popping up somewhere else, sometimes in a different form. The only remedy is improving the material conditions for the majority of people. In every revolution we've seen, the elites are unable to comprehend or unwilling to compromise, and in every case, the longer it drags on, the more dispossessed they eventually become. US state population trends starting in the 1840s are currently generating increasing unrest as a function of the structure of the US senate resulting in a rule by minority. As the chamber becomes increasingly unrepresentative, the ability to reform it becomes increasingly less probably due to the structure of constitutional reform. In a more perfect world, US population geographics would be modulated by representative power. That however, is not the case. State and local governments increasingly sort voters by self-selection bias. Further entrenchment and unwillingness to compromise will be gasoline for the current tinder.
- jacquesm 5y agoThis is one of the engines behind 'history repeats itself'.
- kelseyfrog 5y agoIf you happen to have, or know of a list of the others, I'd be very interested in reading it.
- bayindirh 5y agoWhen you look at the recent history, it becomes evident that all big powers were enjoying a through view of the societies they were governing, and modern communication changed this. They don't want new powers, they want their old powers back. When I understood that, I enlightened.
- IgorPartola 5y agoWhat are you talking about? Do you really think that the king of England had a better view into his subjects inner thoughts in the 18th century than literally anyone can currently do by pulling up anyone’s social media presence? You don’t need to read private text messages to know what people are up to. They tweet, post on Reddit, Instagram, and TikTok about it all the time.
- bee_rider 5y agoI think by 'recent history' they mean more like 1970-2010 or so. I'm not sure I agree but at least that isn't outright ridiculous like the 18'th century would be.
- bayindirh 5y agoI was talking about [1960, ...}, but older "kingdoms" also had a passing knowledge about their population's state. This knowledge was much leaner when compared to today, but there were less population to begin with, so that knowledge was enough. Crowded countries like China had its social norms evolved accordingly and differently due to this population density.
- IgorPartola 5y agoHow many people tweeted about storming Area 51 in the 1950s? Or put up long political monologues on Tik Tok? I think your argument is 180 degrees backwards from how things actually are.
- 5y ago
- tata71 5y agoYou can't easily figure out which specific individuals are the ones "accelerating" the discontent.
- jacquesm 5y agoTraffic analysis is a thing.
- unglaublich 5y agoYou think the newspaper reports people's concerns, or the newspaper dictates people's concerns?
- rad_gruchalski 5y agoThat gives a view into what happened yesterday. Being able to eavesdrop on comms can tell you what will happen tomorrow.
- jacquesm 5y agoSure, 'bring me some potatoes tomorrow'. What will happen tomorrow? But terrorist suspect 'A' communicating with arms supplier 'B' is far more significant than terrorist suspect 'A' communicating with arms supplier 'B' asking 'B' to bring some potatoes tomorrow. The value can definitely be in the payload, when both parties believe they are using a secure channel, see 'Encrochat' and a couple of others like it. But most of the time the things you should really worry about are going to look like 'bring me some potatoes'. Boots on the ground, enough people to follow up on the leads available today would help a lot, and a budget to go with it to make that sustainable. Not more tech toys. Anyway, I've written enough about this subject by now.
- rad_gruchalski 5y agoThere have been plenty of boots on the ground in a couple of places in the last two decades and both are massive failures. In the meantime people of the western world share everything for free with everyone.
- jacquesm 5y agoI think you misunderstand the meaning of 'boots on the ground' in the context of intelligence work.
- rad_gruchalski 5y agoAh, you mean like Stasi or Polish UB, or OMON. Your original answer seems to be missing a clarification on what boots you mean. Yeah, that might work in conjunction with a full on oppression system. Were there no “intelligence boots on the ground” in the places I have mentioned?
- softfalcon 5y agoMonitor unrest, sure, probably a fair bit. The rest of it is likely the "ability to just pull up data on anyone at any time just cause". The old school, "we know where you live, what you said to your husband, and that you had marmalade jam with your toast this morning" spy insider knowledge gambit is a strong manipulation tactic whenever you need to convince someone to "just comply". Having inside knowledge of mundane things that are assumed to be private hold a lot more sway than you'd think. It can make threatening ordinary people a lot easier. Do governments do this often? Probably not, but when they want to interrogate someone, I can almost guarantee they like to be able to pull up everything private they can as leverage in an interrogation. Is this useful for national security? Probably not, but since when do governments actually care about national security when they can roll around on a power trip and feel big and godly?
- ghostpepper 5y agoI would hazard a guess that almost every citizen has committed a crime of some sort at some point, no matter how minor or inadvertent. There are simply too many laws to avoid it.
- jacquesm 5y agoI'd be highly surprised if it was just one. I would imagine its tens if not 100's over the course of a lifetime.
- randomNumber7 5y agoKilling a wasp in germany can cost between 5.000-65.000€^^. Source (german): https://www.bussgeldkatalog.org/news/wespe-toeten-droht-ein-bussgeld-oder-ist-das-erlaubt-645445/ https://www.bussgeldkatalog.org/news/wespe-toeten-droht-ein-...
- seanw444 5y agoThe notion that privacy isn't a big deal, simply because you're unlikely to be the target of some massive covert campaign, is pretty ridiculous. That's how rights end. Give an inch, lose a mile. And lose the mile when it matters most. And who knows, maybe you would become a political figure or something of that caliber down the road. You just never know. Don't assume you don't need as much privacy as possible. By you, I'm speaking in general.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoBitches in twitches of fear, pitchforks coming near. Need to hold on to power, hide secret contracts and manipulation, threaten incarceration, to anyone daring to question, their legitimation. Control is their only salvation.