6 ms·

This discussion has gone south the more people that joined in. There's a lot of people expressing sentiments along the lines of being fearful that they're being

This discussion has gone south the more people that joined in. There's a lot of people expressing sentiments along the lines of being fearful that they're being tracked and that government agencies are spying on them personally. Let's get something straight. The real issue here isn't that you're being personally spied on. If the government is tracking you specifically and is willing to hold the data they collect on you against you then you should play the lottery too because you're one lucky person. If and when data is collected it is used most often to analyze groups of people, not individuals. It's very rare that an individual would be tracked and that would only happen if you were influential or a true danger to them (at least a perceived danger). For example, let's say the government was tracking Occupy Wall Street protesters. If they were targeting individuals then they'd be targeting the very few "leaders" if there are any. Otherwise they'd just like to know about you as a group. What you think, like, listen to, and read. Even so, they're not going to come after you. They're going to use that information in a way that allows them to spin a narrative or in some other subtle way. They just aren't going to bust into your living room. Also, in the rare case they collect data on an individual and actually try to do something to you personally, they sure as hell aren't going to bring it up in a court. You'll be black bagged or something but you're not going to go to trial with the prosecutor coming out saying "well, we surreptitiously collected this data from John's phone and home computer which proves he's a terrorist". They'd be shooting themselves in the foot! They'd much rather have you know they collect data while still retaining plausible deniability. You can look up anything you want all day long including how to make bombs and no one will bust in your living room until the day you somehow are in a position to influence a large group of people. So please everyone, let's take off our tinfoil hats, quit thinking we're important enough to track individually, and just generally stop sounding like conspiracy theorists. I mean, this stuff can really do damage and it isn't right but this discussion is heading in the wrong direction with that kind of rhetoric. Edit: Seems everyone doesn't like what I've got to say yet only one person is willing to say why. There's way too much group think and karma policing going on around here.

buff-a 15y ago
Martin Luther King Jr? Some people are important enough to track individually. One might even imagine that someone here on HN might be important enough, or become important enough. One can hope.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Yeah. I said that. But is it likely? Who do we think we are that we think we're important enough to be spied on. I really doubt anyone cares what 99% of us are accessing. It's all about analyzing group thinking and behavior. Speaking of group thinking, what's with this knee jerk reaction to stories like this? Everyone automatically gets outraged and they start repeating the same stale lines about the evil government and it's enslavement of us all. Are you outraged because you really believe this threatens you or does it come out because that's the party line and god forbid the karma police downvote you. Here's my point: none of this is either secret or new. I know it's cool to be anti government but WikiLeaks is no better with this sorry excuse for a "leak" and it's hefty helping of spin to further its own agenda. I'm not thrilled to know I'm being watched at all times but I'm also not self indulgent enough to believe that anyone gives a damn about me personally. Enough with the high and mighty talk about standing for freedom. People like to talk but in the end it's all verbal masturbation and in a few minutes we're all going to watch kitties do something cute on YouTube and forget about this whole thing. (Folks over in Europe are a bit more politically active so I must give them credit but here in the states we're a bunch of masturbators who like to talk shit and do nothing for the most part)
DanBC 15y ago
Your reply is only applicable to Americans, and not even all of them. There are plenty of examples of US mis-use of government surveillance. > they sure as hell aren't going to bring it up in a court. They use intercept evidence to collect enough data; they pass this on to other law enforcement; LE then gather other evidence and arrest and charge. The intercept evidence never makes it to court. Note that "they" don't care that you know they collect the data, "they" just don't want you to know too much about how it's done. See this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/06/uk.ukcrime http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/06/uk.ukcrime) Opponents of changes include MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, who have argued that it would reveal their sophisticated intercept techniques. There's no plausible deniability there. > You can look up anything you want all day long including how to make bombs and no one will bust in your living room until the day you somehow are in a position to influence a large group of people. Maybe, just maybe, true for US. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/26/terrorism.research http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/26/terroris...) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/feb/23/hicham-yezza http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/...) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/06/terrorism.books http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/06/terrorism.books)
wladimir 15y ago
You're getting downvoted because you get it wrong. The problem isn't individual tracking of criminals/spies. This is not about fear of individual tracking, if "they" want to do that they could just as well post a stake-out van in front of your house. If and when data is collected it is used most often to analyze groups of people, not individuals And that's exactly the problem with the mass surveillance industry. The more advanced the technology becomes, the easier it will be to track everyone "individually" (recent examples CarrierIQ, malls tracking phones). It also lowers the threshold to invading individuals privacy. Also, Assange is concerned with companies that sell this equipment to foreign governments with a dismal human rights record. In those countries, a wrong word in a message can cost your life. Mass surveillance makes it possible to easily pick out potential "enemies of the state".
- rhizome 15y ago
  What this does is legitimize the use of stereotypes in law enforcement. They might say it's just for "hints" or something, but at the end of the day you have not only racial profiling being enabled through this mechanism, but anything-profiling if the "anything" achieves a certain statistical significance. An abstract profiler.
  - omouse 15y ago
    Indeed, it dehumanizes us and treats us as statistics.
    - rhizome 15y ago
      The thing is, it doesn't affect anybody specific...until it does, in which case it self-validates.
kaybe 15y ago
And then you find that someone similar to a secret agent (Verfassungsschutz - German "Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution ") has infiltrated the local university's left circles posing as one of them, and making him a friend of people you know and talk to on a regular basis. It only came out because this person was particularly incompetent. And it's not like any of the targets actually did anything of importance (afaik). Coming from a point of view where the government isn't spying on people personally and especially not you, your friends or anyone around, it was certainly a bit shocking to see this happen. But, as others mentioned, that's not even the point with this whole issue.

buff-a 15y ago

Martin Luther King Jr? Some people are important enough to track individually. One might even imagine that someone here on HN might be important enough, or become important enough. One can hope.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
Yeah. I said that. But is it likely? Who do we think we are that we think we're important enough to be spied on. I really doubt anyone cares what 99% of us are accessing. It's all about analyzing group thinking and behavior. Speaking of group thinking, what's with this knee jerk reaction to stories like this? Everyone automatically gets outraged and they start repeating the same stale lines about the evil government and it's enslavement of us all. Are you outraged because you really believe this threatens you or does it come out because that's the party line and god forbid the karma police downvote you. Here's my point: none of this is either secret or new. I know it's cool to be anti government but WikiLeaks is no better with this sorry excuse for a "leak" and it's hefty helping of spin to further its own agenda. I'm not thrilled to know I'm being watched at all times but I'm also not self indulgent enough to believe that anyone gives a damn about me personally. Enough with the high and mighty talk about standing for freedom. People like to talk but in the end it's all verbal masturbation and in a few minutes we're all going to watch kitties do something cute on YouTube and forget about this whole thing. (Folks over in Europe are a bit more politically active so I must give them credit but here in the states we're a bunch of masturbators who like to talk shit and do nothing for the most part)

DanBC 15y ago

Your reply is only applicable to Americans, and not even all of them. There are plenty of examples of US mis-use of government surveillance. > they sure as hell aren't going to bring it up in a court. They use intercept evidence to collect enough data; they pass this on to other law enforcement; LE then gather other evidence and arrest and charge. The intercept evidence never makes it to court. Note that "they" don't care that you know they collect the data, "they" just don't want you to know too much about how it's done. See this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/06/uk.ukcrime http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/06/uk.ukcrime) Opponents of changes include MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, who have argued that it would reveal their sophisticated intercept techniques. There's no plausible deniability there. > You can look up anything you want all day long including how to make bombs and no one will bust in your living room until the day you somehow are in a position to influence a large group of people. Maybe, just maybe, true for US. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/26/terrorism.research http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/26/terroris...) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/feb/23/hicham-yezza http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/...) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/06/terrorism.books http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/06/terrorism.books)

wladimir 15y ago

You're getting downvoted because you get it wrong. The problem isn't individual tracking of criminals/spies. This is not about fear of individual tracking, if "they" want to do that they could just as well post a stake-out van in front of your house. If and when data is collected it is used most often to analyze groups of people, not individuals And that's exactly the problem with the mass surveillance industry. The more advanced the technology becomes, the easier it will be to track everyone "individually" (recent examples CarrierIQ, malls tracking phones). It also lowers the threshold to invading individuals privacy. Also, Assange is concerned with companies that sell this equipment to foreign governments with a dismal human rights record. In those countries, a wrong word in a message can cost your life. Mass surveillance makes it possible to easily pick out potential "enemies of the state".

rhizome 15y ago
What this does is legitimize the use of stereotypes in law enforcement. They might say it's just for "hints" or something, but at the end of the day you have not only racial profiling being enabled through this mechanism, but anything-profiling if the "anything" achieves a certain statistical significance. An abstract profiler.
- omouse 15y ago
  Indeed, it dehumanizes us and treats us as statistics.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    The thing is, it doesn't affect anybody specific...until it does, in which case it self-validates.

kaybe 15y ago

And then you find that someone similar to a secret agent (Verfassungsschutz - German "Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution ") has infiltrated the local university's left circles posing as one of them, and making him a friend of people you know and talk to on a regular basis. It only came out because this person was particularly incompetent. And it's not like any of the targets actually did anything of importance (afaik). Coming from a point of view where the government isn't spying on people personally and especially not you, your friends or anyone around, it was certainly a bit shocking to see this happen. But, as others mentioned, that's not even the point with this whole issue.