4 ms·

Are there any countries which have the capabilities to spy on their citizenry that do not? I think there’s this idea of American exceptionalism, that spying on

Are there any countries which have the capabilities to spy on their citizenry that do not? I think there’s this idea of American exceptionalism, that spying on citizens is something that happens elsewhere but not in the good ‘ol US of A. But that’s probably more propaganda than fact. The US gov has trampled on essentially every right we were taught about in 4th grade schoolhouse rock. They infiltrated and spied on Muslims in Minnesota [1] and before that had an entire program of spying on any activist at all. Before that they put entire races (Germans and Japanese) in internment camps and SCOTUS said it was fine. Hell, they even bombed people in Philadelphia. My point is, exploiting the 3rd party doctrine to spy on Americans might be out of step with your conception of America and what you think it should be, but it’s not out of step with the historical reality of America. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/magazine/fbi-terrorism-terry-albury.html?unlocked_article_code=cBpnZAY_Sd2HH80iAOmIkmLfGxb3efV_kXuEM7huRvP6VkeTOMFrHhN4-rNHfsP_4oEvNoLFGVfX2tzOqz2Uae4j30iJwBGgdqdu1rRGBvc78J4C31mI-7u-yk-fB9-moBM2n_xakiYwbsnax98OSTwiv9Ggs6HVaGW4aPMReI3fpJoHB4vCBvaBK74Bda9CzfMkH3DJTFbUJDLL71474rpWvnmRUm3jZU3ulosiI_8KiH67aAIQulojHP0BBft6ESN0y-NBib_eyb6Q_5XXuiNgwkjL7cOsJDE6Su0tO47k36R8GI0N6r-rO2Y_mD88EFgIm6F8LCW9-USxMzktyZHvUXqM&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/magazine/fbi-terrorism-te...

heikkilevanto 3y ago
I think the EU is at least a bit more aware of this kind of tracking, and trying to do something to stop it. If I became aware of some (EU) company collecting my location info on that scale, at least I have the right to get to know what data they have on me, and to ask them to delete it. Of course I don't believe all is perfect in the EU, nor that all those rules are always followed, but at least we are trying...
- janalsncm 3y ago
  I like GDPR but that relates more to corporate data collection than government surveillance. Mass surveillance facilitated by third party corporations is only one kind of mass surveillance. Supposedly China has ramped up regulations on corporate surveillance recently, implementing new restrictions on data that companies can store. That doesn’t mean the Chinese are free from surveillance. What protections against mass surveillance does a person in the EU have?
mike_d 3y ago
> Are there any countries which have the capabilities to spy on their citizenry that do not? The US? Anyone who has worked with the IC knows that USPER data is highly controlled and targeting citizens requires layers upon layers of approvals and reviews. They collect every bit of data because having it and not needing it is obviously better than needing it and not having it. Think of it this way: there is probably tons of data your employer has that you don't have access to. But just because HR has a record of how much they pay the receptionist doesn't imply everyone in the company is digging around in that data.
godelski 3y ago
> I think there’s this idea of American exceptionalism I think this goes in both directions. That some believe that America's exceptionalism is in non-spying (as you suggest) as well as the exceptionalism is that America does unprecedented spying on its citizens. I think that we let one of these two sides dominate the general conversations obfuscate the reality. People pro America will point to China, Russia, or any common "bad guys." Anti-America will point to abuses by America. The problem is that both evidences are valid, but that we binarize the situation. There's different levels of intrusiveness and abuse. I say this because it all this makes your comment difficult to interpret. Our comments aren't books and often aren't monolithic. So it is difficult to tell if you are just pointing out issues that America has, which is in line with the article, or if you are specifically giving others a pass because "everyone else does it." Different readers have different priors and with a comment like this I think we'll see many different (and reasonable) interpretations. Fwiw, I don't think many on the left or right (excluding the tails) would be happy about the government spying on its own citizens. I'm afraid we pick cases that fit our narrative for abuse and let others slide because they fit our narrative for justification. Not that this is particularly unique, but does make resolving the issues more convoluted than we give them credit for. As for American exceptionalism, I'd say that at least one thing is clear: America's problems are more well known than that of other countries. The great American past time is criticizing America. The size economic dominance, and military dominance also makes these issues globally known[0]. Size is often a good reason to take focus, as big players often set the stage and standards. Other countries may be more transparent about their transgressions, but they may not easily permeate through their borders. So I think it is exceptional that America's transgressions are more apparent. --- To the main point --- I think that in a spectrum, that surveillance capitalism is better than explicit state surveillance programs, but I think both are unacceptable. I'd argue that surveillance capitalism even has bad consequences for your own country, as it means that adversaries can buy the same data that your own government can. That this can create more chaos as the information has utility to both sides. It is unclear if this chaos is better than a single actor with a clear and significant power/information imbalance, but I think it might be. [0] As an example, since you brought up Japanese internment camps (by America) but I don't think many realize that similar internment camps existed in the UK, Australia, Canada and many other countries. Many with even higher percentages of Japanese interned than in America, though not in raw numbers. Similarly many Axis powers had internment camps and Ally powers had camps for Germans and Italians, who were generally interned at a lower rate (but in some countries these had a higher rate of longer established residency. So it's complicated). This is clearly not an excuse of the internment camps (I'm explicitly calling these transgressions) but rather an example that the American transgressions are more well known. I think nearly every American is aware of the atrocities of our Japanese internment camps as well as many non-Americans, but I do not think either group is well aware of the other camps. But it is also perfectly reasonable that this is the case.

heikkilevanto 3y ago

I think the EU is at least a bit more aware of this kind of tracking, and trying to do something to stop it. If I became aware of some (EU) company collecting my location info on that scale, at least I have the right to get to know what data they have on me, and to ask them to delete it. Of course I don't believe all is perfect in the EU, nor that all those rules are always followed, but at least we are trying...

janalsncm 3y ago
I like GDPR but that relates more to corporate data collection than government surveillance. Mass surveillance facilitated by third party corporations is only one kind of mass surveillance. Supposedly China has ramped up regulations on corporate surveillance recently, implementing new restrictions on data that companies can store. That doesn’t mean the Chinese are free from surveillance. What protections against mass surveillance does a person in the EU have?

mike_d 3y ago

> Are there any countries which have the capabilities to spy on their citizenry that do not? The US? Anyone who has worked with the IC knows that USPER data is highly controlled and targeting citizens requires layers upon layers of approvals and reviews. They collect every bit of data because having it and not needing it is obviously better than needing it and not having it. Think of it this way: there is probably tons of data your employer has that you don't have access to. But just because HR has a record of how much they pay the receptionist doesn't imply everyone in the company is digging around in that data.

godelski 3y ago

> I think there’s this idea of American exceptionalism I think this goes in both directions. That some believe that America's exceptionalism is in non-spying (as you suggest) as well as the exceptionalism is that America does unprecedented spying on its citizens. I think that we let one of these two sides dominate the general conversations obfuscate the reality. People pro America will point to China, Russia, or any common "bad guys." Anti-America will point to abuses by America. The problem is that both evidences are valid, but that we binarize the situation. There's different levels of intrusiveness and abuse. I say this because it all this makes your comment difficult to interpret. Our comments aren't books and often aren't monolithic. So it is difficult to tell if you are just pointing out issues that America has, which is in line with the article, or if you are specifically giving others a pass because "everyone else does it." Different readers have different priors and with a comment like this I think we'll see many different (and reasonable) interpretations. Fwiw, I don't think many on the left or right (excluding the tails) would be happy about the government spying on its own citizens. I'm afraid we pick cases that fit our narrative for abuse and let others slide because they fit our narrative for justification. Not that this is particularly unique, but does make resolving the issues more convoluted than we give them credit for. As for American exceptionalism, I'd say that at least one thing is clear: America's problems are more well known than that of other countries. The great American past time is criticizing America. The size economic dominance, and military dominance also makes these issues globally known[0]. Size is often a good reason to take focus, as big players often set the stage and standards. Other countries may be more transparent about their transgressions, but they may not easily permeate through their borders. So I think it is exceptional that America's transgressions are more apparent. --- To the main point --- I think that in a spectrum, that surveillance capitalism is better than explicit state surveillance programs, but I think both are unacceptable. I'd argue that surveillance capitalism even has bad consequences for your own country, as it means that adversaries can buy the same data that your own government can. That this can create more chaos as the information has utility to both sides. It is unclear if this chaos is better than a single actor with a clear and significant power/information imbalance, but I think it might be. [0] As an example, since you brought up Japanese internment camps (by America) but I don't think many realize that similar internment camps existed in the UK, Australia, Canada and many other countries. Many with even higher percentages of Japanese interned than in America, though not in raw numbers. Similarly many Axis powers had internment camps and Ally powers had camps for Germans and Italians, who were generally interned at a lower rate (but in some countries these had a higher rate of longer established residency. So it's complicated). This is clearly not an excuse of the internment camps (I'm explicitly calling these transgressions) but rather an example that the American transgressions are more well known. I think nearly every American is aware of the atrocities of our Japanese internment camps as well as many non-Americans, but I do not think either group is well aware of the other camps. But it is also perfectly reasonable that this is the case.