6 ms·

the most ironic part is that it's the US itself which is going to monitor compliance. The entire problem for me is basically what Snowden revealed. In most dem

by dijit 3y ago

the most ironic part is that it's the US itself which is going to monitor compliance. The entire problem for me is basically what Snowden revealed. In most democratic western countries a certain level of privacy is actually enshrined into law due to it's propensity for abuse. -- the US spying on Swedens behalf means that technically Sweden is not spying on Swedes. The US having data on me by itself isn't a huge deal; there's no fucking way I will ever want to live there and factually: nobody is going to go sniffing into my life like in the movie "Enemy of the State" (though I suppose they could). However, the US sharing that information with Sweden can affect my life, because it's intentionally bypassing a protection that I am supposed to have in order to live in a free democratic system. Failure to respect privacy lends itself to authoritarianism as people will self-censor if they feel they are not able to express themselves. Maybe I'm overstating this but it's a real concern of mine.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
<< Maybe I'm overstating this but it's a real concern of mine. I don't think you are. I live in US and its version of 'privacy' has been normalized to a horrifying degree ( click this button so that we can do whatever we want ). We are basically at a point where 'enemy of the state' movie comparison is not even apt, because in that movie the audience would be petrified by it. Most are comfortably post-privacy.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  Just about every survey on this topic clarifies people are nowhere remotely near 'post-privacy.' [1] That's a random one, but they all say the exact same thing. Basically everybody, by an absolutely overwhelming margin, feels that the risks of mass surveillance (including from the government) outweigh the benefits, with a similarly overwhelming majority also concerned about how the data is being [mis]used. The problem is our democracy is completely broken, and the fact that 80%+ of people agree on something that would even be socially beneficial, means absolutely nothing in terms of getting it done. Politicians and corporations love hoovering data for the exact same reason - perceived power. So nothing changes. And no politicians run on topics that people care about because you don't get to the point of being able to run for the presidency unless they're a billionaire, or have become really good at greasing the bellies of those that matter. And those that matter, only want even more surveillance. It's topics like this, and others, that lead individuals like me to think our system is due to collapse. Not the issue in and of itself, but the fact we have a democracy that seems to have little to nothing to do with the interests of the people. Instead it's just propagandized crap after propagandized crap made into the issue of the day (that incidentally tends to have absolutely 0 benefit to the lives of the average American), while what people actually care about is completely ignored. Anyhow, rant over. Point being, no nobody is "post-privacy", let alone comfortably. It's more like we're a democracy that's become "post-democracy", and seemingly comfortably so. Plato is more a prophet than a philosopher at this point. [1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-an...
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    I respectfully disagree. While I agree with the inclusion of corps and governments as interested parties bent on getting as much information as possible, I am unwilling to exclude just average people living in America. Last time I suggested a more private forum for something the response was an overwhelming, 'but X is free'. People are may be choosing between partial privacy and subsidized non-private services, but they are actually overwhelmingly voting with their money for post-privacy stuff. I am saying this as the odd sheep in the family. Everyone else has kids running with Chromebooks, Ipads, every app imaginable, self imposed house wiretap and TV that carefully tracks their choices. And I have a wife too, which does put up with some of my craziness, but is unwilling to give up facebook so I need to carve out an exception for her on my network. You are not wrong about our democracy, but have you considered that it is partially by design?
    - pessimizer 3y ago
      This sentiment lacks perspective. You know yourself how much of a hassle it is to preserve your privacy or rights, and how ineffective it can still be with lots of effort and a lot of technical knowledge. Tech is not other people's hobby and job, they've got other things to worry about. If you ask them, they'll tell you how they feel about their privacy, but they can't invest the time you have into understanding how to preserve it. They give up their privacy and go to work. They give up their privacy and go to school. They give up their privacy to have a laugh. It's a horrible investment of time and effort for them to live in hyperawareness of actual threats that are also almost impossible to avoid. That doesn't make them responsible for their plight any more than a antebellum slave that fails to escape the plantation.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
        It is a valid argument. I actually agree with you ( and OP ). The point I am making is that we simply cannot take the blame off the victims either. Unlike plantation slaves they actually do have a choice ( an annoying choice, but a choice nonetheless ). It is hard, if not plain impossible, to move the needle if the general population response is a generalized shrug. They need to get angry. They are not there. So yeah, I am accepting my share of the blame. People in general need to accept theirs. Once that happens, we can go after the actual culprits. Things don't change until we recognize reality for what it is.
- MisterBastahrd 3y ago
  Most people living in the US believe that they can go on Facebook, post a copypasta "notice" that they got from a "lawyer friend" on Facebook that removes the right of Facebook to use or share any of their data, and that's enough to keep their data safe.
andsoitis 3y ago
A cursory search reveals articles that purport Sweden has been expanding surveillance and espionage laws for the last 15 years or so. - 2022: https://www.thelocal.se/20221116/swedens-parliament-votes-through-controversial-espionage-law https://www.thelocal.se/20221116/swedens-parliament-votes-th... - 2021: https://edri.org/our-work/the-terrifying-expansion-of-swedens-state-surveillance/ https://edri.org/our-work/the-terrifying-expansion-of-sweden... - 2019: https://www.cpomagazine.com/cyber-security/swedish-police-given-green-light-for-spyware/ https://www.cpomagazine.com/cyber-security/swedish-police-gi... - 2008: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/sweden-and-borders-surveillance-state https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/sweden-and-borders-sur...
- dijit 3y ago
  This is true of most democratic countries especially the "Five Eyes" and "Fourteen Eyes" countries. That I currently have a protection in law does not mean that the sitting government enjoys that I have it, however it is politically toxic to remove such laws directly so they erode them over time; in the mean time they enter these arrangements with third-party countries. (thus, terms like FIVEYES and FOURTEENEYES exist) I believe though that intentionally loopholing the law to avoid this political problem is much worse than repealing the laws that protect me. It shows a fragrant disregard for the rule of law. a Rundown of the western alliances: * Five Eyes countries: United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand * Nine Eyes countries: The Five Eyes plus Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, and France * Fourteen Eyes countries: The Nine Eyes plus Italy, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, and Spain * Partners of the 14 Eyes: Israel, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, British Overseas Territories
  - 5350-uiop-1130 3y ago
    > a Rundown of the western alliances i love this. its the anglo nations and their friends. in order of friendship. i feel like it explains a lot about the world. * Five Eyes countries: anglo BFFs. * Nine Eyes countries: scandinavians, half-anglo and norman cousins. * Fourteen Eyes countries: former Axis + neutrals. not fully trusted but still close. sweden an outlier considering what they did to assange. * Partners of the 14 Eyes: The honorary westerners.
quitit 3y ago
>Failure to respect privacy lends itself to authoritarianism as people will self-censor if they feel they are not able to express themselves. Maybe I'm overstating this but it's a real concern of mine. Likely not overstating it because this is exactly what has happened both historically and currently in some countries. The need for privacy is proven, not because people need to hide criminal behaviour or menial things, but because we can't rely on people with power to always do the right thing.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >but because we can't rely on people with power to always do the right thing. This sounds like another way of saying that you want to hide criminal behvaiour.
  - sqibkw 3y ago
    Things that are legal/illegal are not a perfect overlap with things that are right/wrong.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      Then acknowledge that you want the ability to be a criminal by doing things based off your own beliefs rather than pretending you aren't trying to hide that behaviour.
  - raspyberr 3y ago
    There are places in the world where it's a crime to be gay.
    - cassianoleal 3y ago
      * Emit an opinion that's contrary from what's sanctioned by government. * Consume certain types of food or chemicals. * Meet with more than 2 or 3 people at a time. * Stay out past a certain hour. * Allow your children to be outside without supervision. * Have an abortion (even in cases of rape!). * ...
stainablesteel 3y ago
as if the spying is even necessary, sweden is more than willing to make up fake charges on behalf of the US wanting someone arrested, this is how they got assange
no_wizard 3y ago
There's precedent for the EU and other western European nations pressuring the US to do the right thing. It would behoove European leaders to put some pressure on the US to pass their own domestic privacy laws in line with their own. Diplomatic pressures could be useful here, in conjunction with domestic lobbying. As a US citizen, I'd love European style data protections enshrined as law.
- dijit 3y ago
  there are actually some data protection laws enshrined in US law, the US enters these agreements because they are doing the same thing as I described but in the inverse. GCHQ is the preferred proxy for NSA.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > As a US citizen, I'd love European style data protections enshrined as law. As a US citizen, I'm desperate for this. Or even better laws. The GDPR, for instance, is a great thing and better than anything we have going here -- but it's still insufficient.
frankreyes 3y ago
> Snowden Snowden, if any, shown that the USA gov can and already do regularly monitor communications. We have CTF, KYC and AML regulations, as well as any related laws, for a reason. Europe has now to deal with Russian invasion of Ukraine, because of this anti American sentiment. If you don't see how the two things are related, and blame the USA who's the largest security supporter of Ukraine and Europe via NATO, then this whole privacy debate is useless. Edit: 100 years ago, Germany was in a similar position like Russia today. Large powerhouse who thought they could get their way by military force. Sure, let Germany take some poland. Because of Germany we got WW1 and WW2, and 100 years later many haven't really learned their lessons.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > of this anti American sentiment. There is nothing more pro-American than pointing out where the US needs to do better and agitating for that to happen.
  - frankreyes 3y ago
    I'm from latin America and we have plenty of reasons to argue against the USA. For example Operation Condor. But I also have a brain, and while I'm a huge critic of those things, I'd side with them anytime against current dictatorial regimes. Why people romanticize dictators and reject democracy, I don't know.
tenpies 3y ago
> The US having data on me by itself isn't a huge deal; there's no fucking way I will ever want to live there and factually: I don't know how anyone can say this with certainty about any country these days unless you have a terminal disease or are up there in laps around the sun. You have Western leaders literally toying with the idea of starting WW3 this week by inviting Ukraine into NATO - and sure it's not a certaintly, but so-called world leaders with bunkers are surprisingly laissez-aller about this. And sure, the US is part of that block of countries, but there's a ton more distance between Russia and the US, than between Russia and Sweden.

by dijit 3y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago

<< Maybe I'm overstating this but it's a real concern of mine. I don't think you are. I live in US and its version of 'privacy' has been normalized to a horrifying degree ( click this button so that we can do whatever we want ). We are basically at a point where 'enemy of the state' movie comparison is not even apt, because in that movie the audience would be petrified by it. Most are comfortably post-privacy.

somenameforme 3y ago
Just about every survey on this topic clarifies people are nowhere remotely near 'post-privacy.' [1] That's a random one, but they all say the exact same thing. Basically everybody, by an absolutely overwhelming margin, feels that the risks of mass surveillance (including from the government) outweigh the benefits, with a similarly overwhelming majority also concerned about how the data is being [mis]used. The problem is our democracy is completely broken, and the fact that 80%+ of people agree on something that would even be socially beneficial, means absolutely nothing in terms of getting it done. Politicians and corporations love hoovering data for the exact same reason - perceived power. So nothing changes. And no politicians run on topics that people care about because you don't get to the point of being able to run for the presidency unless they're a billionaire, or have become really good at greasing the bellies of those that matter. And those that matter, only want even more surveillance. It's topics like this, and others, that lead individuals like me to think our system is due to collapse. Not the issue in and of itself, but the fact we have a democracy that seems to have little to nothing to do with the interests of the people. Instead it's just propagandized crap after propagandized crap made into the issue of the day (that incidentally tends to have absolutely 0 benefit to the lives of the average American), while what people actually care about is completely ignored. Anyhow, rant over. Point being, no nobody is "post-privacy", let alone comfortably. It's more like we're a democracy that's become "post-democracy", and seemingly comfortably so. Plato is more a prophet than a philosopher at this point. [1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-an...
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  I respectfully disagree. While I agree with the inclusion of corps and governments as interested parties bent on getting as much information as possible, I am unwilling to exclude just average people living in America. Last time I suggested a more private forum for something the response was an overwhelming, 'but X is free'. People are may be choosing between partial privacy and subsidized non-private services, but they are actually overwhelmingly voting with their money for post-privacy stuff. I am saying this as the odd sheep in the family. Everyone else has kids running with Chromebooks, Ipads, every app imaginable, self imposed house wiretap and TV that carefully tracks their choices. And I have a wife too, which does put up with some of my craziness, but is unwilling to give up facebook so I need to carve out an exception for her on my network. You are not wrong about our democracy, but have you considered that it is partially by design?
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    This sentiment lacks perspective. You know yourself how much of a hassle it is to preserve your privacy or rights, and how ineffective it can still be with lots of effort and a lot of technical knowledge. Tech is not other people's hobby and job, they've got other things to worry about. If you ask them, they'll tell you how they feel about their privacy, but they can't invest the time you have into understanding how to preserve it. They give up their privacy and go to work. They give up their privacy and go to school. They give up their privacy to have a laugh. It's a horrible investment of time and effort for them to live in hyperawareness of actual threats that are also almost impossible to avoid. That doesn't make them responsible for their plight any more than a antebellum slave that fails to escape the plantation.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
      It is a valid argument. I actually agree with you ( and OP ). The point I am making is that we simply cannot take the blame off the victims either. Unlike plantation slaves they actually do have a choice ( an annoying choice, but a choice nonetheless ). It is hard, if not plain impossible, to move the needle if the general population response is a generalized shrug. They need to get angry. They are not there. So yeah, I am accepting my share of the blame. People in general need to accept theirs. Once that happens, we can go after the actual culprits. Things don't change until we recognize reality for what it is.
MisterBastahrd 3y ago
Most people living in the US believe that they can go on Facebook, post a copypasta "notice" that they got from a "lawyer friend" on Facebook that removes the right of Facebook to use or share any of their data, and that's enough to keep their data safe.

andsoitis 3y ago

A cursory search reveals articles that purport Sweden has been expanding surveillance and espionage laws for the last 15 years or so. - 2022: https://www.thelocal.se/20221116/swedens-parliament-votes-through-controversial-espionage-law https://www.thelocal.se/20221116/swedens-parliament-votes-th... - 2021: https://edri.org/our-work/the-terrifying-expansion-of-swedens-state-surveillance/ https://edri.org/our-work/the-terrifying-expansion-of-sweden... - 2019: https://www.cpomagazine.com/cyber-security/swedish-police-given-green-light-for-spyware/ https://www.cpomagazine.com/cyber-security/swedish-police-gi... - 2008: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/sweden-and-borders-surveillance-state https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/sweden-and-borders-sur...

dijit 3y ago
This is true of most democratic countries especially the "Five Eyes" and "Fourteen Eyes" countries. That I currently have a protection in law does not mean that the sitting government enjoys that I have it, however it is politically toxic to remove such laws directly so they erode them over time; in the mean time they enter these arrangements with third-party countries. (thus, terms like FIVEYES and FOURTEENEYES exist) I believe though that intentionally loopholing the law to avoid this political problem is much worse than repealing the laws that protect me. It shows a fragrant disregard for the rule of law. a Rundown of the western alliances: * Five Eyes countries: United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand * Nine Eyes countries: The Five Eyes plus Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, and France * Fourteen Eyes countries: The Nine Eyes plus Italy, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, and Spain * Partners of the 14 Eyes: Israel, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, British Overseas Territories
- 5350-uiop-1130 3y ago
  > a Rundown of the western alliances i love this. its the anglo nations and their friends. in order of friendship. i feel like it explains a lot about the world. * Five Eyes countries: anglo BFFs. * Nine Eyes countries: scandinavians, half-anglo and norman cousins. * Fourteen Eyes countries: former Axis + neutrals. not fully trusted but still close. sweden an outlier considering what they did to assange. * Partners of the 14 Eyes: The honorary westerners.

quitit 3y ago

>Failure to respect privacy lends itself to authoritarianism as people will self-censor if they feel they are not able to express themselves. Maybe I'm overstating this but it's a real concern of mine. Likely not overstating it because this is exactly what has happened both historically and currently in some countries. The need for privacy is proven, not because people need to hide criminal behaviour or menial things, but because we can't rely on people with power to always do the right thing.

charcircuit 3y ago
>but because we can't rely on people with power to always do the right thing. This sounds like another way of saying that you want to hide criminal behvaiour.
- sqibkw 3y ago
  Things that are legal/illegal are not a perfect overlap with things that are right/wrong.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    Then acknowledge that you want the ability to be a criminal by doing things based off your own beliefs rather than pretending you aren't trying to hide that behaviour.
- raspyberr 3y ago
  There are places in the world where it's a crime to be gay.
  - cassianoleal 3y ago
    * Emit an opinion that's contrary from what's sanctioned by government. * Consume certain types of food or chemicals. * Meet with more than 2 or 3 people at a time. * Stay out past a certain hour. * Allow your children to be outside without supervision. * Have an abortion (even in cases of rape!). * ...

stainablesteel 3y ago

as if the spying is even necessary, sweden is more than willing to make up fake charges on behalf of the US wanting someone arrested, this is how they got assange

no_wizard 3y ago

There's precedent for the EU and other western European nations pressuring the US to do the right thing. It would behoove European leaders to put some pressure on the US to pass their own domestic privacy laws in line with their own. Diplomatic pressures could be useful here, in conjunction with domestic lobbying. As a US citizen, I'd love European style data protections enshrined as law.

dijit 3y ago
there are actually some data protection laws enshrined in US law, the US enters these agreements because they are doing the same thing as I described but in the inverse. GCHQ is the preferred proxy for NSA.
JohnFen 3y ago
> As a US citizen, I'd love European style data protections enshrined as law. As a US citizen, I'm desperate for this. Or even better laws. The GDPR, for instance, is a great thing and better than anything we have going here -- but it's still insufficient.

frankreyes 3y ago

> Snowden Snowden, if any, shown that the USA gov can and already do regularly monitor communications. We have CTF, KYC and AML regulations, as well as any related laws, for a reason. Europe has now to deal with Russian invasion of Ukraine, because of this anti American sentiment. If you don't see how the two things are related, and blame the USA who's the largest security supporter of Ukraine and Europe via NATO, then this whole privacy debate is useless. Edit: 100 years ago, Germany was in a similar position like Russia today. Large powerhouse who thought they could get their way by military force. Sure, let Germany take some poland. Because of Germany we got WW1 and WW2, and 100 years later many haven't really learned their lessons.

JohnFen 3y ago
> of this anti American sentiment. There is nothing more pro-American than pointing out where the US needs to do better and agitating for that to happen.
- frankreyes 3y ago
  I'm from latin America and we have plenty of reasons to argue against the USA. For example Operation Condor. But I also have a brain, and while I'm a huge critic of those things, I'd side with them anytime against current dictatorial regimes. Why people romanticize dictators and reject democracy, I don't know.

tenpies 3y ago

> The US having data on me by itself isn't a huge deal; there's no fucking way I will ever want to live there and factually: I don't know how anyone can say this with certainty about any country these days unless you have a terminal disease or are up there in laps around the sun. You have Western leaders literally toying with the idea of starting WW3 this week by inviting Ukraine into NATO - and sure it's not a certaintly, but so-called world leaders with bunkers are surprisingly laissez-aller about this. And sure, the US is part of that block of countries, but there's a ton more distance between Russia and the US, than between Russia and Sweden.