4 ms·

this is a bad argument, it could be applied equally to all communication technology

by nathias 3y ago

krapp 3y ago
It does. All communication technology is surveillance technology.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  I'm just reading a rather well written PhD thesis that disputes this [0] Certainly, any badly designed communication system is incidentally a surveillance device. And there are many examples stretching back to the 1940s. However, a properly designed communication system is inherently a counter-surveillance system. It just took us 80 years to figure out that important functional requirement. [1] https://research.tue.nl/files/197416841/20220325_Appelbaum_hf.pdf https://research.tue.nl/files/197416841/20220325_Appelbaum_h...
- falcor84 3y ago
  Not by definition. For example, radio broadcast isn't.
  - krapp 3y ago
    Definitions don't matter. The device I carry in my pocket is "defined" as a "smartphone" despite being a computer that just happens to have an app that simulates an archaic device called a "telephone" installed on it. It also provides convenient access for law enforcement to monitor all of my social media accounts and communications and metadata and scan my storage for contraband. Preferably with a warrant but of course probably with any number of backdoors installed by design. We all know at this point that warrants don't matter either. Radio broadcast can certainly be used for surveillance, in that at the very least the location of the broadcast signal can be triangulated and monitored. Which is how law enforcement can also use the "smartphone" in my pocket to track my location in realtime. Even when it's turned off. Because the definition of the "off" button doesn't matter, either. It isn't an "off button" it's a button that runs an app that simulates "turning the phone off," but might just put it into a low power state or who knows? Your computer spies on you. The web spies on you. Your appliances spy on you. Your car spies on you. Your lightbulbs spy on you. The locks on your front door spy on you. Unless you're primitive enough not to use modern "smart" technology (which isn't defined as surveillance technology but which always seems to be in the news because it gets used or abused as exactly that.) Everything, everywhere, spies on you all the time. And if it doesn't, wait a few years, someone will find a way to make sure that it does. But none of it will be surveillance "by definition." Convenience, customer obsession, safety, the definitions will be plentiful but none of them will matter.
    - nathias 3y ago
      Your computer can spy on you. The web can spy on you. Your appliances can spy on you. Your car can spy on you. Your lightbulbs can spy on you. but you don't need tech for that, a spy can spy on you
      - krapp 3y ago
        I don't need a gun to kill people, I can use a knife, but the existence of knives doesn't negate the lethality of guns. Technology may not be necessary for surveillance but it is nonetheless used for surveillance. That other means besides technology can also be used for surveillance is irrelevant to the utility of technology for surveillance.
        nathias 3y ago
        but the multifunctionality of knives makes them conceptualized as tools not just murder weapons
      - flagrant_taco 3y ago
        These technologies all commodities spying, making it viable when you couldn't send a person to do the spying. I live in a rural area. The government would never bother to send someone to spy on me here, I can't imagine they suspect me of anything important enough to spend resources on me. But they can spy on me digitally for a very low cost and with little or no humna resources. Even better for them, they can spy on me digitally without cause and dump the data in storage in case they ever want to pull it up later.
- nathias 3y ago
  I can use communication tech to avoid surveillance, so no.
  - krapp 3y ago
    And in doing so you've created a data fingerprint that can be surveilled, and then the NSA just roots your phone or data provider or Google or whatever they want, so no, you really can't.
    - npteljes 3y ago
      >so you've created a data fingerprint that can be surveilled My mother birthing me made such an impact on the universe that can be surveilled. This is a moot point.
      - krapp 3y ago
        >My mother birthing me made such an impact on the universe that can be surveilled. This is a moot point. It's only a moot point when you move the goalposts outside of our lightcone. It is concretely and objectively fact that attempts to avoid surveillance create a profile that can be used to surveil you, because the more you attempt to avoid surveillance, the more you stand out against the noise. Everything leaks. And your counter argument is that "the material universe exists, and can be observed, therefore your argument is irrelevant?" If you can't be bothered with a serious reply, just don't reply. It's fine. I don't expect much from Hacker News anymore.
    - nathias 3y ago
      Now you're saying that a potential for surveillance is enough to reduce a thing to a surverillance technology? Not intent, not actual use, just the possibility?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

this is a bad argument, it could be applied equally to all communication technology

krapp 3y ago

It does. All communication technology is surveillance technology.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
I'm just reading a rather well written PhD thesis that disputes this [0] Certainly, any badly designed communication system is incidentally a surveillance device. And there are many examples stretching back to the 1940s. However, a properly designed communication system is inherently a counter-surveillance system. It just took us 80 years to figure out that important functional requirement. [1] https://research.tue.nl/files/197416841/20220325_Appelbaum_hf.pdf https://research.tue.nl/files/197416841/20220325_Appelbaum_h...
falcor84 3y ago
Not by definition. For example, radio broadcast isn't.
- krapp 3y ago
  Definitions don't matter. The device I carry in my pocket is "defined" as a "smartphone" despite being a computer that just happens to have an app that simulates an archaic device called a "telephone" installed on it. It also provides convenient access for law enforcement to monitor all of my social media accounts and communications and metadata and scan my storage for contraband. Preferably with a warrant but of course probably with any number of backdoors installed by design. We all know at this point that warrants don't matter either. Radio broadcast can certainly be used for surveillance, in that at the very least the location of the broadcast signal can be triangulated and monitored. Which is how law enforcement can also use the "smartphone" in my pocket to track my location in realtime. Even when it's turned off. Because the definition of the "off" button doesn't matter, either. It isn't an "off button" it's a button that runs an app that simulates "turning the phone off," but might just put it into a low power state or who knows? Your computer spies on you. The web spies on you. Your appliances spy on you. Your car spies on you. Your lightbulbs spy on you. The locks on your front door spy on you. Unless you're primitive enough not to use modern "smart" technology (which isn't defined as surveillance technology but which always seems to be in the news because it gets used or abused as exactly that.) Everything, everywhere, spies on you all the time. And if it doesn't, wait a few years, someone will find a way to make sure that it does. But none of it will be surveillance "by definition." Convenience, customer obsession, safety, the definitions will be plentiful but none of them will matter.
  - nathias 3y ago
    Your computer can spy on you. The web can spy on you. Your appliances can spy on you. Your car can spy on you. Your lightbulbs can spy on you. but you don't need tech for that, a spy can spy on you
    - krapp 3y ago
      I don't need a gun to kill people, I can use a knife, but the existence of knives doesn't negate the lethality of guns. Technology may not be necessary for surveillance but it is nonetheless used for surveillance. That other means besides technology can also be used for surveillance is irrelevant to the utility of technology for surveillance.
      - nathias 3y ago
        but the multifunctionality of knives makes them conceptualized as tools not just murder weapons
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      These technologies all commodities spying, making it viable when you couldn't send a person to do the spying. I live in a rural area. The government would never bother to send someone to spy on me here, I can't imagine they suspect me of anything important enough to spend resources on me. But they can spy on me digitally for a very low cost and with little or no humna resources. Even better for them, they can spy on me digitally without cause and dump the data in storage in case they ever want to pull it up later.
nathias 3y ago
I can use communication tech to avoid surveillance, so no.
- krapp 3y ago
  And in doing so you've created a data fingerprint that can be surveilled, and then the NSA just roots your phone or data provider or Google or whatever they want, so no, you really can't.
  - npteljes 3y ago
    >so you've created a data fingerprint that can be surveilled My mother birthing me made such an impact on the universe that can be surveilled. This is a moot point.
    - krapp 3y ago
      >My mother birthing me made such an impact on the universe that can be surveilled. This is a moot point. It's only a moot point when you move the goalposts outside of our lightcone. It is concretely and objectively fact that attempts to avoid surveillance create a profile that can be used to surveil you, because the more you attempt to avoid surveillance, the more you stand out against the noise. Everything leaks. And your counter argument is that "the material universe exists, and can be observed, therefore your argument is irrelevant?" If you can't be bothered with a serious reply, just don't reply. It's fine. I don't expect much from Hacker News anymore.
  - nathias 3y ago
    Now you're saying that a potential for surveillance is enough to reduce a thing to a surverillance technology? Not intent, not actual use, just the possibility?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]