4 ms·

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.

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.