5 ms·

What one posts on public social media sites is public. Is this surveillance?

kbelder 3y ago
You know, I think this sounds like a horrible overreach by the UK government, but your point is at least worth considering. This isn't reading emails or tapping phone calls, this is public info.
- junofan 3y ago
  Is there a public list of UK teachers I can use to conduct my own dragnet surveillance of dissidents? If not, surely combining both private and public information on people to track dissent is an overreach.
rudasn 3y ago
Dunno... If I followed you around while in public and recording everything you said and did, in public, is that surveillance?
- grecy 3y ago
  It is very much legal, and law enforcement don't need a warrant to do so.
  - jpsouth 3y ago
    I think by sheer definition it would be surveillance though.
  - psd1 3y ago
    Right, but it's also creepy and intimidating. Many things are legal but odious. The question isn't whether the government broke the law, it's how heinous their behaviour is.
  - cs02rm0 3y ago
    I don't think legal is always the line when considering what's right, or particularly in this case whether it's surveillance.
vfclists 3y ago
If it is targeted, tracked, stored and analyzed it is surveillance.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  Don't forget 'acted on'. They're using this data to make sure people who criticise them can't acquire influence. And it's all in secret, short of canny SAR's. People can question if this is technically surveillance, but in context, that question is basically misdirection.
none_to_remain 3y ago
I think it counts as surveillance when it's published material, but surveillance of public material does not seem so troublesome to me. For ex. if these teachers had instead published their complaints in old-fashioned letters-to-the-editor in print newspapers, I don't think anyone would be complaining that the government reads the newspapers. You could still complain about the chilling of dissent and the waste of resources.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  But, posting publicly to social media is almost exactly like a letter to the editor. You send your message to a company, the company reviews it, and then usually publishes it publicly for all to see. I would not feel "chilled" if someone (an employer, government, or whoever) trawled through my HN posts and made some kind of judgment or took action over what I post. I would expect it. It's public after all. I certainly moderate what I say here knowing this (maybe that's the chilling effect you mention?)
  - bluefirebrand 3y ago
    > I certainly moderate what I say here knowing this (maybe that's the chilling effect you mention?) Yeah that is the chilling effect. Yes, it's likely there are some things that are better to be "chilled". For instance if you were advocating for violence against public figures. But imagine the day your credit rating gets dinged because you post online that you disagree with some new tax reform bill being proposed. This happens because the agency managing your credit score is also lobbying for this tax reform. Or you criticize a government official online and the police show up at your door, which is something that absolutely has happened throughout history. The fact they are watching your social media isn't the problem. It's how they can (and eventually probably will) abuse that surveillance. Or whoever replaces them next time there is an election.
    - psd1 3y ago
      Just the watching is indeed a problem. It makes me feel violated. Whether or not I have something to hide, or might get a knock on the door, is a completely separate point.
theptip 3y ago
Is installing a CCTV camera to record a public park surveillance? Yes of course, it is clearly and unambiguously labeled as such. Surveillance is orthogonal to whether the subject is in public or in private.
creer 3y ago
Collecting and judging everything is. It's legal sure - perhaps because it's new that it can be done at scale (aside from the old East Germany). And it's because it's new that it's a question now worth asking. I mean it was always done for political reasons. See CIA / FBI dossiers (and harassement) of people they didn't like. Again not at scale and not of everyone before even any reason to not like anyone.
happytiger 3y ago
Yes. It’s data collected from public sources of information but it is surveillance. It may be legal, it may be public information, but this is a government collecting information on its citizens: government surveillance. Consider the effects: > Government monitoring of social media can work to people’s detriment in at least four ways: (1) wrongly implicating an individual or group in criminal behavior based on their activity on social media; (2) misinterpreting the meaning of social media activity, sometimes with severe consequences; (3) suppressing people’s willingness to talk or connect openly online; and (4) invading individuals’ privacy. Now if you’re cool with those effects, rock on. I’m not keen. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/social-media-surveillance-us-government https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/soci...
garbageoverflow 3y ago
Are surveillance cameras really surveilling?

You know, I think this sounds like a horrible overreach by the UK government, but your point is at least worth considering. This isn't reading emails or tapping phone calls, this is public info.

junofan 3y ago
Is there a public list of UK teachers I can use to conduct my own dragnet surveillance of dissidents? If not, surely combining both private and public information on people to track dissent is an overreach.

rudasn 3y ago

Dunno... If I followed you around while in public and recording everything you said and did, in public, is that surveillance?

grecy 3y ago
It is very much legal, and law enforcement don't need a warrant to do so.
- jpsouth 3y ago
  I think by sheer definition it would be surveillance though.
- psd1 3y ago
  Right, but it's also creepy and intimidating. Many things are legal but odious. The question isn't whether the government broke the law, it's how heinous their behaviour is.
- cs02rm0 3y ago
  I don't think legal is always the line when considering what's right, or particularly in this case whether it's surveillance.

vfclists 3y ago

If it is targeted, tracked, stored and analyzed it is surveillance.

mandmandam 3y ago
Don't forget 'acted on'. They're using this data to make sure people who criticise them can't acquire influence. And it's all in secret, short of canny SAR's. People can question if this is technically surveillance, but in context, that question is basically misdirection.

none_to_remain 3y ago

I think it counts as surveillance when it's published material, but surveillance of public material does not seem so troublesome to me. For ex. if these teachers had instead published their complaints in old-fashioned letters-to-the-editor in print newspapers, I don't think anyone would be complaining that the government reads the newspapers. You could still complain about the chilling of dissent and the waste of resources.

ryandrake 3y ago
But, posting publicly to social media is almost exactly like a letter to the editor. You send your message to a company, the company reviews it, and then usually publishes it publicly for all to see. I would not feel "chilled" if someone (an employer, government, or whoever) trawled through my HN posts and made some kind of judgment or took action over what I post. I would expect it. It's public after all. I certainly moderate what I say here knowing this (maybe that's the chilling effect you mention?)
- bluefirebrand 3y ago
  > I certainly moderate what I say here knowing this (maybe that's the chilling effect you mention?) Yeah that is the chilling effect. Yes, it's likely there are some things that are better to be "chilled". For instance if you were advocating for violence against public figures. But imagine the day your credit rating gets dinged because you post online that you disagree with some new tax reform bill being proposed. This happens because the agency managing your credit score is also lobbying for this tax reform. Or you criticize a government official online and the police show up at your door, which is something that absolutely has happened throughout history. The fact they are watching your social media isn't the problem. It's how they can (and eventually probably will) abuse that surveillance. Or whoever replaces them next time there is an election.
  - psd1 3y ago
    Just the watching is indeed a problem. It makes me feel violated. Whether or not I have something to hide, or might get a knock on the door, is a completely separate point.

theptip 3y ago

Is installing a CCTV camera to record a public park surveillance? Yes of course, it is clearly and unambiguously labeled as such. Surveillance is orthogonal to whether the subject is in public or in private.

creer 3y ago

Collecting and judging everything is. It's legal sure - perhaps because it's new that it can be done at scale (aside from the old East Germany). And it's because it's new that it's a question now worth asking. I mean it was always done for political reasons. See CIA / FBI dossiers (and harassement) of people they didn't like. Again not at scale and not of everyone before even any reason to not like anyone.

happytiger 3y ago

Yes. It’s data collected from public sources of information but it is surveillance. It may be legal, it may be public information, but this is a government collecting information on its citizens: government surveillance. Consider the effects: > Government monitoring of social media can work to people’s detriment in at least four ways: (1) wrongly implicating an individual or group in criminal behavior based on their activity on social media; (2) misinterpreting the meaning of social media activity, sometimes with severe consequences; (3) suppressing people’s willingness to talk or connect openly online; and (4) invading individuals’ privacy. Now if you’re cool with those effects, rock on. I’m not keen. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/social-media-surveillance-us-government https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/soci...

garbageoverflow 3y ago

Are surveillance cameras really surveilling?