6 ms·

A really good book on this topic is Byron Tau’s Means of Control. His contention is that this surveillance data has made NSA warrantless wiretaps old news. Cops

A really good book on this topic is Byron Tau’s Means of Control. His contention is that this surveillance data has made NSA warrantless wiretaps old news. Cops don’t need to do the spying themselves, they can simply buy the info. I am of the opinion that at this point, Americans only believe we are less surveilled than people elsewhere. It’s not visible so people forget about it. Yet it is so deeply embedded into the government that it will never be removed.

webspinner 2y ago
Well, if you follow legal cases as I do, you know that isn't true! We are surveilled just as much as everyone else, save for maybe the UK, but we're even getting pretty close to that!
dylan604 2y ago
There's the old saying that "we are free only as much as we don't have guns in our face telling us we're not". The reigns placed on our freedom are just unrecognized by the vast majority of people so they feel they have more freedom than what they might appreciate.
- gmfawcett 2y ago
  > we are free only as much as we don't have guns in our face telling us we're not. Is this actually an old saying?
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    It's at least thirty minutes old.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      i might have butchered the actual saying, but the gist is there
- revscat 2y ago
  I’m not entirely sure if I understand the point you’re making, but let me try an analogy. We are all forced to buy a car. There is no one with a gun to our head forcing such a purchase, or a law specifically requiring you to buy a car. But nevertheless the laws are structured so that everyone realistically must buy a car, whether they want to or not. If you chose not to buy a car then your life will be dramatically more expensive and difficult to live, because of the network effects of this requirement. So while you are technically free to not buy a car, realistically you are forced to do so. Is that approximately what you mean?
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    > If you chose not to buy a car then your life will be dramatically more expensive and difficult to live, because of the network effects of this requirement. That depends where you live. In Chicago, for example, your life will be simpler and less expensive if you don't own a car.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      I don't understand this as a blanket rule either. My life is dramatically less expensive because of not having a car. I don't have to fill it with gas. I don't have to carry insurance. I choose not to have a car, and while somethings are less convenient it does not prevent me from existing. I have an ebike and it suffices for everything thing that is a necessity for me. For the other things, rental for a weekend away is very much a thing. Now, for people that choose to live in the further reaches of suburbia where things are not nearly as close, then cars become more of a need. But that is a decision when location to suburbia or further was made.
      - bobthepanda 2y ago
        Eh, eventually there is a network effect and much of everything needs a car. If you happen to live in one of the numerous cities in the US that has a hollowed out core, you need a car even if you live downtown. And often the cities that have vibrant walkable downtowns are expensive to move to.
- KoftaBob 2y ago
  Do you have some concrete examples of these reigns placed on our freedoms that most people apparently aren't intelligent enough to realize?
  - dylan604 2y ago
    If you're a heterosexual white male, you probably won't notice them. You'll also probably not care for that any non-heterosexual white male might feel differently. For everyone else, we have loads of examples of how not free they are at times. Heaven help you if you "fit the description".
    - zmgsabst 2y ago
      So… no? Just race and sex baiting with vague allusions, but not actually a specific example when asked…?
      - dylan604 2y ago
        If you can't think of any specific examples on your own, then you're just not really trying very hard. Try driving while not white in certain cities and see how free you feel. Try being a naturalized citizen or first gen to see how free you are in certain cities. Try being a female and looking to make your own health care decisions in certain states. Are these less vague allusions enough for you? Freedom does not mean the opposite of being in jail. There's a lot of freedoms that are taken away from people purely based on race/sex whether you want to call it baiting or not. They still exist as problems.
        zmgsabst 2y ago
        > Are these less vague allusions enough for you? No, not at all. For example, plenty of white people feel unwelcome in areas — but neither group is prohibited and in both cases the experience is generally a) in their own head because nobody thinks about other people and/or b) cultural because there’s members of that community who don’t experience the same. > Try being a female and looking to make your own health care decisions in certain states. When your rights intersect another’s rights is always a matter of law — I’m not free to kill others outside legislated confines, either. > There's a lot of freedoms that are taken away from people purely based on race/sex whether you want to call it baiting or not. Then you should list some, rather than give vague and untrue grievance narratives.
pictureofabear 2y ago
Not just police... the NSA as well. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/tech/the-nsa-buys-americans-internet-data-newly-released-documents-show/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/tech/the-nsa-buys-americans-i...
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
I would say it's more like the American people are so propagandized in favor of free markets and enterprises and so poisoned at the notion of the Government doing literally anything that they utterly don't care about how thoroughly and completely our freedoms have been subsumed by capital interests, as long as they aren't "big government me no like." Government death panels? Orwellian, literally 1984, communist, socialist. Your insurance company refusing to cover your cancer treatment? Well that's the free market bub, can't argue with it. Sorry you're gonna die. Like I'm being hyperbolic, sure, but I am being that hyperbolic?
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  You can always pay out of pocket for healthcare. "Government death panels" are death panels because it is illegal to seek any other care/recourse
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    There was never any proposal for any system that bans people from paying for their own care :| You’ve been duped.
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      if there is a cancer treatment that is covered by Canadian Medicare but the government chooses not to cover you for whatever reason (world is in triage, etc. etc.), you cannot pay out of pocket for that care.
      - treyd 2y ago
        You would also be free to travel to another country to pay for that care.
        whimsicalism 2y ago
        right, because it is illegal to pay for care in Canada outside of the system. i didn't say that Canada had some global anti-private care enforcement power
whimsicalism 2y ago
> I am of the opinion that at this point, Americans only believe we are less surveilled than people elsewhere. I'm not sure who believes that (Hollywood/any cop tv show would have you believing the opposite), but I'm also skeptical that these data brokers are only brokering US data.
- talldayo 2y ago
  > (Hollywood/any cop tv show would have you believing the opposite) Hollywood and cop TV would have you believe that "zoom, enhance" is a legitimate means of surveillance. I suspect most educated Americans avoid framing their understanding of surveillance around CSI and SVU.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    I disagree that Americans don't base their views on TV, fictional or otherwise. I wish I had your optimism.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    On the other hand, the number of public cameras has exploded in the past decade. Even moderately small towns are likely to have Flock cameras on every major road in and out of town and at major intersections, allowing police to track who is coming and going. We had a bank robbery here recently and the getaway car was captured on the bank's outside cameras, and using Flock the police quickly localized where the car was to within a few square blocks. They found it within hours and arrested a suspect. In this case it was a good ending, but it's not hard to imagine how this could be misused, or mistakenly put an innocent bystander under suspicion. Combine this with most private businesses and many homes now having cameras watching activity on or about the property, and I'm not sure most people realize the extent to which they are surveilled in 2024.
    - j16sdiz 2y ago
      This is a global trend. "Public camera" (as in state/city owned) is the least of my worries -- I know who I should sue when the data are leak. Many camera just put all footage on in some unsecured server in China or public S3 bucket .
nonrandomstring 2y ago
Maybe this helps make your point [0]. The data purchased and aggregated so seamlessly now that standardised 'one-click' software similar to X-keyscore (Locate X) is widely available for tracking citizens. [0] https://www.404media.co/email/f459caa7-1a58-4f31-a9ba-3cb53a5046a4/ https://www.404media.co/email/f459caa7-1a58-4f31-a9ba-3cb53a...

webspinner 2y ago

Well, if you follow legal cases as I do, you know that isn't true! We are surveilled just as much as everyone else, save for maybe the UK, but we're even getting pretty close to that!

dylan604 2y ago

There's the old saying that "we are free only as much as we don't have guns in our face telling us we're not". The reigns placed on our freedom are just unrecognized by the vast majority of people so they feel they have more freedom than what they might appreciate.

gmfawcett 2y ago
> we are free only as much as we don't have guns in our face telling us we're not. Is this actually an old saying?
- whatshisface 2y ago
  It's at least thirty minutes old.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    i might have butchered the actual saying, but the gist is there
revscat 2y ago
I’m not entirely sure if I understand the point you’re making, but let me try an analogy. We are all forced to buy a car. There is no one with a gun to our head forcing such a purchase, or a law specifically requiring you to buy a car. But nevertheless the laws are structured so that everyone realistically must buy a car, whether they want to or not. If you chose not to buy a car then your life will be dramatically more expensive and difficult to live, because of the network effects of this requirement. So while you are technically free to not buy a car, realistically you are forced to do so. Is that approximately what you mean?
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  > If you chose not to buy a car then your life will be dramatically more expensive and difficult to live, because of the network effects of this requirement. That depends where you live. In Chicago, for example, your life will be simpler and less expensive if you don't own a car.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    I don't understand this as a blanket rule either. My life is dramatically less expensive because of not having a car. I don't have to fill it with gas. I don't have to carry insurance. I choose not to have a car, and while somethings are less convenient it does not prevent me from existing. I have an ebike and it suffices for everything thing that is a necessity for me. For the other things, rental for a weekend away is very much a thing. Now, for people that choose to live in the further reaches of suburbia where things are not nearly as close, then cars become more of a need. But that is a decision when location to suburbia or further was made.
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      Eh, eventually there is a network effect and much of everything needs a car. If you happen to live in one of the numerous cities in the US that has a hollowed out core, you need a car even if you live downtown. And often the cities that have vibrant walkable downtowns are expensive to move to.
KoftaBob 2y ago
Do you have some concrete examples of these reigns placed on our freedoms that most people apparently aren't intelligent enough to realize?
- dylan604 2y ago
  If you're a heterosexual white male, you probably won't notice them. You'll also probably not care for that any non-heterosexual white male might feel differently. For everyone else, we have loads of examples of how not free they are at times. Heaven help you if you "fit the description".
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    So… no? Just race and sex baiting with vague allusions, but not actually a specific example when asked…?
    - dylan604 2y ago
      If you can't think of any specific examples on your own, then you're just not really trying very hard. Try driving while not white in certain cities and see how free you feel. Try being a naturalized citizen or first gen to see how free you are in certain cities. Try being a female and looking to make your own health care decisions in certain states. Are these less vague allusions enough for you? Freedom does not mean the opposite of being in jail. There's a lot of freedoms that are taken away from people purely based on race/sex whether you want to call it baiting or not. They still exist as problems.
      - zmgsabst 2y ago
        > Are these less vague allusions enough for you? No, not at all. For example, plenty of white people feel unwelcome in areas — but neither group is prohibited and in both cases the experience is generally a) in their own head because nobody thinks about other people and/or b) cultural because there’s members of that community who don’t experience the same. > Try being a female and looking to make your own health care decisions in certain states. When your rights intersect another’s rights is always a matter of law — I’m not free to kill others outside legislated confines, either. > There's a lot of freedoms that are taken away from people purely based on race/sex whether you want to call it baiting or not. Then you should list some, rather than give vague and untrue grievance narratives.

pictureofabear 2y ago

Not just police... the NSA as well. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/tech/the-nsa-buys-americans-internet-data-newly-released-documents-show/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/tech/the-nsa-buys-americans-i...

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

I would say it's more like the American people are so propagandized in favor of free markets and enterprises and so poisoned at the notion of the Government doing literally anything that they utterly don't care about how thoroughly and completely our freedoms have been subsumed by capital interests, as long as they aren't "big government me no like." Government death panels? Orwellian, literally 1984, communist, socialist. Your insurance company refusing to cover your cancer treatment? Well that's the free market bub, can't argue with it. Sorry you're gonna die. Like I'm being hyperbolic, sure, but I am being that hyperbolic?

whimsicalism 2y ago
You can always pay out of pocket for healthcare. "Government death panels" are death panels because it is illegal to seek any other care/recourse
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  There was never any proposal for any system that bans people from paying for their own care :| You’ve been duped.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    if there is a cancer treatment that is covered by Canadian Medicare but the government chooses not to cover you for whatever reason (world is in triage, etc. etc.), you cannot pay out of pocket for that care.
    - treyd 2y ago
      You would also be free to travel to another country to pay for that care.
      - whimsicalism 2y ago
        right, because it is illegal to pay for care in Canada outside of the system. i didn't say that Canada had some global anti-private care enforcement power

whimsicalism 2y ago

> I am of the opinion that at this point, Americans only believe we are less surveilled than people elsewhere. I'm not sure who believes that (Hollywood/any cop tv show would have you believing the opposite), but I'm also skeptical that these data brokers are only brokering US data.

talldayo 2y ago
> (Hollywood/any cop tv show would have you believing the opposite) Hollywood and cop TV would have you believe that "zoom, enhance" is a legitimate means of surveillance. I suspect most educated Americans avoid framing their understanding of surveillance around CSI and SVU.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  I disagree that Americans don't base their views on TV, fictional or otherwise. I wish I had your optimism.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  On the other hand, the number of public cameras has exploded in the past decade. Even moderately small towns are likely to have Flock cameras on every major road in and out of town and at major intersections, allowing police to track who is coming and going. We had a bank robbery here recently and the getaway car was captured on the bank's outside cameras, and using Flock the police quickly localized where the car was to within a few square blocks. They found it within hours and arrested a suspect. In this case it was a good ending, but it's not hard to imagine how this could be misused, or mistakenly put an innocent bystander under suspicion. Combine this with most private businesses and many homes now having cameras watching activity on or about the property, and I'm not sure most people realize the extent to which they are surveilled in 2024.
  - j16sdiz 2y ago
    This is a global trend. "Public camera" (as in state/city owned) is the least of my worries -- I know who I should sue when the data are leak. Many camera just put all footage on in some unsecured server in China or public S3 bucket .

nonrandomstring 2y ago

Maybe this helps make your point [0]. The data purchased and aggregated so seamlessly now that standardised 'one-click' software similar to X-keyscore (Locate X) is widely available for tracking citizens. [0] https://www.404media.co/email/f459caa7-1a58-4f31-a9ba-3cb53a5046a4/ https://www.404media.co/email/f459caa7-1a58-4f31-a9ba-3cb53a...