3 ms·

No it hasn't. Your post was easy to open, your phone easy to tap. The use of surveillance equipment was basically unregulated. You may not have had transactio

No it hasn't. Your post was easy to open, your phone easy to tap. The use of surveillance equipment was basically unregulated. You may not have had transaction level monitoring but you certainly had no expectation of privacy at the bank. Do you people not read? You're harking back to some bucolic, pastoral existence that never existed.

southernplaces7 1y ago
You're kidding right? Your phone was a stationary dumb object that only made and recieved calls if you were there to answer or use it. Your post was sent by paper and a million ways existed to avoid having it traced to your home or to you. In no real way are these comparable to the deeply granular, deeply rooted 24/7 surveillance of movement, habits, contacts and nearly anything you like, that's today possible against any normally digitally connected person who doesn't take pretty extreme steps to avoid it (steps that by themselves make that person stand out as unusual enough to soon be flagged) I could go on and on with all the ways in which the tracking is pervasive and applied to most of the things we do today, and how none of that existed so autoamtically before the last 30-40 years or so. Nobody with half a brain here is referring to some bucolic pastoral existence, simply to one in which the tools for tracking were just not like they are today, and if any government wanted to apply tracking of the kind that's pretty much turn-key constant now, it took unusual effort, staffing and specialized procedures. You're either being deliberately obtuse or have no sense of perspective or idea of what you're saying
- multjoy 1y ago
  You're the one being obtuse. There has never, in the history of humanity, been a time where a criminal can communicate with other criminals with absolute immunity as they can today.
  - Cygnus_Magnetar 1y ago
    They don't have "absolute immunity" today either. They can make mistakes, or systems can be hacked as happened with the Encro Chat. And while the government may have used wiretaps in the past, they certainly weren't able to deploy that at the same scale surveillance is enacted today.

southernplaces7 1y ago

You're kidding right? Your phone was a stationary dumb object that only made and recieved calls if you were there to answer or use it. Your post was sent by paper and a million ways existed to avoid having it traced to your home or to you. In no real way are these comparable to the deeply granular, deeply rooted 24/7 surveillance of movement, habits, contacts and nearly anything you like, that's today possible against any normally digitally connected person who doesn't take pretty extreme steps to avoid it (steps that by themselves make that person stand out as unusual enough to soon be flagged) I could go on and on with all the ways in which the tracking is pervasive and applied to most of the things we do today, and how none of that existed so autoamtically before the last 30-40 years or so. Nobody with half a brain here is referring to some bucolic pastoral existence, simply to one in which the tools for tracking were just not like they are today, and if any government wanted to apply tracking of the kind that's pretty much turn-key constant now, it took unusual effort, staffing and specialized procedures. You're either being deliberately obtuse or have no sense of perspective or idea of what you're saying

multjoy 1y ago
You're the one being obtuse. There has never, in the history of humanity, been a time where a criminal can communicate with other criminals with absolute immunity as they can today.
- Cygnus_Magnetar 1y ago
  They don't have "absolute immunity" today either. They can make mistakes, or systems can be hacked as happened with the Encro Chat. And while the government may have used wiretaps in the past, they certainly weren't able to deploy that at the same scale surveillance is enacted today.