3 ms·

I do find it very funny how over the past couple of decades US has been talking about how awful Chinese government is wrt surveillance, but now doing exactly th

I do find it very funny how over the past couple of decades US has been talking about how awful Chinese government is wrt surveillance, but now doing exactly the same but through private industry contracts instead. I hold a semi-middle ground view to CCTVs/plate readers, and understand how it can deliver improved QoL to most citizens. But a bit weird how a core American "surveillance = big no no" belief was thrown out in a few years. Another proof of people just say things, but when it comes to action, you can just do stuff. Sorry for a negative comment, but it's just an interesting observation from an outsider.

know-how 3mo ago
[dead]
jameslk 3mo ago
> But a bit weird how a core American "surveillance = big no no" belief was thrown out in a few years. I can't speak for China since I'm not as familiar with that culture, but as for the US, the culture has not changed, as you can see by protest campaigns like this and many similar types of protests (e.g. public destruction of Flock cameras). The culture in the US was founded on minimal government interference based on those trying to escape persecution elsewhere at that time, and that thread is still baked into many facets of US politics. What has changed is the state. Surveillance has been growing constantly, to much of the disapproval of those who live in the US (e.g. Edward Snowden's revelations were very damning and the revealed surveillance was very much protested against, and likewise after the Cambridge Analytica leaks). But it's a bit of boiling frog syndrome for those experiencing it: the state can grow more controlling of our lives slow enough not to be perceptible, or to spin surveillance under manipulative politics, which is for example what led to bipartisan support of the Patriot Act. This makes it difficult to stop. Technology is especially a double edged sword for making this worse.
- cucumber3732842 3mo ago
  The useful idiots were happy to bury their heads in the sad and ignore the broader trajectory so long as the state threw them a bone from time to time. A few speed cameras here or there, environmental violation lead generation via location data there, maybe even a shotspotter deployment or two. It didn't take much to not just keep HN quiet, but to get their active support, as every brick in the road to hell was laid down.
- tokioyoyo 3mo ago
  Thanks for explanation. To be honest, that's what I've heard from my American friends as well, and I genuinely respect this position (as I agree somewhat agree with it). But at the end of the day, the results speak for themselves. Since it's a democracy, if it was an issue people cared about, they would have voted in someone in local/state/national level who would oppose surveillance, no? I understand that it sounds a bit condescending to paint the whole nation in such manner, but this is what it looks like to me an observer with no skin in the game. And I understand that when you're in political minority, you can't really do much to change it. I can't respond to a couple of dead comments under my post, like the one says "Difference is china uses to police speech. Police in US use it to catch scumbags". And this is exactly what I meant in my post. There's an interesting perception of "when X does it, it's definitely for bad stuff, but when WE do it, obviously it's for good". Again, sorry, I think I woke up in a shitty mood, and picking up fights.
  - jameslk 3mo ago
    > Since it's a democracy, if it was an issue people cared about, they would have voted in someone in local/state/national level who would oppose surveillance, no? The US is a representative democracy, which means US citizens can't vote directly on laws (most of the time--e.g. CA has a system that allows some direct democracy). Those elected decide, and usually those elected aren't elected because of their views on surveillance but rather something else (e.g. jobs). For example, there's been places where citizens have majority wanted Flock cameras removed, but the local government doesn't do anything about it. Similarly, most US citizens don't believe elected officials should be allowed to trade stock, but elected officials have never enacted that into law. There's a constant force for the state to become more powerful and authoritarian. I think it's the natural state of things. Why wouldn't a politician want more power? Fewer in power would argue against that. At least in the US, this was foreseen at its founding, so the original constitution was designed to water down the federal government's ability to lord over everyone's lives (e.g. the bill of rights). But those in power are constantly seeking to undermine it. And that's where we're at today. Constantly trying to uphold our rights against a state that naturally gravitates towards more power.
tdb7893 3mo ago
I would guess if you really put it up to the people many wouldn't be a fan of this sort of broad warrantless surveillance (or at least want more controls or limits on it). Good luck finding a candidate that matches this and your other values in one of the two political parties you have a choice between. Also good luck effecting any political change in whatever gerrymandered district you are in. I think the US government with a more actually representative democracy would look very different.
scribblenot 3mo ago
[dead]
cucumber3732842 3mo ago
[dead]

know-how 3mo ago

[dead]

jameslk 3mo ago

> But a bit weird how a core American "surveillance = big no no" belief was thrown out in a few years. I can't speak for China since I'm not as familiar with that culture, but as for the US, the culture has not changed, as you can see by protest campaigns like this and many similar types of protests (e.g. public destruction of Flock cameras). The culture in the US was founded on minimal government interference based on those trying to escape persecution elsewhere at that time, and that thread is still baked into many facets of US politics. What has changed is the state. Surveillance has been growing constantly, to much of the disapproval of those who live in the US (e.g. Edward Snowden's revelations were very damning and the revealed surveillance was very much protested against, and likewise after the Cambridge Analytica leaks). But it's a bit of boiling frog syndrome for those experiencing it: the state can grow more controlling of our lives slow enough not to be perceptible, or to spin surveillance under manipulative politics, which is for example what led to bipartisan support of the Patriot Act. This makes it difficult to stop. Technology is especially a double edged sword for making this worse.

cucumber3732842 3mo ago
The useful idiots were happy to bury their heads in the sad and ignore the broader trajectory so long as the state threw them a bone from time to time. A few speed cameras here or there, environmental violation lead generation via location data there, maybe even a shotspotter deployment or two. It didn't take much to not just keep HN quiet, but to get their active support, as every brick in the road to hell was laid down.
tokioyoyo 3mo ago
Thanks for explanation. To be honest, that's what I've heard from my American friends as well, and I genuinely respect this position (as I agree somewhat agree with it). But at the end of the day, the results speak for themselves. Since it's a democracy, if it was an issue people cared about, they would have voted in someone in local/state/national level who would oppose surveillance, no? I understand that it sounds a bit condescending to paint the whole nation in such manner, but this is what it looks like to me an observer with no skin in the game. And I understand that when you're in political minority, you can't really do much to change it. I can't respond to a couple of dead comments under my post, like the one says "Difference is china uses to police speech. Police in US use it to catch scumbags". And this is exactly what I meant in my post. There's an interesting perception of "when X does it, it's definitely for bad stuff, but when WE do it, obviously it's for good". Again, sorry, I think I woke up in a shitty mood, and picking up fights.
- jameslk 3mo ago
  > Since it's a democracy, if it was an issue people cared about, they would have voted in someone in local/state/national level who would oppose surveillance, no? The US is a representative democracy, which means US citizens can't vote directly on laws (most of the time--e.g. CA has a system that allows some direct democracy). Those elected decide, and usually those elected aren't elected because of their views on surveillance but rather something else (e.g. jobs). For example, there's been places where citizens have majority wanted Flock cameras removed, but the local government doesn't do anything about it. Similarly, most US citizens don't believe elected officials should be allowed to trade stock, but elected officials have never enacted that into law. There's a constant force for the state to become more powerful and authoritarian. I think it's the natural state of things. Why wouldn't a politician want more power? Fewer in power would argue against that. At least in the US, this was foreseen at its founding, so the original constitution was designed to water down the federal government's ability to lord over everyone's lives (e.g. the bill of rights). But those in power are constantly seeking to undermine it. And that's where we're at today. Constantly trying to uphold our rights against a state that naturally gravitates towards more power.

tdb7893 3mo ago

I would guess if you really put it up to the people many wouldn't be a fan of this sort of broad warrantless surveillance (or at least want more controls or limits on it). Good luck finding a candidate that matches this and your other values in one of the two political parties you have a choice between. Also good luck effecting any political change in whatever gerrymandered district you are in. I think the US government with a more actually representative democracy would look very different.

scribblenot 3mo ago

[dead]

cucumber3732842 3mo ago

[dead]