5 ms·

Why I'm worried about a surveillance state? Because the people in charge will have their records protected while everyone else gets the surveillance. Our presi

Why I'm worried about a surveillance state? Because the people in charge will have their records protected while everyone else gets the surveillance. Our president committed crimes his justice department jails people for (illegal drugs). Drug testing is a perfect example of the surveillance state. The people who don't get tested? The testers. The legislators. The people in charge. I know there are technical problems with that analogy - but you get the point.

ClayM 14y ago
so, "who watches the watchers" ?
ragmondo 14y ago
Case in point - the uk "contactpoint" database - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ContactPoint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ContactPoint - a database mandated by MPs that should contains all information about every child under the age of 18. Anyone excluded? Yep you guessed it - MP's children.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  I read that whole thing. Pretty amazing it got as far as it did, and from what I understood reading the article it was the children of celebrities that were going to be excluded. Which makes me wonder what would be considered a celebrity.
  - gtirloni 14y ago
    Anyone with power/influence enough. Like it has always been. It doesn't matter if the person is known to the general public or not. Money/power/influence is what matters in our present world.
pstuart 14y ago
They need to lead by example. After all, what do they have to hide?
joshuahedlund 14y ago
This is a good point, although as we saw most recently with Petraeus, sometimes an expansive surveillance state can't help but ensnare its own leaders, and this often accidentally leads to its limitations (as a bill requiring warrants for emails is now making its way through the Senate)
- tsotha 14y ago
  The Petraeus affair didn't come to light because of surveillance. That was a garden variety love triangle that blew up. The FBI wouldn't have known if they hadn't been told.
  - pyre 14y ago
    Their investigation is what is being referred to here. Their ability to dig into the email accounts without any oversight.
    - tsotha 14y ago
      They have always had the ability to do that if you work in any job that requires a security clearance. Sexual orientation, affairs, drugs, politics... they have the right to look at anything that points to behavior which could make you a target for blackmail.
      - pyre 14y ago
        They (the FBI) didn't know that this was connected to the director of the CIA when they started the investigation. They only made the connection to him after getting information from Google without judicial oversight.
        Vivtek 14y ago
        No, the biographer also had a clearance. They were actually within their rights. Whether it was a gainful use of resources given the origin of the tip is dubious, but they weren't actually violating the judicial oversight requirement, as far as I understand it.
joonix 14y ago
Good time to recall that up until 2012, it was legal for Congressmen to trade stocks based on inside information they received carrying out their duties.
belorn 14y ago
As Eben Moglen said in his speech in Berlin. If we don't do something soon, we are going to be living in the age past forgetting. Nothing will ever be forgotten again. Everything one do, everything one say, everything one reads, listen to, or think about is recoded and saved for all eternity. This 5 years the article talk about. Do anyone really believe than in 5 years, they won't extend it further? It will continue to the point in which either everything is stored forever, or push back actually takes away this pandora box from the government. No goverment ever want to be with less information about the population. If they could predict who is a criminal before a crime is committed, social benefits could be rerouted away. If they could predict who is going to become political candidates, they could adjust information flows away or towards that person. If they can predict who is voting for who, they can direct support/anti-support to "encourage" the right result. This is why I am worried about a surveillance state. With a large enough database of population information, and prediction models, democracy will be eroded to the point of destruction.
- Strshps1MoreTim 14y ago
  So true. Most of the democracies/republics in human history were destroyed by power concentration in the hands of a few.
- tripzilch 14y ago
  > If they could predict who is a criminal before a crime is committed, social benefits could be rerouted away. Surveillance is no replacement for legwork. They're not catching that many criminals (or "terrorists") with it right now, and in order to have an effect like you describe they need to catch most if not all of them. Surveillance isn't a panacea like that (even if you ignore the freedom aspect), even with perfect total information awareness, there's a ceiling of efficiency. The thing you describe, to run smoothly is just about the same amount of trouble and effort for a government, as it would be to rule with actual justice, civil liberties, privacy, etc. The truth is, all this surveillance shit is NOT really about protecting the public and reducing crime. It may be useful but not that useful, definitely not billons-of-dollars useful, the amounts that are being invested in this tech. It's about the state protecting its place, keeping the status quo and people covering their asses. In a healthy country, those two goals are aligned. In many countries, including the USA, they aren't. Also, money and power. Actually it's just power, money is secondary.

ClayM 14y ago

so, "who watches the watchers" ?

ragmondo 14y ago

Case in point - the uk "contactpoint" database - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ContactPoint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ContactPoint - a database mandated by MPs that should contains all information about every child under the age of 18. Anyone excluded? Yep you guessed it - MP's children.

jacquesm 14y ago
I read that whole thing. Pretty amazing it got as far as it did, and from what I understood reading the article it was the children of celebrities that were going to be excluded. Which makes me wonder what would be considered a celebrity.
- gtirloni 14y ago
  Anyone with power/influence enough. Like it has always been. It doesn't matter if the person is known to the general public or not. Money/power/influence is what matters in our present world.

pstuart 14y ago

They need to lead by example. After all, what do they have to hide?

joshuahedlund 14y ago

This is a good point, although as we saw most recently with Petraeus, sometimes an expansive surveillance state can't help but ensnare its own leaders, and this often accidentally leads to its limitations (as a bill requiring warrants for emails is now making its way through the Senate)

tsotha 14y ago
The Petraeus affair didn't come to light because of surveillance. That was a garden variety love triangle that blew up. The FBI wouldn't have known if they hadn't been told.
- pyre 14y ago
  Their investigation is what is being referred to here. Their ability to dig into the email accounts without any oversight.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    They have always had the ability to do that if you work in any job that requires a security clearance. Sexual orientation, affairs, drugs, politics... they have the right to look at anything that points to behavior which could make you a target for blackmail.
    - pyre 14y ago
      They (the FBI) didn't know that this was connected to the director of the CIA when they started the investigation. They only made the connection to him after getting information from Google without judicial oversight.
      - Vivtek 14y ago
        No, the biographer also had a clearance. They were actually within their rights. Whether it was a gainful use of resources given the origin of the tip is dubious, but they weren't actually violating the judicial oversight requirement, as far as I understand it.

joonix 14y ago

Good time to recall that up until 2012, it was legal for Congressmen to trade stocks based on inside information they received carrying out their duties.

belorn 14y ago

As Eben Moglen said in his speech in Berlin. If we don't do something soon, we are going to be living in the age past forgetting. Nothing will ever be forgotten again. Everything one do, everything one say, everything one reads, listen to, or think about is recoded and saved for all eternity. This 5 years the article talk about. Do anyone really believe than in 5 years, they won't extend it further? It will continue to the point in which either everything is stored forever, or push back actually takes away this pandora box from the government. No goverment ever want to be with less information about the population. If they could predict who is a criminal before a crime is committed, social benefits could be rerouted away. If they could predict who is going to become political candidates, they could adjust information flows away or towards that person. If they can predict who is voting for who, they can direct support/anti-support to "encourage" the right result. This is why I am worried about a surveillance state. With a large enough database of population information, and prediction models, democracy will be eroded to the point of destruction.

Strshps1MoreTim 14y ago
So true. Most of the democracies/republics in human history were destroyed by power concentration in the hands of a few.
tripzilch 14y ago
> If they could predict who is a criminal before a crime is committed, social benefits could be rerouted away. Surveillance is no replacement for legwork. They're not catching that many criminals (or "terrorists") with it right now, and in order to have an effect like you describe they need to catch most if not all of them. Surveillance isn't a panacea like that (even if you ignore the freedom aspect), even with perfect total information awareness, there's a ceiling of efficiency. The thing you describe, to run smoothly is just about the same amount of trouble and effort for a government, as it would be to rule with actual justice, civil liberties, privacy, etc. The truth is, all this surveillance shit is NOT really about protecting the public and reducing crime. It may be useful but not that useful, definitely not billons-of-dollars useful, the amounts that are being invested in this tech. It's about the state protecting its place, keeping the status quo and people covering their asses. In a healthy country, those two goals are aligned. In many countries, including the USA, they aren't. Also, money and power. Actually it's just power, money is secondary.