3 ms·

I suspect that Mass Surveillance is here for good, and the real project is to regain control of who gains the power and benefits. There are dozens if not 100s o

I suspect that Mass Surveillance is here for good, and the real project is to regain control of who gains the power and benefits. There are dozens if not 100s of ways that mass surveillance can improve human life. There are also as many where it can be abused to create suffering. I think the real issue is we're trending to the latter. In order to safely continue down this path we (USA) need: 1. EU style governmental pushes to defend digital rights. Data needs to be our own property that we can lend, but can never give up our right to revocation. 2. Stricter controls, and stricter still penalities, need to exist against misuse and abuse. Many of the stories of abuse of data are most stark in their lack of repercussions, some of this is police unions, some of this is "deep state" people who scratch eachother's backs and grant eachother free accesses and immunity. Some of this is a voting issue as in we need to make it known to our candidates that it matters to us, and then push real political power in their hands. Just to help the imagination of all here's where mass surveilance could plausibly add good to society, all stemming from legitimate use: 1. Criminals like porch pirates can be caught using a neetwork of Ring cameras 2. A lost pet/child can be identified and found by drone surveillance 3. Usage data of roads can be updated in realtime 4. Trends and Sentiment could be used to guide the government intra-elections improving the way government serves us 5. Police officers can avoid risky situations using drones as eyes instead of putting their own bodies in harms way

petcat 19d ago
> EU style governmental pushes to defend digital rights. No, I don't think we need Chat Control in the US or our government forcing ISPs and CDNs to block whole swaths of the internet just because a soccer game is on TV.
- maerF0x0 19d ago
  Fair points, I did not mean undermining encryption or privacy, I meant like GDPR and right to erasure. It'd be even better if there was some form of royalty structure on our data used by companies. It'd be nice if I, at least, received a royalty check each time a data broker sold my data to the CIA.
  - includenotfound 19d ago
    "I want the good stuff from an authoritarian dictatorship without the bad stuff" It will never work like that.
    - kodoman 19d ago
      I hate the EU, The projected was designed by American and European liberal intellectuals. It's an attempt to make Europe a group of Federated States that roughly all have a liberal constitution. To say the EU is something so different from the USA is crazy.
ecto 19d ago
All of your positives are possible without mass surveillance.
sethammons 19d ago
6. who controls and accesses the data will change over time 7. authoritarians and evil men can have a one-stop shop to know where to round up political opponents 8. power becomes increasingly entrenched and concentrated 9. See 7
- maerF0x0 19d ago
  Your points are, essentially, always true of all power for all time. (Or mostly true of most power for most of time)... Humans have frequently created systems which contradict steps 6-9, or atleast from Monarchy to Democracy. Constitutions, legal systems, laws et al. have generally served as barriers to abuse. The question is how do we continue to uphold and increase the value for individuals and decrease the expected return of abuse.
  - sethammons 19d ago
    > one-stop shop to know where to round up political opponents >> Your points are, essentially, always true of all power for all time yes, there are very famous examples of good record keeping leading to invaders or coups having an easier time killing people who they don't like. >> Humans have frequently created systems ... as barriers to abuse we have systems that law abiding people abide by. Again, when those people change to not-law-abiding, it is a problem that we've not solved.
echelon 19d ago
> There are dozens if not 100s of ways that mass surveillance can improve human life. There are dozens of ways living in a cage can improve human life. You won't be exposed to dangerous ideas and you might get a calorie allowance. There's little danger of an unwanted pregnancy, and you might be given labor-related chores or exercises to occupy your time. The danger with all of these systems is what happens when they are abused. That's not a matter of if, just a matter of when. We are building a cage around society. It's so slow you don't realize the shackles being placed around your ankle and your neck. But one day, when it's too late to protest, the switch will be flipped. We're already living in 1984. We are always just a few election cycles away from 1934.
- dceddia 19d ago
  One specific example: device attestation and Web Environment Integrity, combined with the internet being increasingly controlled or mediated by a handful of middlemen who would absolutely love to turn this on (Cloudflare, Apple, Google, etc) but if they do it too early there’ll be revolt. It’s had a couple attempts that got shot down so far, but the pushback gets weaker as time goes on, and as the troublesome/less-compliant generations age out and get replaced by generations who’ve grown up accepting this stuff as the water they swim in.
kennywinker 19d ago
1. Cameras don’t prevent porch pirates. They give you a video after the fact of a masked person taking your package. Small theft is prevented by more equality in society, and a stronger safety net. (Source: the lower crime rate in other countries) 2. Lost pets are not being found by drone and camera surveillance. They could, but the system doesn’t give a shit about your dog. Children, maybe. I guess i’m ok with deploying a fleet of drones during a search and rescue operation. As long as there is transparency so it’s not done for other reasons, and they are grounded when they are done. 3. You just need one of those pressure sensitive wire strips across the road to do this. It’s a largely solved problem that doesn’t involve mass surveillance. 4. I am just guessing what this means, but government doesn’t do things that are wildly popular by polling, so why would they react to some ai surveillance sentiment analysis? 5. This isn’t mass surveillance. Like #2, a deployed drone to look around a corner or scan a building before entering is using technology but it’s momentary. If it became a problem where it was being over used we could deal with it as a separate issue.
- cpburns2009 19d ago
  Porch pirates are not stealing because they're hungry. They're antisocial asshole criminals.
  - kennywinker 19d ago
    Yes. Inequality creates antisocial asshole criminals at a far greater rate than more equal societies. But even if you disagree, you must still agree that antisocial asshole criminals will find ways to steal and get away with it, cameras or no.
    - cpburns2009 19d ago
      In a just and equal society, criminals would be prosecuted and convicted for the economic violence of theft. Inequality is a useless measurement used to excuse antisocial behavior. The inequality between Bill Gates and I has increased exponentially in the past 20 years, yet I'm significantly better off than I was then back then. Inequality is a feel good measurement thats fundamentally the wrong target.
ikrenji 19d ago
power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. technology is unlocking unprecedented levels of power. make no mistake mass surveillance = power, nothing else. any benefit to society is accidental, not the goal. we don't need this kind power in hands of nobody.
jocoda 18d ago
If roles are reversed, and those being watched were responsible for safety and security, little would change. The human race being what it is, the same tools would still be in place and in use in much the same way. The protest is more about who watches the watchers. And neither will trust the other.
int_19h 18d ago
There's no good ending to this, and you're probably correct that we're likely heading that way anyway, but the only rational choice at this point is to resist as much as possible - best case, it buys us time for some way out to appear; worst case, it delays the shitshow. Anything that can be done to frustrate both the government and the private companies pushing for it should be done. Every lever should be pulled. No compromise should be accepted, because it's just setting up the stage for the next compromise where the other side stays where it is and the "middle point" just gradually moves toward them.

petcat 19d ago

> EU style governmental pushes to defend digital rights. No, I don't think we need Chat Control in the US or our government forcing ISPs and CDNs to block whole swaths of the internet just because a soccer game is on TV.

maerF0x0 19d ago
Fair points, I did not mean undermining encryption or privacy, I meant like GDPR and right to erasure. It'd be even better if there was some form of royalty structure on our data used by companies. It'd be nice if I, at least, received a royalty check each time a data broker sold my data to the CIA.
- includenotfound 19d ago
  "I want the good stuff from an authoritarian dictatorship without the bad stuff" It will never work like that.
  - kodoman 19d ago
    I hate the EU, The projected was designed by American and European liberal intellectuals. It's an attempt to make Europe a group of Federated States that roughly all have a liberal constitution. To say the EU is something so different from the USA is crazy.

ecto 19d ago

All of your positives are possible without mass surveillance.

sethammons 19d ago

6. who controls and accesses the data will change over time 7. authoritarians and evil men can have a one-stop shop to know where to round up political opponents 8. power becomes increasingly entrenched and concentrated 9. See 7

maerF0x0 19d ago
Your points are, essentially, always true of all power for all time. (Or mostly true of most power for most of time)... Humans have frequently created systems which contradict steps 6-9, or atleast from Monarchy to Democracy. Constitutions, legal systems, laws et al. have generally served as barriers to abuse. The question is how do we continue to uphold and increase the value for individuals and decrease the expected return of abuse.
- sethammons 19d ago
  > one-stop shop to know where to round up political opponents >> Your points are, essentially, always true of all power for all time yes, there are very famous examples of good record keeping leading to invaders or coups having an easier time killing people who they don't like. >> Humans have frequently created systems ... as barriers to abuse we have systems that law abiding people abide by. Again, when those people change to not-law-abiding, it is a problem that we've not solved.

echelon 19d ago

> There are dozens if not 100s of ways that mass surveillance can improve human life. There are dozens of ways living in a cage can improve human life. You won't be exposed to dangerous ideas and you might get a calorie allowance. There's little danger of an unwanted pregnancy, and you might be given labor-related chores or exercises to occupy your time. The danger with all of these systems is what happens when they are abused. That's not a matter of if, just a matter of when. We are building a cage around society. It's so slow you don't realize the shackles being placed around your ankle and your neck. But one day, when it's too late to protest, the switch will be flipped. We're already living in 1984. We are always just a few election cycles away from 1934.

dceddia 19d ago
One specific example: device attestation and Web Environment Integrity, combined with the internet being increasingly controlled or mediated by a handful of middlemen who would absolutely love to turn this on (Cloudflare, Apple, Google, etc) but if they do it too early there’ll be revolt. It’s had a couple attempts that got shot down so far, but the pushback gets weaker as time goes on, and as the troublesome/less-compliant generations age out and get replaced by generations who’ve grown up accepting this stuff as the water they swim in.

kennywinker 19d ago

1. Cameras don’t prevent porch pirates. They give you a video after the fact of a masked person taking your package. Small theft is prevented by more equality in society, and a stronger safety net. (Source: the lower crime rate in other countries) 2. Lost pets are not being found by drone and camera surveillance. They could, but the system doesn’t give a shit about your dog. Children, maybe. I guess i’m ok with deploying a fleet of drones during a search and rescue operation. As long as there is transparency so it’s not done for other reasons, and they are grounded when they are done. 3. You just need one of those pressure sensitive wire strips across the road to do this. It’s a largely solved problem that doesn’t involve mass surveillance. 4. I am just guessing what this means, but government doesn’t do things that are wildly popular by polling, so why would they react to some ai surveillance sentiment analysis? 5. This isn’t mass surveillance. Like #2, a deployed drone to look around a corner or scan a building before entering is using technology but it’s momentary. If it became a problem where it was being over used we could deal with it as a separate issue.

cpburns2009 19d ago
Porch pirates are not stealing because they're hungry. They're antisocial asshole criminals.
- kennywinker 19d ago
  Yes. Inequality creates antisocial asshole criminals at a far greater rate than more equal societies. But even if you disagree, you must still agree that antisocial asshole criminals will find ways to steal and get away with it, cameras or no.
  - cpburns2009 19d ago
    In a just and equal society, criminals would be prosecuted and convicted for the economic violence of theft. Inequality is a useless measurement used to excuse antisocial behavior. The inequality between Bill Gates and I has increased exponentially in the past 20 years, yet I'm significantly better off than I was then back then. Inequality is a feel good measurement thats fundamentally the wrong target.

ikrenji 19d ago

power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. technology is unlocking unprecedented levels of power. make no mistake mass surveillance = power, nothing else. any benefit to society is accidental, not the goal. we don't need this kind power in hands of nobody.

jocoda 18d ago

If roles are reversed, and those being watched were responsible for safety and security, little would change. The human race being what it is, the same tools would still be in place and in use in much the same way. The protest is more about who watches the watchers. And neither will trust the other.

int_19h 18d ago

There's no good ending to this, and you're probably correct that we're likely heading that way anyway, but the only rational choice at this point is to resist as much as possible - best case, it buys us time for some way out to appear; worst case, it delays the shitshow. Anything that can be done to frustrate both the government and the private companies pushing for it should be done. Every lever should be pulled. No compromise should be accepted, because it's just setting up the stage for the next compromise where the other side stays where it is and the "middle point" just gradually moves toward them.