4 ms·

Articles like this lead me to think that really ridding ourselves of surveillance is not unlike getting the sugar back out of a cup of coffee.

tokenadult 13y ago
Controlling pervasive surveillance may end up a lot like controlling nuclear weapons--we can't uninvent the technology, and no one country has a monopoly on the technology, so the whole international community has to be united in the cause of preventing the most dreaded outcomes. Any break in solidarity may lead to proliferation of spying of a kind we never imagined.
- amirmc 13y ago
  Interesting thought. However, the dreaded outcome is at the bottom of a slippery slope rather than in a giant ball of flame. Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't quite apply.
  - reneherse 13y ago
    Indeed, mutually assured destruction was the motivating force for nation states to Not Go There with nukes. Here, however, the motivation for governments to eschew mass surveillance must come from a vocal populace and web-business interests. If "we the people" don't speak out against this, both on a grassroots and lobbying level, there is no motivation for our governments to abstain. States love to spy on one another; it gives justification for their budgets. Only individual citizens, businesses, and other free thinking organizations have anything to lose.
- pcrh 13y ago
  It may not be impossible to "uninvent" the technology of pervasive surveillance, but it is possible to forbid governments from doing it. The government is, although it seems naive to say this these days, there for the people, not for itself. If the people do not want to be constantly monitored, they shouldn't be. Commercial organizations can also be restricted in what information they can legally gather, should we choose to make that the case.
  - a3n 13y ago
    As I understand the Fourth Amendment, they're already forbidden. But I'm merely an unsophisticated citizen, not a sophisticated and motivated government lawyer. Given that they're already forbidden ... now what?
    - pcrh 13y ago
      Simple: create a government department whose prime duty is to protect the 4th amendment. They would seek out and shut down any scheme that is illegitimately collecting personal information. The technology exists, it can be done. Edit: the whole Chicken Little "the genie is out" scaremongering is defeatist garbage. No people more than HN readers know that the effort required to collect and parse all the information flowing through the internet is not trivial. It is easy to stop since only well-funded outfits can do it.
      - uptown 13y ago
        "It is easy to stop since only well-funded outfits can do it." And you think depriving the government - particularly the department of defense - of tax dollars is "easy"?
        pcrh 13y ago
        I meant it is easy technologically. Having a government department that thwarts the wishes of the population is a political problem, not a technical one.
      - noarchy 13y ago
        >create a government department whose prime duty is to protect the 4th amendment. The task you've described should be fulfilled by the judicial system. But ultimately we're still relying on getting the government to protect us from the government... and still wondering why it never works.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    It's also possible to pass laws that govern what they can do with it, and who they must tell about it. "Fruit of the poisoned tree" can be expanded, the only impediment is politics.

tokenadult 13y ago

Controlling pervasive surveillance may end up a lot like controlling nuclear weapons--we can't uninvent the technology, and no one country has a monopoly on the technology, so the whole international community has to be united in the cause of preventing the most dreaded outcomes. Any break in solidarity may lead to proliferation of spying of a kind we never imagined.

amirmc 13y ago
Interesting thought. However, the dreaded outcome is at the bottom of a slippery slope rather than in a giant ball of flame. Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't quite apply.
- reneherse 13y ago
  Indeed, mutually assured destruction was the motivating force for nation states to Not Go There with nukes. Here, however, the motivation for governments to eschew mass surveillance must come from a vocal populace and web-business interests. If "we the people" don't speak out against this, both on a grassroots and lobbying level, there is no motivation for our governments to abstain. States love to spy on one another; it gives justification for their budgets. Only individual citizens, businesses, and other free thinking organizations have anything to lose.
pcrh 13y ago
It may not be impossible to "uninvent" the technology of pervasive surveillance, but it is possible to forbid governments from doing it. The government is, although it seems naive to say this these days, there for the people, not for itself. If the people do not want to be constantly monitored, they shouldn't be. Commercial organizations can also be restricted in what information they can legally gather, should we choose to make that the case.
- a3n 13y ago
  As I understand the Fourth Amendment, they're already forbidden. But I'm merely an unsophisticated citizen, not a sophisticated and motivated government lawyer. Given that they're already forbidden ... now what?
  - pcrh 13y ago
    Simple: create a government department whose prime duty is to protect the 4th amendment. They would seek out and shut down any scheme that is illegitimately collecting personal information. The technology exists, it can be done. Edit: the whole Chicken Little "the genie is out" scaremongering is defeatist garbage. No people more than HN readers know that the effort required to collect and parse all the information flowing through the internet is not trivial. It is easy to stop since only well-funded outfits can do it.
    - uptown 13y ago
      "It is easy to stop since only well-funded outfits can do it." And you think depriving the government - particularly the department of defense - of tax dollars is "easy"?
      - pcrh 13y ago
        I meant it is easy technologically. Having a government department that thwarts the wishes of the population is a political problem, not a technical one.
    - noarchy 13y ago
      >create a government department whose prime duty is to protect the 4th amendment. The task you've described should be fulfilled by the judicial system. But ultimately we're still relying on getting the government to protect us from the government... and still wondering why it never works.
- rhizome 13y ago
  It's also possible to pass laws that govern what they can do with it, and who they must tell about it. "Fruit of the poisoned tree" can be expanded, the only impediment is politics.