3 ms·

The whole idea of surveillance truly doesn't bother me because there is literally nothing I can do if the higher end government did ever decided they wanted me.

The whole idea of surveillance truly doesn't bother me because there is literally nothing I can do if the higher end government did ever decided they wanted me. Since the 50's they've had the ability to listen into conversations via a laser on a window: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_microphone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_microphone and if anyone really ever believed that the internet would be much different they probably didn't think it all the way through. Sure the internet had that possibility not to be monitored and for a time it probably was, but clearly no longer. Further, I think the idea of mass data collection is monstrous however there is nothing I, nor you can really do about that except perhaps hiding as much of our data as we can (via encryption). Even if our data is encrypted in the end if they want your data they can get your data. The thing I find interesting about this article is the idea that eventually the internet could be closed off only to a few nation states. I disagree this would ever happen because Pandora's box has been opened and some communication will always be allowed via wireless connections, hidden cables, or some other method. Obviously, the average user might be affected, but just like the soviet union fell so would what ever country decided to block off their nation. People don't care about surveillance for the most part, as someone already commented: "I've talked to two people about this issue. Their answers were "Whatever, I don't care" and "honestly, I get it. If they're catching terrorists..."" They do however care if you disconnect their internet, and if any country was to do that in the end it would fail. The point being, the article stated that nation states of internet would develop and my reasoning points to that not happening (at least based off what i've seen). In my honest opinion, the internet has always been a place to communicate, but about as secure with my data as a friend you never quite trust with your secrets. What scares me is not the internet surveillance or my government hunting down (in my opinion) an innocent man. What horrifies me the most is that no matter what we do the surveillance will only become more intense (as the price of computing/computers gets lower) and there is no going back. 50 years from now, what am I going to be faced with and will I be able to continue to just ignore these B.S. laws we have, or if I unlock my cell phone will I really go to jail for 10 years? That's what thoughts keep me up at night, not the idea of my data being collected at mass online (although I would stop it if there was any way I could), but the idea that even offline walking down the street or in my own home I may be required to follow the laws which are outright ridiculous.

JoshTriplett 13y ago
I don't personally object to individual surveillance; there's nothing fundamentally wrong with getting a warrant and watching an individual with the reasonable suspicion of them committing a crime. Sometimes that process is abused, and that does concern me, but as you suggested there's little to do about that other than push for oversight. I do, however, object to mass surveillance of all traffic, with the goal of either retroactively looking at the records or putting together patterns. And I'd like to see both legal and technical solutions to that problem. Legal, in that I'd like to see enough pushback to demonstrate widespread belief in the fundamental wrongness of mass surveillance, and technical, in the form of systems to enforce the inability to tap communications at any point other than the two endpoints. I'd like to see our networks and communication protocols designed to make it impossible to spy on traffic between two parties without either the consent and cooperation of one party or an ongoing security breach of the physical systems of one party. That would result in a world in which you can't cast a broad net, but instead can only do targeted surveillance of specific individuals.

JoshTriplett 13y ago

I don't personally object to individual surveillance; there's nothing fundamentally wrong with getting a warrant and watching an individual with the reasonable suspicion of them committing a crime. Sometimes that process is abused, and that does concern me, but as you suggested there's little to do about that other than push for oversight. I do, however, object to mass surveillance of all traffic, with the goal of either retroactively looking at the records or putting together patterns. And I'd like to see both legal and technical solutions to that problem. Legal, in that I'd like to see enough pushback to demonstrate widespread belief in the fundamental wrongness of mass surveillance, and technical, in the form of systems to enforce the inability to tap communications at any point other than the two endpoints. I'd like to see our networks and communication protocols designed to make it impossible to spy on traffic between two parties without either the consent and cooperation of one party or an ongoing security breach of the physical systems of one party. That would result in a world in which you can't cast a broad net, but instead can only do targeted surveillance of specific individuals.