3 ms·

> It is a starkly totalitarian measure that is unparalleled in human history. Really...? Come on now, that's totally unbacked by any analysis of history. I ag

by acomar 13y ago

> It is a starkly totalitarian measure that is unparalleled in human history. Really...? Come on now, that's totally unbacked by any analysis of history. I agree with you on the immorality, but hyperbole like that doesn't advance your case very well.

danenania 13y ago
Please point out any previous attempts to build ubiquitous international surveillance systems that intercept trillions of private communications. I'll grant that if you include science fiction novels, there are a few contenders.
- fauigerzigerk 13y ago
  I agree with you that this extent of surveillance is a characteristic element of totalitarian regimes. But the things that totalitarian regimes do with the data they collect is different from what happens in the US right now (as far as I can tell). All totalitarian regimes used broad surveillance, but not all countries that have overly broad surveillance programs are totalitarian. What's missing is the desire for total control of many different aspects of life and political activity. However, I think that there is a great danger that "total information awareness" leads to an ever greater desire for total control. That desire may even come from the people and have superficial democratic legitimacy. If everyone knows that the government knows everything, the people will demand control over many things that other people do.
abecedarius 13y ago
Let's see, is it hyperbole? An unabashedly totalitarian regime would spy on all its subjects, all the time, through every available channel. It would keep the details of its spying as secret as it can, while letting everyone know they're being watched. It looks like we have most of this, minus 'unabashedly': they claim they drop particular cases where they learn the people they're spying on are citizens within the borders who don't fit a long list of exceptions (crypto, etc.); and they're trying to hide the extent of spying. (On the other hand I don't consider secret courts to weigh much against the label 'totalitarian': the Soviets had that kind of thing, too.) It could be unparalleled in either nature or extent. In nature, automated data mining is pretty new; in extent, the previous paradigm case, the Stasi, falls laughably short in some ways, while still far ahead in others (informers). I think the quote isn't unreasonable, though it's loose.

by acomar 13y ago

danenania 13y ago

Please point out any previous attempts to build ubiquitous international surveillance systems that intercept trillions of private communications. I'll grant that if you include science fiction novels, there are a few contenders.

fauigerzigerk 13y ago
I agree with you that this extent of surveillance is a characteristic element of totalitarian regimes. But the things that totalitarian regimes do with the data they collect is different from what happens in the US right now (as far as I can tell). All totalitarian regimes used broad surveillance, but not all countries that have overly broad surveillance programs are totalitarian. What's missing is the desire for total control of many different aspects of life and political activity. However, I think that there is a great danger that "total information awareness" leads to an ever greater desire for total control. That desire may even come from the people and have superficial democratic legitimacy. If everyone knows that the government knows everything, the people will demand control over many things that other people do.

abecedarius 13y ago

Let's see, is it hyperbole? An unabashedly totalitarian regime would spy on all its subjects, all the time, through every available channel. It would keep the details of its spying as secret as it can, while letting everyone know they're being watched. It looks like we have most of this, minus 'unabashedly': they claim they drop particular cases where they learn the people they're spying on are citizens within the borders who don't fit a long list of exceptions (crypto, etc.); and they're trying to hide the extent of spying. (On the other hand I don't consider secret courts to weigh much against the label 'totalitarian': the Soviets had that kind of thing, too.) It could be unparalleled in either nature or extent. In nature, automated data mining is pretty new; in extent, the previous paradigm case, the Stasi, falls laughably short in some ways, while still far ahead in others (informers). I think the quote isn't unreasonable, though it's loose.