10 ms·

The flawed psychology of government mass surveillance

223 points by Libertatea 13y ago

walshemj 13y ago
I seem to recall that not that long ago the Guardian was in favor of compulsory ID cards - I remember a Polly Toynbee leader about we had nothing to worry about.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  You are probably referring to this - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/07/comment.politics2 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/07/comment... Although that is in the comment section rather than the leader, which I would expect as she is a columnist. But it is certainly funny in retrospect. Polly has always been something of a statist however, and is someone who seems generally ready to give government the benefit of the doubt on first principles.
  - contingencies 13y ago
    I remember that, and the No2ID campaign. Later on, randomly, I met one of its founders at a conference in Cambridge and congratulated them on their work: regular people objecting to irregular government - that's what it takes.
sitkack 13y ago
| "A government that engages in mass surveillance cannot claim to value innovation, critical thinking, or originality." Isn't that the point of surveillance?
- alephnil 13y ago
  I know you intended to be sarcastic, but anyway. Governments want innovation, originality and critical thinking for its ability to foster wealth and a rich culture. At the same time they are afraid of the disruptive changes that is results of it, so they set up mass surveillance for the fear that is coming out of control. At the same time they probably know that this have a bad effect on the society. That is why it was taken enormous measures to keep it secret, including gag orders on anything that could reveal its existence, likely in a hope that the bad effect won't happen if people don't know about it. Now the people know.
  - sitkack 13y ago
    Bureaucracies don't like originality and critical thinking, but most people don't exhibit those behaviors anyway. And those that do, will do so regardless of reward or risk. Any hierarchy of control will calcify as it gets larger otherwise it would collapse under its own weight, so a surveillance state that aims to keep artistic endeavors in check makes sense. While we do need a small number of elites to improve and think up new ideas (see Lenin's New Economic Policy of infusing innovation into Communism through temporary small scale Capitalism), it would be dangerous if everyone had free time or capacity of enlightened intellect to be as creative and critical as they are capable. The 60s are great existence proof of that. As we are seeing with a general lack of outrage in the population over the snowden released information, people are more cautious, saying less and policing themselves. It is a small minority, maybe to their own peril who are speaking their minds. The cynic would say that maybe Snowden's release was a planned move by the Administration. Think of how much more effective the system will be if it is in "the open." A bold move, but if successful, forever changes what the notion of liberty means in the US.
    - spin 13y ago
      "...those that do [show creativity and original thinking], will do so regardless of reward or risk." I disagree. I think that there will be some people who will be creative no matter what. There will some people who won't be creative no matter what. And there will be some people in the middle who could swing either way. As an example: I think that Steve Jobs would've been creative and ambitious no matter what. But I don't think that Wozniak would've been ambitious if it wasn't for Jobs pushing him. Certain environments foster creativity and experimenting. US colleges are full of weird intellectuals with crazy ideas. OTOH, Your typical, say, police department (or most government agencies...) is not. The environment that we live in will tend to sway people in one direction or the other. (... just look at the environment of S.V. or YCombinator...)
      - sitkack 13y ago
        I totally agree, I was thinking entirely of the former. The state knows it needs some of those people to go forward. But they will produce no matter what. Limiting the number of people on the second set is of little detriment and actually what I think is the goal. Yes the total creative output is lower, but control is still retained. The state maximizes for control, not creative output or liberty. It is really sad the NSA thing existed in the first place. A waste of intellect, creativity and resources on all sides. All those TFLOP years of computation for what?
infocollector 13y ago
Perhaps there is a way to make a technically sound platform that governments have a hard time doing mass surveillance?
- wavefunction 13y ago
  This has been discussed before, but a political problem requires a political solution (cessation of surveillance through legislation and holding violators to account with imprisonment and fines.)
  - ferdo 13y ago
    IMO, a better way is to create technical solutions that force politicians and bureaucrats to change their lowdown ways. The political game is obviously rigged against us. Our strength is the technical solution, not the political solution.
  - cLeEOGPw 13y ago
    How is this going to work, if, in case you would be trying to be a politician yourself in order to fight the injustice, by the time you have any influence, you are already motivated to increase the surveillance, not cease it. Problem is much deeper than "political misunderstanding" between the people and the government.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    The problem is that political solutions become a political problem to those in power, who then impose their own political solution thereto. The USA Constitution makes it completely clear: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This became a political problem for the powerful, so they concocted a legal notion amounting to the suffix "unless the search is imposed on everyone without particular cause" which has proven surprisingly effective and acceptable to the general public. When all branches of government conspire to ignore the rules, more rules won't stop them.
Homunculiheaded 13y ago
"This is despite the fact that science, alone, can lay claim to a wealth of empirical evidence on the psychological effects of surveillance." Why do people ever expect reason to be a part of this? This quote shows exactly the point of surveillance (and torture for that matter). In a reasonable world, science and reason hold the greatest possible power. To perform surveillance despite the fact that it doesn't make sense is to exert one's power over reason itself. You cannot argue with an entity wielding such power, they have empirically shown that they are more powerful than reason. Follow this line and the only reasoning you are left with as an individual is submit or... I've pasted this a million times but I strongly believe this is the absolutely most important quote from 1984 (from O'Brien torturing Winston Part 3, Chapter 3): "We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?' " We could easily add to that 'the object of surveillance is surveillance'. There is no end game in any of these assertions of power other than expression and confirmation of power: not security, not prosperity, not even the welfare of the nation.
- ferdo 13y ago
  This can be the thread of repeat quotes as I've posted this one before also. The author rightly uses the word 'bondage' as surveillance is part of servitude. Servitude of the powerless is the ultimate goal of power. "Next in importance to personal freedom is immunity from suspicions, and jealous observation. Men may be without restraints upon their liberty: they may pass to and fro at pleasure: but if their steps are tracked by spies and informers, their words noted down for crimination, their associates watched as conspirators, who shall say that they are free? Nothing is more revolting to Englishmen than the espionage which forms part of the administrative system of continental despotisms. It haunts men like an evil genius, chills their gaiety, restrains their wit, casts a shadow over their friendships, and blights their domestic hearth. The freedom of a country may be measured by its immunity from this baleful agency. Rulers who distrust their own people, must govern in a spirit of absolutism; and suspected subjects will be ever sensible of their bondage." The Constitutional History Of England Vol II (1863), pg. 288 by T. E. May http://archive.org/stream/constitutionalhi029622mbp#page/n313/mode/2up http://archive.org/stream/constitutionalhi029622mbp#page/n31...
a3n 13y ago
"An alternative is to put an end to mass surveillance, forcing the security services to fall in line with the parts of government that value liberty." Which parts of the government are those?
- devb 13y ago
  The speechwriters.
logn 13y ago
I see the NSA as filling the traditional role of god in the human psyche. In the same way that people have subscribed to atheism, I think there will be people who just decide to live without fear of the NSA and ignore the surveillance or embrace it in a rebellious way (such as innovating in ways to combat surveillance or trolling agents who are presumed to be watching). I'd like to see more research into that.
- lukifer 13y ago
  I think this is an important observation. Those who support the surveillance state are likely doing so for similar psychological reasons as the desire to believe in God: the reassurance that someone somewhere is watching, and meting out justice. And unlike with God, there is no disputing the existence of NSA; whether you have faith in their integrity and supposed mission is another matter. See also this excellent Venkatesh piece on the relationship between observation and authority: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/03/22/social-dark-matter-on-seeing-and-being-seen/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/03/22/social-dark-matter-on-s...
  - speeder 13y ago
    I am.Christian and believe God surveillance to be important. The difference is that I believe God won't do evil with it, since.God is perfect.
    - pigscantfly 13y ago
      What constitutes doing evil with it? Presumably you hope that God will exalt righteous believers and punish misbehavior, since you believe that his surveillance of people is important. I can't think of any motive for surveillance that does not involve acting on the collected information. Therefore, my question to you is, why do you care if your God punishes or exalts other people? Most of us don't believe in your God and are unlikely to change our behavior to conform to his norms, so even if God is watching and taking notes, at best he's meting out post-facto punishment for our sins, which is not going to make anyone act any nicer towards you in life. If you just hope that 'sinners' are going to 'hell,' I ask, why is another person's destination important to you? If your God is truly benevolent, shouldn't everyone just go to 'heaven' after they die? If your God is not benevolent, why do you worship him?
cLeEOGPw 13y ago
"There are two ways to resolve this conflict between the motivations of elected representatives and security services. One is to embrace totalitarianism, breaking all bonds of social identity between politicians and the electorate. In this (unpalatable) scenario, democracy converts to a police state in which all parts of government are seen by the populace as an outgroup." This is the case in at least some EU nations, like Lithuania. I am not even sure which is better between this and the US-like or UK-like alternative.
bsbechtel 13y ago
Anyone else feel like this article was describing what Facebook has become over the past few years?
- samstave 13y ago
  Been talking about it for some time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6248251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6248251
dwd 13y ago
Orwell summed up the psychological effect of total surveillance with Winston's insightful diary entry: "Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death" It starts with outward self-censorship and ends with the internal... "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions —'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that ice is heavier than water'— and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them." - Chapter 4.
McUsr 13y ago
Hello. One observation in all of this: It is really the aim of at least some terrorists, to provoke the authorities so much so they will take measures that their subjects revolts againss. That was Baader Meinhof, and Rote Arme Fraktione ideology. So when the authorities has failed, since they bought into the game, we are the last line of defense in not letting Osama Bin Laden win this. Terrorists really don't deserve to win.
oneandoneis2 13y ago
Somebody needs to sit all the politicians down in a room somewhere and quietly point out to them that, historically, people have far, far more to fear from their own government than from any terrorist threat. "Our surveillance is justified because terrorists!" rather misses the point..
toddnessa 13y ago
Totalitarianism is on the rise and the mass surveillance age is proof of it. It could also be an observation that we the public bought the lies of safety and security that was being fed to us in erecting all of these government programs. I guess now many of us are seeing the light that it seems much more likely that this is really all about controlling the masses to the benefit of the state and not about security at all. However, those being given such powers may very well have figured that we would later figure this out but by then it would be too late for us to do anything about it. I would like to believe that we the people will prove them wrong.
tpainton 13y ago
We told them they cant profile, so they just spy on everyone and call it fair. Careful what you complain about.

223 points by Libertatea 13y ago

I seem to recall that not that long ago the Guardian was in favor of compulsory ID cards - I remember a Polly Toynbee leader about we had nothing to worry about.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
You are probably referring to this - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/07/comment.politics2 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/07/comment... Although that is in the comment section rather than the leader, which I would expect as she is a columnist. But it is certainly funny in retrospect. Polly has always been something of a statist however, and is someone who seems generally ready to give government the benefit of the doubt on first principles.
- contingencies 13y ago
  I remember that, and the No2ID campaign. Later on, randomly, I met one of its founders at a conference in Cambridge and congratulated them on their work: regular people objecting to irregular government - that's what it takes.

sitkack 13y ago

| "A government that engages in mass surveillance cannot claim to value innovation, critical thinking, or originality." Isn't that the point of surveillance?

alephnil 13y ago
I know you intended to be sarcastic, but anyway. Governments want innovation, originality and critical thinking for its ability to foster wealth and a rich culture. At the same time they are afraid of the disruptive changes that is results of it, so they set up mass surveillance for the fear that is coming out of control. At the same time they probably know that this have a bad effect on the society. That is why it was taken enormous measures to keep it secret, including gag orders on anything that could reveal its existence, likely in a hope that the bad effect won't happen if people don't know about it. Now the people know.
- sitkack 13y ago
  Bureaucracies don't like originality and critical thinking, but most people don't exhibit those behaviors anyway. And those that do, will do so regardless of reward or risk. Any hierarchy of control will calcify as it gets larger otherwise it would collapse under its own weight, so a surveillance state that aims to keep artistic endeavors in check makes sense. While we do need a small number of elites to improve and think up new ideas (see Lenin's New Economic Policy of infusing innovation into Communism through temporary small scale Capitalism), it would be dangerous if everyone had free time or capacity of enlightened intellect to be as creative and critical as they are capable. The 60s are great existence proof of that. As we are seeing with a general lack of outrage in the population over the snowden released information, people are more cautious, saying less and policing themselves. It is a small minority, maybe to their own peril who are speaking their minds. The cynic would say that maybe Snowden's release was a planned move by the Administration. Think of how much more effective the system will be if it is in "the open." A bold move, but if successful, forever changes what the notion of liberty means in the US.
  - spin 13y ago
    "...those that do [show creativity and original thinking], will do so regardless of reward or risk." I disagree. I think that there will be some people who will be creative no matter what. There will some people who won't be creative no matter what. And there will be some people in the middle who could swing either way. As an example: I think that Steve Jobs would've been creative and ambitious no matter what. But I don't think that Wozniak would've been ambitious if it wasn't for Jobs pushing him. Certain environments foster creativity and experimenting. US colleges are full of weird intellectuals with crazy ideas. OTOH, Your typical, say, police department (or most government agencies...) is not. The environment that we live in will tend to sway people in one direction or the other. (... just look at the environment of S.V. or YCombinator...)
    - sitkack 13y ago
      I totally agree, I was thinking entirely of the former. The state knows it needs some of those people to go forward. But they will produce no matter what. Limiting the number of people on the second set is of little detriment and actually what I think is the goal. Yes the total creative output is lower, but control is still retained. The state maximizes for control, not creative output or liberty. It is really sad the NSA thing existed in the first place. A waste of intellect, creativity and resources on all sides. All those TFLOP years of computation for what?

infocollector 13y ago

Perhaps there is a way to make a technically sound platform that governments have a hard time doing mass surveillance?

wavefunction 13y ago
This has been discussed before, but a political problem requires a political solution (cessation of surveillance through legislation and holding violators to account with imprisonment and fines.)
- ferdo 13y ago
  IMO, a better way is to create technical solutions that force politicians and bureaucrats to change their lowdown ways. The political game is obviously rigged against us. Our strength is the technical solution, not the political solution.
- cLeEOGPw 13y ago
  How is this going to work, if, in case you would be trying to be a politician yourself in order to fight the injustice, by the time you have any influence, you are already motivated to increase the surveillance, not cease it. Problem is much deeper than "political misunderstanding" between the people and the government.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  The problem is that political solutions become a political problem to those in power, who then impose their own political solution thereto. The USA Constitution makes it completely clear: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This became a political problem for the powerful, so they concocted a legal notion amounting to the suffix "unless the search is imposed on everyone without particular cause" which has proven surprisingly effective and acceptable to the general public. When all branches of government conspire to ignore the rules, more rules won't stop them.

Homunculiheaded 13y ago

"This is despite the fact that science, alone, can lay claim to a wealth of empirical evidence on the psychological effects of surveillance." Why do people ever expect reason to be a part of this? This quote shows exactly the point of surveillance (and torture for that matter). In a reasonable world, science and reason hold the greatest possible power. To perform surveillance despite the fact that it doesn't make sense is to exert one's power over reason itself. You cannot argue with an entity wielding such power, they have empirically shown that they are more powerful than reason. Follow this line and the only reasoning you are left with as an individual is submit or... I've pasted this a million times but I strongly believe this is the absolutely most important quote from 1984 (from O'Brien torturing Winston Part 3, Chapter 3): "We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?' " We could easily add to that 'the object of surveillance is surveillance'. There is no end game in any of these assertions of power other than expression and confirmation of power: not security, not prosperity, not even the welfare of the nation.

ferdo 13y ago
This can be the thread of repeat quotes as I've posted this one before also. The author rightly uses the word 'bondage' as surveillance is part of servitude. Servitude of the powerless is the ultimate goal of power. "Next in importance to personal freedom is immunity from suspicions, and jealous observation. Men may be without restraints upon their liberty: they may pass to and fro at pleasure: but if their steps are tracked by spies and informers, their words noted down for crimination, their associates watched as conspirators, who shall say that they are free? Nothing is more revolting to Englishmen than the espionage which forms part of the administrative system of continental despotisms. It haunts men like an evil genius, chills their gaiety, restrains their wit, casts a shadow over their friendships, and blights their domestic hearth. The freedom of a country may be measured by its immunity from this baleful agency. Rulers who distrust their own people, must govern in a spirit of absolutism; and suspected subjects will be ever sensible of their bondage." The Constitutional History Of England Vol II (1863), pg. 288 by T. E. May http://archive.org/stream/constitutionalhi029622mbp#page/n313/mode/2up http://archive.org/stream/constitutionalhi029622mbp#page/n31...

a3n 13y ago

"An alternative is to put an end to mass surveillance, forcing the security services to fall in line with the parts of government that value liberty." Which parts of the government are those?

devb 13y ago
The speechwriters.

logn 13y ago

I see the NSA as filling the traditional role of god in the human psyche. In the same way that people have subscribed to atheism, I think there will be people who just decide to live without fear of the NSA and ignore the surveillance or embrace it in a rebellious way (such as innovating in ways to combat surveillance or trolling agents who are presumed to be watching). I'd like to see more research into that.

lukifer 13y ago
I think this is an important observation. Those who support the surveillance state are likely doing so for similar psychological reasons as the desire to believe in God: the reassurance that someone somewhere is watching, and meting out justice. And unlike with God, there is no disputing the existence of NSA; whether you have faith in their integrity and supposed mission is another matter. See also this excellent Venkatesh piece on the relationship between observation and authority: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/03/22/social-dark-matter-on-seeing-and-being-seen/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/03/22/social-dark-matter-on-s...
- speeder 13y ago
  I am.Christian and believe God surveillance to be important. The difference is that I believe God won't do evil with it, since.God is perfect.
  - pigscantfly 13y ago
    What constitutes doing evil with it? Presumably you hope that God will exalt righteous believers and punish misbehavior, since you believe that his surveillance of people is important. I can't think of any motive for surveillance that does not involve acting on the collected information. Therefore, my question to you is, why do you care if your God punishes or exalts other people? Most of us don't believe in your God and are unlikely to change our behavior to conform to his norms, so even if God is watching and taking notes, at best he's meting out post-facto punishment for our sins, which is not going to make anyone act any nicer towards you in life. If you just hope that 'sinners' are going to 'hell,' I ask, why is another person's destination important to you? If your God is truly benevolent, shouldn't everyone just go to 'heaven' after they die? If your God is not benevolent, why do you worship him?

cLeEOGPw 13y ago

"There are two ways to resolve this conflict between the motivations of elected representatives and security services. One is to embrace totalitarianism, breaking all bonds of social identity between politicians and the electorate. In this (unpalatable) scenario, democracy converts to a police state in which all parts of government are seen by the populace as an outgroup." This is the case in at least some EU nations, like Lithuania. I am not even sure which is better between this and the US-like or UK-like alternative.

bsbechtel 13y ago

Anyone else feel like this article was describing what Facebook has become over the past few years?

samstave 13y ago
Been talking about it for some time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6248251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6248251

dwd 13y ago

Orwell summed up the psychological effect of total surveillance with Winston's insightful diary entry: "Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death" It starts with outward self-censorship and ends with the internal... "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions —'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that ice is heavier than water'— and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them." - Chapter 4.

McUsr 13y ago

Hello. One observation in all of this: It is really the aim of at least some terrorists, to provoke the authorities so much so they will take measures that their subjects revolts againss. That was Baader Meinhof, and Rote Arme Fraktione ideology. So when the authorities has failed, since they bought into the game, we are the last line of defense in not letting Osama Bin Laden win this. Terrorists really don't deserve to win.

oneandoneis2 13y ago

Somebody needs to sit all the politicians down in a room somewhere and quietly point out to them that, historically, people have far, far more to fear from their own government than from any terrorist threat. "Our surveillance is justified because terrorists!" rather misses the point..

toddnessa 13y ago

Totalitarianism is on the rise and the mass surveillance age is proof of it. It could also be an observation that we the public bought the lies of safety and security that was being fed to us in erecting all of these government programs. I guess now many of us are seeing the light that it seems much more likely that this is really all about controlling the masses to the benefit of the state and not about security at all. However, those being given such powers may very well have figured that we would later figure this out but by then it would be too late for us to do anything about it. I would like to believe that we the people will prove them wrong.

tpainton 13y ago

We told them they cant profile, so they just spy on everyone and call it fair. Careful what you complain about.