5 ms·

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 w

by 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?
    - speeder 13y ago
      I believe God is just, not necessarily benevolent.
      - krichman 13y ago
        Putting aside drowning the majority of everything on Earth, what is just about destroying entire cities, sparing no one?
        gizzlon 13y ago
        How do you know, a priori, that they didn't deserve it ;)
        krichman 13y ago
        :) Applying Bayesian empiricism! My posterior measurement of P(redeemable|young) after a lifetime of observation is too high. While I'm on the topic of children; how is it just to kill the youth of Egypt for the flaws of their ruler and his enforcers?
        speeder 13y ago
        To me two things are clear: God is a warrior God, there is even texts that talk about biblical battles from other points of view, like Sumerians. The second thing is that God, being God, can easily decide what action will result in wa outcome he wants, even if it require sacrifices. Like when you have one parachute and two people in a airplane. Not always is possible to save everyone.
        krichman 13y ago
        > Not always is possible to save everyone. False. God is omnipotent :)
        13y ago
  - w_t_payne 13y ago
    Indeed, now we have an excellent set of tools to enforce religious conformance and to return state religion to it's rightful place in people's hearts, and at the center of everyday life. It is fortunate indeed that these blessed tools that were sent to protect us from unchristian violence are also perfectly suited to protect our immortal souls from the corrupting influence of everyday life. It is a manifest part of God's plan for us that we use these tools to spread God's word and to protect his flock from evil thoughts and actions. Control must be absolute. God demands it.
- armozel 13y ago
  Oddly, I believe in God, but I don't see God as a being that sees all or even knows all (Note: I follow in the tradition of A.N. Whitehead on theology. I hope that explains the premise). And similarly, I don't believe it is good for the State to know all or see all as it weakens our ability to change the nature of the State when necessity requires it either democratically and peacefully (optimal) or otherwise (revolution, war, and other bad ends imo).
Zigurd 13y ago
There is a problem with this analogy.
anfedorov 13y ago
We're not there yet, but with the advances in technology I think we'll see in our lifetimes, one could implement surveillance as thorough as most conceptions of God.
- gridmaths 13y ago
  we are there already
thelinked 13y ago
Reminds me of a plot point in deus ex. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b-bijO3uEw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b-bijO3uEw
jlgreco 13y ago
> I think there will be people who just decide to live without fear of the NSA The difference of course is that with religion I have the luxury of not believing that the surveilling entity actually exists. I have no similar comfort with the NSA. I wish I didn't believe that the NSA exists, but I do, and there isn't any way for me to change that. I cannot simply decide that I no longer believe something exists.
- gizzlon 13y ago
  I cannot simply decide that I no longer believe something exists If you could make yourself disbelieve NSA, would you? "Can't I just let myself forget what you've told me? Can't I just let myself forget what you've made me do. You think I just want another puzzle to solve? Another John G. to look for? You're John G. So you can be my John G... Will I lie to myself to be happy? In your case Teddy... yes I will" (from Memento)
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Knowing what I know now, that it does exist, I wouldn't choose to forget it. However I would be happier if I didn't know it existed. Really this just highlights that "choosing" to believe or not believe is sort of a silly concept.
    - gizzlon 13y ago
      (SPOILER) Yeah, for most of us. But that's the thing about the guy in Memento - he can chose what to think and "remember" in the future since he trusts his own handwriting and pretty much forgets everything else. "However I would be happier if I didn't know it existed" If you could chose to forget, you wouldn't know it existed, and thus be happier. Souds like the logical thing to do :)
jacquesm 13y ago
That's a strange but very interesting observation. Add a little anecdotal evidence, the religious people that I know on balance seem more predisposed to the line 'if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear' than the non-believers. Before you wrote your comment I would not have ascribed any significance to that correlation, now I'm not so sure.
- dalke 13y ago
  As the article pointed out, "if members of a team felt a common social identity with their leader then surveillance in fact reduced the leader's influence by fostering resentment and distrust. However, if they saw their leader as belonging to a social outgroup then surveillance increased the leader's power." In your anecdote, do the religious people see themselves as being in the same social group as the president or other powerful members of government? To start, does the list of religious people you've talked include many non-Christians?

by logn 13y ago

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?
  - speeder 13y ago
    I believe God is just, not necessarily benevolent.
    - krichman 13y ago
      Putting aside drowning the majority of everything on Earth, what is just about destroying entire cities, sparing no one?
      - gizzlon 13y ago
        How do you know, a priori, that they didn't deserve it ;)
        krichman 13y ago
        :) Applying Bayesian empiricism! My posterior measurement of P(redeemable|young) after a lifetime of observation is too high. While I'm on the topic of children; how is it just to kill the youth of Egypt for the flaws of their ruler and his enforcers?
        speeder 13y ago
        To me two things are clear: God is a warrior God, there is even texts that talk about biblical battles from other points of view, like Sumerians. The second thing is that God, being God, can easily decide what action will result in wa outcome he wants, even if it require sacrifices. Like when you have one parachute and two people in a airplane. Not always is possible to save everyone.
        krichman 13y ago
        > Not always is possible to save everyone. False. God is omnipotent :)
        13y ago
- w_t_payne 13y ago
  Indeed, now we have an excellent set of tools to enforce religious conformance and to return state religion to it's rightful place in people's hearts, and at the center of everyday life. It is fortunate indeed that these blessed tools that were sent to protect us from unchristian violence are also perfectly suited to protect our immortal souls from the corrupting influence of everyday life. It is a manifest part of God's plan for us that we use these tools to spread God's word and to protect his flock from evil thoughts and actions. Control must be absolute. God demands it.
armozel 13y ago
Oddly, I believe in God, but I don't see God as a being that sees all or even knows all (Note: I follow in the tradition of A.N. Whitehead on theology. I hope that explains the premise). And similarly, I don't believe it is good for the State to know all or see all as it weakens our ability to change the nature of the State when necessity requires it either democratically and peacefully (optimal) or otherwise (revolution, war, and other bad ends imo).

Zigurd 13y ago

There is a problem with this analogy.

anfedorov 13y ago

We're not there yet, but with the advances in technology I think we'll see in our lifetimes, one could implement surveillance as thorough as most conceptions of God.

gridmaths 13y ago
we are there already

thelinked 13y ago

Reminds me of a plot point in deus ex. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b-bijO3uEw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b-bijO3uEw

jlgreco 13y ago

> I think there will be people who just decide to live without fear of the NSA The difference of course is that with religion I have the luxury of not believing that the surveilling entity actually exists. I have no similar comfort with the NSA. I wish I didn't believe that the NSA exists, but I do, and there isn't any way for me to change that. I cannot simply decide that I no longer believe something exists.

gizzlon 13y ago
I cannot simply decide that I no longer believe something exists If you could make yourself disbelieve NSA, would you? "Can't I just let myself forget what you've told me? Can't I just let myself forget what you've made me do. You think I just want another puzzle to solve? Another John G. to look for? You're John G. So you can be my John G... Will I lie to myself to be happy? In your case Teddy... yes I will" (from Memento)
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Knowing what I know now, that it does exist, I wouldn't choose to forget it. However I would be happier if I didn't know it existed. Really this just highlights that "choosing" to believe or not believe is sort of a silly concept.
  - gizzlon 13y ago
    (SPOILER) Yeah, for most of us. But that's the thing about the guy in Memento - he can chose what to think and "remember" in the future since he trusts his own handwriting and pretty much forgets everything else. "However I would be happier if I didn't know it existed" If you could chose to forget, you wouldn't know it existed, and thus be happier. Souds like the logical thing to do :)

jacquesm 13y ago

That's a strange but very interesting observation. Add a little anecdotal evidence, the religious people that I know on balance seem more predisposed to the line 'if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear' than the non-believers. Before you wrote your comment I would not have ascribed any significance to that correlation, now I'm not so sure.

dalke 13y ago
As the article pointed out, "if members of a team felt a common social identity with their leader then surveillance in fact reduced the leader's influence by fostering resentment and distrust. However, if they saw their leader as belonging to a social outgroup then surveillance increased the leader's power." In your anecdote, do the religious people see themselves as being in the same social group as the president or other powerful members of government? To start, does the list of religious people you've talked include many non-Christians?