4 ms·

After reading this essay by Bruce Schneier, I was reminded of advice I have given on Hacker News before. Schneier writes, "Dismantling the surveillance state wo

After reading this essay by Bruce Schneier, I was reminded of advice I have given on Hacker News before. Schneier writes, "Dismantling the surveillance state won't be easy. Has any country that engaged in mass surveillance of its own citizens voluntarily given up that capability? Has any mass surveillance country avoided becoming totalitarian? Whatever happens, we're going to be breaking new ground." Rolling back a surveillance state and establishing a government with more protection of individual liberties is something that has been done before. I have seen it done. I related at greater length here on HN my experiences living in a surveillance state that included government assassins to eliminate political opponents at home and abroad.[1] Getting rid of such a regime is not easy, but it is possible. It takes courage, and it takes unity among the courageous people making up the freedom movement. I remind my freedom-loving friends here on Hacker News that there are resources to help you if you really want to be an idealistic but hard-headed freedom-fighter. If you are mobilizing an effective popular movement for more freedom wherever you live, I suggest you read deeply in the publications of the Albert Einstein Institution,[2] which are compiled by advisers who have helped bring about democratic transitions in various parts of the world. Not all of those movements have succeeded yet, but I bet on their long-term success in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, and wherever freedom is scarce. Remember that the transition from dictatorship to democracy described in the Albert Einstein Institution publications is an actual historical process with recent examples around the world that we can all learn from. Practice courage and practice collective action. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5985720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5985720 [2] http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html

jlgreco 13y ago
As the Berlin Wall fell, the last thing the Stasi did was start shredding. That shredding only stopped when a mob physically seized control of the buildings it was taking place in. The slower you take down a surveillance state, the more time they have to destroy the evidence of their wrong-doing. I don't know how you can prevent that. With any luck we can dismantle them, but we will have to cope with the possibility that after the dismantling is complete, the evidence that the dismantling was warranted will be long gone.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  Give them time to shred! After all, who is to say what the finders of the data will eventually end up doing with it. Those documents are proof of wrongdoing, but they are also a source of possible future wrongdoing.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I absolutely understand where you are coming from. However I think it is necessary we preserve those records, as the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Archives does, so that crime committed by the surveillance system and its members can be investigated (being able to prosecute individuals like Erich Mielke is essential to allow the population to regain trust in their new government), and the people should be allowed access to their own files so they can have insight into the full extent of widespread untargeted surveillance. You could consider such a preservation to be a shameful monument to what we became. It would be a lighthouse on the rocks, looking over the wreckage of countless ships, warning us to stay away.
    - aeturnum 13y ago
      I agree that any information left over from a totalitarian regime should be preserved and available to the interested parties. There's a great deal of value in preserving the shameful events of the past. That being said, if I had to choose between stopping "shredding" (or whatever form the digital equivalent takes) and life / freedom / order / etc, I think I'd let them shred. We want those records, but they're among the least of many goals.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        I completely understand. This is actually something that I have 'waffled' on several times. What is putting me on the side of preservation right now is the hope that with preservation, future generations will benefit, but shredding the document would only help the existing victims. People living in Germany have something concrete to show their children when they teach them about the value of privacy. With that, hopefully the "anti-surveillance immunization" will span generations.
vacri 13y ago
Has any mass surveillance country avoided becoming totalitarian? The UK?

jlgreco 13y ago

As the Berlin Wall fell, the last thing the Stasi did was start shredding. That shredding only stopped when a mob physically seized control of the buildings it was taking place in. The slower you take down a surveillance state, the more time they have to destroy the evidence of their wrong-doing. I don't know how you can prevent that. With any luck we can dismantle them, but we will have to cope with the possibility that after the dismantling is complete, the evidence that the dismantling was warranted will be long gone.

jacquesm 13y ago
Give them time to shred! After all, who is to say what the finders of the data will eventually end up doing with it. Those documents are proof of wrongdoing, but they are also a source of possible future wrongdoing.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I absolutely understand where you are coming from. However I think it is necessary we preserve those records, as the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Archives does, so that crime committed by the surveillance system and its members can be investigated (being able to prosecute individuals like Erich Mielke is essential to allow the population to regain trust in their new government), and the people should be allowed access to their own files so they can have insight into the full extent of widespread untargeted surveillance. You could consider such a preservation to be a shameful monument to what we became. It would be a lighthouse on the rocks, looking over the wreckage of countless ships, warning us to stay away.
  - aeturnum 13y ago
    I agree that any information left over from a totalitarian regime should be preserved and available to the interested parties. There's a great deal of value in preserving the shameful events of the past. That being said, if I had to choose between stopping "shredding" (or whatever form the digital equivalent takes) and life / freedom / order / etc, I think I'd let them shred. We want those records, but they're among the least of many goals.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I completely understand. This is actually something that I have 'waffled' on several times. What is putting me on the side of preservation right now is the hope that with preservation, future generations will benefit, but shredding the document would only help the existing victims. People living in Germany have something concrete to show their children when they teach them about the value of privacy. With that, hopefully the "anti-surveillance immunization" will span generations.

vacri 13y ago

Has any mass surveillance country avoided becoming totalitarian? The UK?