3 ms·

Well for starters which one gets to talk to the Estonian state police? But either way surveillance is either good or it's bad, I've never understood the reason

by mpyne 13y ago

Well for starters which one gets to talk to the Estonian state police? But either way surveillance is either good or it's bad, I've never understood the reasoning of people who say that it's OK for their own state to do surveillance as they're "probably inept" anyways. Would you be OK with NSA surveillance if the NSA were inept? No, you wouldn't, so apply the same standard to your own nation as you do to the USA.

dlisboa 13y ago
There's a much higher probability of your data being compromised by the NSA than by any other surveillance institution. Not sure why you don't understand that, not all surveillance is equally successful. The very principle is wrong, but if we assume everyone is surveilling us (which is what is being discussed as people make excuses for the US government doing it), then you'd want to be surveilled by the ones who are the least likely to actually hurt you. It's obvious no one is thinking their own government will never try to break laws just because they're national, but the extent to which they'll do it is far, far less than the US government. For the very practical reasons of political capital, budget, technological and intellectual capabilities.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  My own country had a dictatorship until 1974. I am old enough to have gotten the last bits of it, as we learned to move to democracy, so I would call our secret services anything but inept.
Zigurd 13y ago
I would not call the Estonian Navy inept. But neither would I be worried about them getting an aircraft carrier.
- mpyne 13y ago
  But we're not comparing navies. Something like a Navy has an extraordinarily high up-front cost before you get any value at all from it. People-focused forces (such as the police or an army) don't have the same issue. Nor do technologies that are relatively cheap, such as the kind of computer hardware that would help a state surveil its own networks. If anything, America is slipping compared to the rest of the world with regard to the quality of their computer programmers and other computer-focused developers. Even countries like Estonia could certainly find someone to help them develop competent surveillance if necessary. The only limitation is that they'd probably not be able to attack the underpinnings of cryptology the way the NSA probably can, but we as computer professionals already know that usually the crypto is not the problem, it's the people or the implementation that is, and both of those are within reach of the Estonia state, if they really wish.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    That's a bunch of baloney. Some people prefer freedom over surveillance and their government budget priorities actually reflect this.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      You're surely heard of "non-appropriated funds"? Who says all government spending has to be tracked in a budget?
      - Zigurd 13y ago
        Alternatively, some countries do not fetishize surveillance and militarism, having experienced life in an empire that did.
        mpyne 13y ago
        So mere non-fetishization of militaries and surveillance is enough to prevent despots from gaining that power? Remember we're not talking about the people foisting this on themselves, we're talking about the government taking on that power.
Peaker 13y ago
Not sure if this is the position you're asking about, but my position is that surveillance of foreigners is far less of a problem than of citizens in any state. Surveillance of local citizens can be abused to destroy democracy, whereas that of foreigners cannot be. Citizens need to be protected from their own government which holds tremendous power over them, but less so w.r.t foreign government.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Nah, I'm referring to people who say that domestic surveillance from their own nation's spy agency is better than being spied on by NSA (despite their being 'foreign' to the NSA). Although the reasoning you mention is a better way to express one of the points I was trying to make.
- dictum 13y ago
  >Citizens need to be protected from their own government which holds tremendous power over them, but less so w.r.t foreign government. The US certainly holds less power over foreigners, but the CIA's job is to blur the distinction between citizens and foreigners, and the CIA operates with essentially no oversight or restrictions aside from its budget.

by mpyne 13y ago

dlisboa 13y ago

There's a much higher probability of your data being compromised by the NSA than by any other surveillance institution. Not sure why you don't understand that, not all surveillance is equally successful. The very principle is wrong, but if we assume everyone is surveilling us (which is what is being discussed as people make excuses for the US government doing it), then you'd want to be surveilled by the ones who are the least likely to actually hurt you. It's obvious no one is thinking their own government will never try to break laws just because they're national, but the extent to which they'll do it is far, far less than the US government. For the very practical reasons of political capital, budget, technological and intellectual capabilities.

pjmlp 13y ago
My own country had a dictatorship until 1974. I am old enough to have gotten the last bits of it, as we learned to move to democracy, so I would call our secret services anything but inept.

Zigurd 13y ago

I would not call the Estonian Navy inept. But neither would I be worried about them getting an aircraft carrier.

mpyne 13y ago
But we're not comparing navies. Something like a Navy has an extraordinarily high up-front cost before you get any value at all from it. People-focused forces (such as the police or an army) don't have the same issue. Nor do technologies that are relatively cheap, such as the kind of computer hardware that would help a state surveil its own networks. If anything, America is slipping compared to the rest of the world with regard to the quality of their computer programmers and other computer-focused developers. Even countries like Estonia could certainly find someone to help them develop competent surveillance if necessary. The only limitation is that they'd probably not be able to attack the underpinnings of cryptology the way the NSA probably can, but we as computer professionals already know that usually the crypto is not the problem, it's the people or the implementation that is, and both of those are within reach of the Estonia state, if they really wish.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  That's a bunch of baloney. Some people prefer freedom over surveillance and their government budget priorities actually reflect this.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    You're surely heard of "non-appropriated funds"? Who says all government spending has to be tracked in a budget?
    - Zigurd 13y ago
      Alternatively, some countries do not fetishize surveillance and militarism, having experienced life in an empire that did.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        So mere non-fetishization of militaries and surveillance is enough to prevent despots from gaining that power? Remember we're not talking about the people foisting this on themselves, we're talking about the government taking on that power.

Peaker 13y ago

Not sure if this is the position you're asking about, but my position is that surveillance of foreigners is far less of a problem than of citizens in any state. Surveillance of local citizens can be abused to destroy democracy, whereas that of foreigners cannot be. Citizens need to be protected from their own government which holds tremendous power over them, but less so w.r.t foreign government.

mpyne 13y ago
Nah, I'm referring to people who say that domestic surveillance from their own nation's spy agency is better than being spied on by NSA (despite their being 'foreign' to the NSA). Although the reasoning you mention is a better way to express one of the points I was trying to make.
dictum 13y ago
>Citizens need to be protected from their own government which holds tremendous power over them, but less so w.r.t foreign government. The US certainly holds less power over foreigners, but the CIA's job is to blur the distinction between citizens and foreigners, and the CIA operates with essentially no oversight or restrictions aside from its budget.