7 ms·

Surveillance is not about protecting us. It's about control.

196 points by rubbingalcohol 13y ago

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bnolsen 13y ago
it's also called a police state which is totally against the US constitution.
- nullsocket 13y ago
  Unfortunately, our constitutional right to overthrow our corrupt government is now considered domestic terrorism.
  - krapp 13y ago
    Yes, it's just horrible that people like Tim McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski and the Tsarnaevs have to be persecuted for what are obviously not crimes.
    - skylan_q 13y ago
      ...have to be persecuted for what are obviously not crimes The revolutionaries that founded the US didn't care that they would be breaking laws. That's kind of the point.
      - krapp 13y ago
        No, the point should be that any random act of violence isn't defensible just because its committed out of hatred for the government.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        The "revolutionaries" did care, and were quite worried to point out that Parliament had (in their mind) no legal authority to direct the internal affairs of the colonies, and their consistent point throughout was that they wished for nothing more than their "rights as Englishmen". Eventually they had to shift their goal to outright independence to achieve those ends, but even that shift was accompanied by a detailed list of grievances (known as the Declaration of Independence) illustrating why exactly they felt they had to take that step. Of course, those who actually bother to read that Declaration will note that it emphasizes that even moderate problems with the government should be accepted as a matter of course. Their problem was not government, or laws, or anything like that. Obviously so, since otherwise they wouldn't have formed a government with laws after the Treaty of Paris, and then scrapped that government a few years later because it sucked so bad that it needed replaced with an even stronger government that the U.S. still operates under today. Rather, their problem was the lack of the British Crown's desire (in their view) to uphold Britain's own laws and charters as applied to the colonies.
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      If it's any consolation, had they grown up in the hills of waziristan, they would have the blessing of the USG on behalf of the tax payers[0]. One could even see it as off shoring the revolution. And seeing how off shoring has gone in general and the state/direction of the economy (and the us economy in particular), it's only a matter of time before the tax payers start demanding/bringing those "jobs" back home ;) [0] http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2013/0730/US-auditor-finds-taxpayer-money-flowing-to-Taliban-Al-Qaeda-but-Army-refuses-to-act http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2...
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
    Even more unfortunate is that the only people actually considering overthrowing the government are not the ones you'd want to see in power, anyway. Unless you fancy a theocracy.
- mintplant 13y ago
  Oh really? Please show me in the Constitution where the words "police state" are mentioned. "Unconstitutional" has become a lazy way to dress up a claim that something is bad. I'm not saying that what's going on with surveillance in the U.S. is a good thing, but you're not helping your cause here. (For that matter, there's nothing about a "right to overthrow [a] corrupt government" in the Constitution either. nullsocket may be thinking of the Declaration of Independence, and its basis in the social contract theory of Locke's Second Treatise on Government.)
  - nullsocket 13y ago
    You are correct sir, my mistake. "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
    - kordless 13y ago
      "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
      - Zigurd 13y ago
        The Declaration of Independence lists the reasons. How many apply to our situation today?
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    There is a rile of thumb when thinking about what the Framers had in mind: "What would King George do?" King George did have redcoats going around searching homes, opening mail, etc. in "problem" areas. He did run a police state. It is very likely the Framers wrote the Constitution with that in mind.
robertfw 13y ago
I have increased the amount of chatter I put out, trying to raise awareness with friends and family, but I feel myself evaluating each and every post - what flags is this raising? How might this be used against me in the future? I am travelling to the US from Canada for Thanksgiving, and that fact alone gives me pause when I say things critical of the political system. I warm my chilled self by holding onto the thought that recognizing our self-censorship is the first step to fighting against it.
- Nerdfest 13y ago
  I do the same thing, and as a Canadian, I wonder about exactly the same thing. I was boycotting travelling to the US but need to travel through there on my way somewhere. I probably shouldn't be concerned as I'm a complete nobody, but I am. I would guess lots of others are as well. It can't be good for tourism. I'm a little shocked there isn't more outrage in the 'Land of the Free'. Things have degraded to the point that I would think there would be a story on major TV news sites every night.
  - bnolsen 13y ago
    the news media here is by and large complicit, almost all of them voted for the current administration in the last election.
    - scarmig 13y ago
      If it's any consolation, they'd be doing the same for the "don't call it torture" Bush Administration.
  - grecy 13y ago
    > I'm a little shocked there isn't more outrage in the 'Land of the Free'. Things have degraded to the point that I would think there would be a story on major TV news sites every night. So long as the people get their professional sport, VMAs with scantily clad women and can buy alcohol and cigarettes very cheaply, their needs are being met and they are not interested in the big picture.
dilap 13y ago
I think a lot of people are OK with mass surveillance given a basically benign, good government (which many people tend to think our government is, currently). The problem is that once all of this machinery is in place, it can be used by any government that happens to come to power -- it makes it too easy for a non-benign, dictatorial government to say in power, egregiously abusing the ability to spy on arbitrary citizens.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  If the technology is there, what's to stop the dictatorial government from installing mass surveillance systems at the drop of a hat? It is a dictatorship after all, it can do that! Better then, perhaps, to have existing systems with well-understood capabilities and known scopes of operation? Alternatively, If the dictatorship will have access to surveillance whether or not the good government installs it, then what the dictatorship will do with surveillance is irrelevant.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- pstuart 13y ago
  My casual surveys of friends and acquaintances is depressing. Most "don't have anything to hide", and don't feel threatened by these developments.
  - dmix 13y ago
    Most people put up with overt racism and sexism in American society for > century. I wouldn't count on the average persons sentiment to be indicative of what is moral or correct at this moment in society, or more importantly what is worth fighting to fix. Whereas politicians do. Politicians only follow the pack, much after the movement towards some social progress has been well underway by pioneering citizens for a long period of time.
  - ihsw 13y ago
    In China it's really risky to tell your true opinion to friends because you don't know who is working for the Government. In East Germany (during the Cold War) it was similarly risky to tell your true opinion for the same reason. If one of my co-workers/neighbours ever ask about my political opinions, you bet your ASCIIs that I'd reservedly express approval of our government's great efforts to protect us. I'm the kind of person that enjoys playing devil's advocate, and I've taken my fair share of pro-communism, pro-liberterian, and absolute pacifism stances (and everything in-between) -- but it was all online. I hide behind my anonymity as a matter of personal policy.
bkirwi 13y ago
In case anyone else missed it on the first pass: the article mentions that the FBI "went so far as to come up with assassination plans on Occupy Wall Street leaders," but the linked source[0] describes the FBI uncovering an assassination plot, not making one themselves. [0] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/30/1220039/-FBI-Kept-Quiet-About-OWS-Assasination-Plot-FOIA-Obtained-Docs-Show# http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/30/1220039/-FBI-Kept-Q...
- crdoconnor 13y ago
  I think OWS was the real reason for the ramp up in "total information awareness" surveillance. I don't think most people realized how effective it was at bringing out collective activism and anger, and how much danger that put the establishment in. They were clearly looking at Egypt and back to OWS and thinking "that shit can NOT be allowed to happen here". So, how to stop the next one? Mass surveillance - pick out the seedlings of discontent and crush them before they grow big enough to become threatening again. I'm convinced is also the reason why they considered assassination. They were getting a little desperate.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > I think OWS was the real reason for the ramp up in "total information awareness" surveillance. Mass surveillance was in place for many years before OWS existed.
    - crdoconnor 13y ago
      >"Ramp up"
      - DanBC 13y ago
        There was no ramping up of mass surveillance because of OWS.
xacaxulu 13y ago
Remember the birthday hats on surveillance cameras? http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/4/4490058/front404-orwells-birthday-cctv-cameras-with-party-hats http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/4/4490058/front404-orwells-bi...
andyl 13y ago
Surveillance is not about protecting us. It’s about control. Bingo. Mass surveillance is a tool to protect the oligarchs from its citizens. The terrorist threat is theatrical misdirection.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
jakeogh 13y ago
Cui bono?
ThomPete 13y ago
Case in point. There are things I don't dare post on Facebook because I am afraid it will affect my Visa situation.
- orthecreedence 13y ago
  Welcome. And don't step in the freedom.
steven2012 13y ago
This summer, I was working with a Harvard Computer Science student who also said "I don't care, I have nothing to hide." This worried me to no end, that extremely smart kids could be so naive like this. I challenged him to send texts to one of his buddies, where he would simulate planning of a terrorist attack. He was going to, but then I stopped him, because I would have felt too guilty if he actually went through with it and got into trouble with the law, which I honestly believe he would have.
- gcb1 13y ago
  he being in a top university and not being too rich is already a sign that he plays by the rules. smart, not necessarily. but the REAL reason not much people care, is because everyone have lives! when was the last time you went to your town hall meeting? do you even do 1h of research before voting? or do you even vote? ...shit have to go really down until people even have any opinion.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    Oh, lots of people have opinions. You don't need to do any research or bother yourself with facts or thinking to have an opinion. In fact, it's much easier to have one if you don't.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
thatinstant 13y ago
Of course the surveillance is about control... It seems so obvious to me that I don't even give it much thought, but I think there are far too many variables affecting the current state of affairs, regarding the NSA, surveillance, etc. It wasn't just one event, one government administration, one legislative change or one technological advancement that got us into this mess. Several factors have converged to create the current police state, but I ask: Why are people suddenly so upset about finding out that the NSA has found an efficient means to surveil the populous when so many organizations have been doing this for years? Nobody was getting upset when Google was reading your emails; Facebook was reading your private messages; Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile were tracking your calls and geo-locations... All for the sake of more efficiently marketing to you. Advertisement is just another form of control. They don't tell you or force you to do or not do something, they just efficiently convince people to part with their money and make those people think that it was their own idea to do so all along. All these concerns come down to whether we collectively think these practices are right or wrong, and it is becoming more difficult to make these judgements without a bias and it's difficult to continually evaluate whether your bias has been externally affected by these business practices. The reason why nothing is truly being done about this massive theft of privacy is because people are complacent with the idea. We can't truly get upset that our governments are taking away our privacy when we have been giving it away to private corporations and religious organizations for so long.
- orthecreedence 13y ago
  Completely agree. It's hard to care about privacy when we get so much in return for surrendering it. Things don't cost money anymore, instead they cost our private lives. This is a bargain we've been making for a long time, and people are subconsciously aware of it. I think this plays a huge role into why people don't care about the NSA in general...every fucking other organization is spying on them too, what's one more?? I'm convinced the way to combat it is to provide services people use that are convenient and respect privacy. Not via easily-broken promises (Privacy Policy!!) but by enforcing privacy in the client. If cloud services only store encrypted data, you get the convenience and the privacy without compromise. Once more companies make this shift, I think you'll see people realizing they don't mind spending a few bucks (hell they spend it on new apps all the time) to not have a million anal probes jammed into their private lives 24/7.
papa_bear 13y ago
This part is a little weird to me: "Let’s be extremely generous and say that, on average, 3,000 Americans die every year from terror attacks [...] The government has yet to prove one credible example of a legitimate terror plot that was prevented thanks to mass surveillance. If they want to insist that spying makes us safer, this would be good information to know." Is that not evidence that to some degree, the surveillance works to keep terrorism down? One of the biggest deterrents to committing a crime is the certainty of getting caught. I realize that people have blogged about how to circumvent a lot of the security making it seem pointless, but I assume even the appearance of security would make it seem like less of an appealing idea to a would-be terrorist. EDIT: I should say "interesting" rather than "weird." This post is assuming the psychology of a terrorist is similar to a white collar or petty criminal, which obviously isn't always the case. But maybe it's not too much of a stretch to say it doesn't stop senseless violence or serial killers from committing similar acts of terror.
- epoxyhockey 13y ago
  One of the biggest deterrents to committing a crime is the certainty of getting caught. Maybe for you, personally, but not for a genuine terrorist. Saying that domestic spying deters someone with a deep hatred of a country from committing an act of terrorism is like saying that gun laws reduce gang violence. There is just no way to deter the will of sufficiently motivated person or group of people.
  - papa_bear 13y ago
    You're probably right - my post was assuming that the psychology of a committing a terror act was the same as a petty crime or assault. Maybe not the best assumption to make.
- Lagged2Death 13y ago
  Is that not evidence that to some degree, the surveillance works to keep terrorism down? Look, all this talk about surveillance is a red herring. Since 9/11, I've been diligently praying to Zoltar the Space God every day, begging him to put a stop to Islamic terrorism on American soil. And as you point out, it's been working great. The lack of attacks is evidence that to some degree, Zoltar is powerful and benevolent.
DanBC 13y ago
Isn't it more banal and just people using budgets and extending their influence within the community that decides the funding? Bad metrics create weird outcomes, etc. Pick any government agency at random. You'll find weird spending, baffling ideas, inefficiencies, power struggles with other agencies, etc. That agency will try to define their role in a way that maximises the money they need to do that job and that claims authority for that particular area. I imagine the NSA feels fine about what they do. They probably have a bunch of techniques that they've rejected as being too intrusive or too constitution-violating. Something about "Overton Window" fits here - you hear about Guantanomo and you think "Hey, we're not torturing people like they do there, so we're better". Add weak oversight, and a favourable exploitable atmosphere about a bogeyman ("THE COMMUNISTS!" "TERRORISTS!" "DRUGS!") and it's easy to see how an agency ends up going too far. Going too far if you regulate children's play areas or the size of holes in fishnets doesn't mean much. Obviously, going too far when you're NSA ends up with a really bad situation.
vermontdevil 13y ago
I think it's more about money. Wherever there's an opportunity to do the following: 1) make money and 2) keep control of the flow of money, there are people who would do it at the expense of others. I see this in Congress and a lot of government leaders not just within NSA. Look at Treasury, DEA, etc for examples.
suprgeek 13y ago
How about this.... Every Senator or Congressman that votes to continue this Metadata BS program release all of THEIR Metadata. If you have nothing to hide why not release all of the following: Every Phone number they called in the past 5 years with a date and time-stamp attached from their Home, Office and Cell numbers. Every email-recipient they ever sent e-mail to in the past 5 years from all their addresses - personal address, Official address etc Every website visited from their Home IP, Smart phone, Office and desk computer. IF even ONE of the 535 US esteemed legislators in both houses agrees to this...lets say that Swine would be airborne in record numbers.
- ChrisAntaki 13y ago
  > this Metadata BS program It's not just metadata, they collect full audio & text content as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
  - epoxyhockey 13y ago
    Video of Shia Labeouf saying that an FBI consultant played a recording of one of his phone calls from 2 years prior to working on a film in 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ux1hpLvqMw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ux1hpLvqMw And here we are 7 years after one of his voice calls was recorded.
  - rubbingalcohol 13y ago
    Another one of my conspiracy posts: former FBI counterrorism agent Tim Clemente saying the "all digital communications are recorded and stored" and "no digital communication is secure" (he was trying to convince everyone that the government had the Boston Bombing investigation under control) http://blog.rubbingalcoholic.com/post/52913031241/its-not-just-metadata-the-nsa-is-getting-everything http://blog.rubbingalcoholic.com/post/52913031241/its-not-ju... (watch the video)
- tedunangst 13y ago
  How is that the same at all? The NSA presumably already has all of that info. The Senators who are saying "I trust the NSA with my data" are trusting the NSA with their data. That doesn't mean they want everybody to know their metadata.

196 points by rubbingalcohol 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

bnolsen 13y ago

it's also called a police state which is totally against the US constitution.

nullsocket 13y ago
Unfortunately, our constitutional right to overthrow our corrupt government is now considered domestic terrorism.
- krapp 13y ago
  Yes, it's just horrible that people like Tim McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski and the Tsarnaevs have to be persecuted for what are obviously not crimes.
  - skylan_q 13y ago
    ...have to be persecuted for what are obviously not crimes The revolutionaries that founded the US didn't care that they would be breaking laws. That's kind of the point.
    - krapp 13y ago
      No, the point should be that any random act of violence isn't defensible just because its committed out of hatred for the government.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      The "revolutionaries" did care, and were quite worried to point out that Parliament had (in their mind) no legal authority to direct the internal affairs of the colonies, and their consistent point throughout was that they wished for nothing more than their "rights as Englishmen". Eventually they had to shift their goal to outright independence to achieve those ends, but even that shift was accompanied by a detailed list of grievances (known as the Declaration of Independence) illustrating why exactly they felt they had to take that step. Of course, those who actually bother to read that Declaration will note that it emphasizes that even moderate problems with the government should be accepted as a matter of course. Their problem was not government, or laws, or anything like that. Obviously so, since otherwise they wouldn't have formed a government with laws after the Treaty of Paris, and then scrapped that government a few years later because it sucked so bad that it needed replaced with an even stronger government that the U.S. still operates under today. Rather, their problem was the lack of the British Crown's desire (in their view) to uphold Britain's own laws and charters as applied to the colonies.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    If it's any consolation, had they grown up in the hills of waziristan, they would have the blessing of the USG on behalf of the tax payers[0]. One could even see it as off shoring the revolution. And seeing how off shoring has gone in general and the state/direction of the economy (and the us economy in particular), it's only a matter of time before the tax payers start demanding/bringing those "jobs" back home ;) [0] http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2013/0730/US-auditor-finds-taxpayer-money-flowing-to-Taliban-Al-Qaeda-but-Army-refuses-to-act http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2...
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  Even more unfortunate is that the only people actually considering overthrowing the government are not the ones you'd want to see in power, anyway. Unless you fancy a theocracy.
mintplant 13y ago
Oh really? Please show me in the Constitution where the words "police state" are mentioned. "Unconstitutional" has become a lazy way to dress up a claim that something is bad. I'm not saying that what's going on with surveillance in the U.S. is a good thing, but you're not helping your cause here. (For that matter, there's nothing about a "right to overthrow [a] corrupt government" in the Constitution either. nullsocket may be thinking of the Declaration of Independence, and its basis in the social contract theory of Locke's Second Treatise on Government.)
- nullsocket 13y ago
  You are correct sir, my mistake. "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
  - kordless 13y ago
    "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
    - Zigurd 13y ago
      The Declaration of Independence lists the reasons. How many apply to our situation today?
- Zigurd 13y ago
  There is a rile of thumb when thinking about what the Framers had in mind: "What would King George do?" King George did have redcoats going around searching homes, opening mail, etc. in "problem" areas. He did run a police state. It is very likely the Framers wrote the Constitution with that in mind.

robertfw 13y ago

I have increased the amount of chatter I put out, trying to raise awareness with friends and family, but I feel myself evaluating each and every post - what flags is this raising? How might this be used against me in the future? I am travelling to the US from Canada for Thanksgiving, and that fact alone gives me pause when I say things critical of the political system. I warm my chilled self by holding onto the thought that recognizing our self-censorship is the first step to fighting against it.

Nerdfest 13y ago
I do the same thing, and as a Canadian, I wonder about exactly the same thing. I was boycotting travelling to the US but need to travel through there on my way somewhere. I probably shouldn't be concerned as I'm a complete nobody, but I am. I would guess lots of others are as well. It can't be good for tourism. I'm a little shocked there isn't more outrage in the 'Land of the Free'. Things have degraded to the point that I would think there would be a story on major TV news sites every night.
- bnolsen 13y ago
  the news media here is by and large complicit, almost all of them voted for the current administration in the last election.
  - scarmig 13y ago
    If it's any consolation, they'd be doing the same for the "don't call it torture" Bush Administration.
- grecy 13y ago
  > I'm a little shocked there isn't more outrage in the 'Land of the Free'. Things have degraded to the point that I would think there would be a story on major TV news sites every night. So long as the people get their professional sport, VMAs with scantily clad women and can buy alcohol and cigarettes very cheaply, their needs are being met and they are not interested in the big picture.

dilap 13y ago

I think a lot of people are OK with mass surveillance given a basically benign, good government (which many people tend to think our government is, currently). The problem is that once all of this machinery is in place, it can be used by any government that happens to come to power -- it makes it too easy for a non-benign, dictatorial government to say in power, egregiously abusing the ability to spy on arbitrary citizens.

sliverstorm 13y ago
If the technology is there, what's to stop the dictatorial government from installing mass surveillance systems at the drop of a hat? It is a dictatorship after all, it can do that! Better then, perhaps, to have existing systems with well-understood capabilities and known scopes of operation? Alternatively, If the dictatorship will have access to surveillance whether or not the good government installs it, then what the dictatorship will do with surveillance is irrelevant.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
pstuart 13y ago
My casual surveys of friends and acquaintances is depressing. Most "don't have anything to hide", and don't feel threatened by these developments.
- dmix 13y ago
  Most people put up with overt racism and sexism in American society for > century. I wouldn't count on the average persons sentiment to be indicative of what is moral or correct at this moment in society, or more importantly what is worth fighting to fix. Whereas politicians do. Politicians only follow the pack, much after the movement towards some social progress has been well underway by pioneering citizens for a long period of time.
- ihsw 13y ago
  In China it's really risky to tell your true opinion to friends because you don't know who is working for the Government. In East Germany (during the Cold War) it was similarly risky to tell your true opinion for the same reason. If one of my co-workers/neighbours ever ask about my political opinions, you bet your ASCIIs that I'd reservedly express approval of our government's great efforts to protect us. I'm the kind of person that enjoys playing devil's advocate, and I've taken my fair share of pro-communism, pro-liberterian, and absolute pacifism stances (and everything in-between) -- but it was all online. I hide behind my anonymity as a matter of personal policy.

bkirwi 13y ago

In case anyone else missed it on the first pass: the article mentions that the FBI "went so far as to come up with assassination plans on Occupy Wall Street leaders," but the linked source[0] describes the FBI uncovering an assassination plot, not making one themselves. [0] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/30/1220039/-FBI-Kept-Quiet-About-OWS-Assasination-Plot-FOIA-Obtained-Docs-Show# http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/30/1220039/-FBI-Kept-Q...

crdoconnor 13y ago
I think OWS was the real reason for the ramp up in "total information awareness" surveillance. I don't think most people realized how effective it was at bringing out collective activism and anger, and how much danger that put the establishment in. They were clearly looking at Egypt and back to OWS and thinking "that shit can NOT be allowed to happen here". So, how to stop the next one? Mass surveillance - pick out the seedlings of discontent and crush them before they grow big enough to become threatening again. I'm convinced is also the reason why they considered assassination. They were getting a little desperate.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- DanBC 13y ago
  > I think OWS was the real reason for the ramp up in "total information awareness" surveillance. Mass surveillance was in place for many years before OWS existed.
  - crdoconnor 13y ago
    >"Ramp up"
    - DanBC 13y ago
      There was no ramping up of mass surveillance because of OWS.

xacaxulu 13y ago

Remember the birthday hats on surveillance cameras? http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/4/4490058/front404-orwells-birthday-cctv-cameras-with-party-hats http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/4/4490058/front404-orwells-bi...

andyl 13y ago

Surveillance is not about protecting us. It’s about control. Bingo. Mass surveillance is a tool to protect the oligarchs from its citizens. The terrorist threat is theatrical misdirection.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

jakeogh 13y ago

Cui bono?

ThomPete 13y ago

Case in point. There are things I don't dare post on Facebook because I am afraid it will affect my Visa situation.

orthecreedence 13y ago
Welcome. And don't step in the freedom.

steven2012 13y ago

This summer, I was working with a Harvard Computer Science student who also said "I don't care, I have nothing to hide." This worried me to no end, that extremely smart kids could be so naive like this. I challenged him to send texts to one of his buddies, where he would simulate planning of a terrorist attack. He was going to, but then I stopped him, because I would have felt too guilty if he actually went through with it and got into trouble with the law, which I honestly believe he would have.

gcb1 13y ago
he being in a top university and not being too rich is already a sign that he plays by the rules. smart, not necessarily. but the REAL reason not much people care, is because everyone have lives! when was the last time you went to your town hall meeting? do you even do 1h of research before voting? or do you even vote? ...shit have to go really down until people even have any opinion.
- smsm42 13y ago
  Oh, lots of people have opinions. You don't need to do any research or bother yourself with facts or thinking to have an opinion. In fact, it's much easier to have one if you don't.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

thatinstant 13y ago

Of course the surveillance is about control... It seems so obvious to me that I don't even give it much thought, but I think there are far too many variables affecting the current state of affairs, regarding the NSA, surveillance, etc. It wasn't just one event, one government administration, one legislative change or one technological advancement that got us into this mess. Several factors have converged to create the current police state, but I ask: Why are people suddenly so upset about finding out that the NSA has found an efficient means to surveil the populous when so many organizations have been doing this for years? Nobody was getting upset when Google was reading your emails; Facebook was reading your private messages; Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile were tracking your calls and geo-locations... All for the sake of more efficiently marketing to you. Advertisement is just another form of control. They don't tell you or force you to do or not do something, they just efficiently convince people to part with their money and make those people think that it was their own idea to do so all along. All these concerns come down to whether we collectively think these practices are right or wrong, and it is becoming more difficult to make these judgements without a bias and it's difficult to continually evaluate whether your bias has been externally affected by these business practices. The reason why nothing is truly being done about this massive theft of privacy is because people are complacent with the idea. We can't truly get upset that our governments are taking away our privacy when we have been giving it away to private corporations and religious organizations for so long.

orthecreedence 13y ago
Completely agree. It's hard to care about privacy when we get so much in return for surrendering it. Things don't cost money anymore, instead they cost our private lives. This is a bargain we've been making for a long time, and people are subconsciously aware of it. I think this plays a huge role into why people don't care about the NSA in general...every fucking other organization is spying on them too, what's one more?? I'm convinced the way to combat it is to provide services people use that are convenient and respect privacy. Not via easily-broken promises (Privacy Policy!!) but by enforcing privacy in the client. If cloud services only store encrypted data, you get the convenience and the privacy without compromise. Once more companies make this shift, I think you'll see people realizing they don't mind spending a few bucks (hell they spend it on new apps all the time) to not have a million anal probes jammed into their private lives 24/7.

papa_bear 13y ago

This part is a little weird to me: "Let’s be extremely generous and say that, on average, 3,000 Americans die every year from terror attacks [...] The government has yet to prove one credible example of a legitimate terror plot that was prevented thanks to mass surveillance. If they want to insist that spying makes us safer, this would be good information to know." Is that not evidence that to some degree, the surveillance works to keep terrorism down? One of the biggest deterrents to committing a crime is the certainty of getting caught. I realize that people have blogged about how to circumvent a lot of the security making it seem pointless, but I assume even the appearance of security would make it seem like less of an appealing idea to a would-be terrorist. EDIT: I should say "interesting" rather than "weird." This post is assuming the psychology of a terrorist is similar to a white collar or petty criminal, which obviously isn't always the case. But maybe it's not too much of a stretch to say it doesn't stop senseless violence or serial killers from committing similar acts of terror.

epoxyhockey 13y ago
One of the biggest deterrents to committing a crime is the certainty of getting caught. Maybe for you, personally, but not for a genuine terrorist. Saying that domestic spying deters someone with a deep hatred of a country from committing an act of terrorism is like saying that gun laws reduce gang violence. There is just no way to deter the will of sufficiently motivated person or group of people.
- papa_bear 13y ago
  You're probably right - my post was assuming that the psychology of a committing a terror act was the same as a petty crime or assault. Maybe not the best assumption to make.
Lagged2Death 13y ago
Is that not evidence that to some degree, the surveillance works to keep terrorism down? Look, all this talk about surveillance is a red herring. Since 9/11, I've been diligently praying to Zoltar the Space God every day, begging him to put a stop to Islamic terrorism on American soil. And as you point out, it's been working great. The lack of attacks is evidence that to some degree, Zoltar is powerful and benevolent.

DanBC 13y ago

Isn't it more banal and just people using budgets and extending their influence within the community that decides the funding? Bad metrics create weird outcomes, etc. Pick any government agency at random. You'll find weird spending, baffling ideas, inefficiencies, power struggles with other agencies, etc. That agency will try to define their role in a way that maximises the money they need to do that job and that claims authority for that particular area. I imagine the NSA feels fine about what they do. They probably have a bunch of techniques that they've rejected as being too intrusive or too constitution-violating. Something about "Overton Window" fits here - you hear about Guantanomo and you think "Hey, we're not torturing people like they do there, so we're better". Add weak oversight, and a favourable exploitable atmosphere about a bogeyman ("THE COMMUNISTS!" "TERRORISTS!" "DRUGS!") and it's easy to see how an agency ends up going too far. Going too far if you regulate children's play areas or the size of holes in fishnets doesn't mean much. Obviously, going too far when you're NSA ends up with a really bad situation.

vermontdevil 13y ago

I think it's more about money. Wherever there's an opportunity to do the following: 1) make money and 2) keep control of the flow of money, there are people who would do it at the expense of others. I see this in Congress and a lot of government leaders not just within NSA. Look at Treasury, DEA, etc for examples.

suprgeek 13y ago

How about this.... Every Senator or Congressman that votes to continue this Metadata BS program release all of THEIR Metadata. If you have nothing to hide why not release all of the following: Every Phone number they called in the past 5 years with a date and time-stamp attached from their Home, Office and Cell numbers. Every email-recipient they ever sent e-mail to in the past 5 years from all their addresses - personal address, Official address etc Every website visited from their Home IP, Smart phone, Office and desk computer. IF even ONE of the 535 US esteemed legislators in both houses agrees to this...lets say that Swine would be airborne in record numbers.

ChrisAntaki 13y ago
> this Metadata BS program It's not just metadata, they collect full audio & text content as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
- epoxyhockey 13y ago
  Video of Shia Labeouf saying that an FBI consultant played a recording of one of his phone calls from 2 years prior to working on a film in 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ux1hpLvqMw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ux1hpLvqMw And here we are 7 years after one of his voice calls was recorded.
- rubbingalcohol 13y ago
  Another one of my conspiracy posts: former FBI counterrorism agent Tim Clemente saying the "all digital communications are recorded and stored" and "no digital communication is secure" (he was trying to convince everyone that the government had the Boston Bombing investigation under control) http://blog.rubbingalcoholic.com/post/52913031241/its-not-just-metadata-the-nsa-is-getting-everything http://blog.rubbingalcoholic.com/post/52913031241/its-not-ju... (watch the video)
tedunangst 13y ago
How is that the same at all? The NSA presumably already has all of that info. The Senators who are saying "I trust the NSA with my data" are trusting the NSA with their data. That doesn't mean they want everybody to know their metadata.