6 ms·

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).

by 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.
- epoxyhockey 13y ago
  I try to personalize the situation. Government officials are not magical unicorns. They are people like you and me. People, like your next door neighbor. What if your next door neighbor could scan through your email, credit card purchases and call transcripts without your knowledge? Now imagine that they actually are doing so right now.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    But its not your next door neighbour. There's a whole system in place to make sure it's not your next door neighbour, and in fact we generally accept as a society that preventing people's social groups gathering information on each other largely solves problems with privacy (provided we also don't allow people to rebroadcast things as they please). How much do you care about the credit card purchases of someone you've never met, who lives on the other side of the country, and who you wouldn't recognize the face off if you saw them? How much of your internet posting is done on the exact same assumption?
    - epoxyhockey 13y ago
      But its not your next door neighbour Well, if you live in the Washington DC area, the chance substantially increases. ;-) Though, if you have ever been in a position to gain a glimpse into strangers' behavior, be it what bars/pubs they frequent, how they make income on the side, what stocks they trade, or any number of not widely publicized tricks-of-a-trade, I can guarantee you that you would use that knowledge for your own gain and/or entertainment. Your use of that information is untraceable, and in the very worst case can be plausibly denied.
      - XorNot 13y ago
        But it's not untraceable. There's a reason the LOVEINT cases at the NSA were found: because the NSA goes looking for them in a pretty draconian way. The technical capability to do something doesn't mean you have the legal capability to use it or broadcast it and a good deal of your post is starting to hint at quasi-illegal activity in the first place.
IvyMike 13y ago
> a lot of people are OK with mass surveillance given a basically benign, good government That's so crazy to me. We don't have to go back that far in history to find an FBI director who used surveillance to settle petty grudges, and we had a PRESIDENT within my lifetime [1] that abused this type of information. Even if you believe the US government is generally good, there's no way anyone should believe this stuff won't be abused by bad actors within the system. [1] Granted I was 1 year old when Nixon resigned.
GauntletWizard 13y ago
I "Have nothing to hide"... So long as the government agents who're tracking me have nothing, either. I will give up all my phone metadata as soon as everyone gives up all their phone metadata. I don't care about the privacy, only about the power imbalance that it creates. Admittedly, I don't think that it's a good idea: There are many people who do care about privacy, for good reasons. The LGBT teenager who's not out yet - and never will be, to their parents, because of old bigotries. The kinkster with a vanilla SO, who goes out to be beaten and then goes home to have sex. The recovering drug addict, anxious to hide their checkered past, relying on the anonymity of moving to help with their future job prospects and recovery. These are all good reasons to continue a world with privacy... But I personally am fine moving to a more open world, and if society chooses, to damn these people with the rest. It's just important to me that we go into that world with eyes open.
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  Even if everybody were forced to be equally open with their data, this would serve to amplify power imbalances that already exist. We have fancy technology for analyzing social graphs and sifting through messages, but using this technology requires access to big (or, equivalently, many) machines and the manpower of humans who know how to work the technology. Hence, groups that are already powerful have an easier time acquiring even more power. I agree that given a choice between two evils (no personal privacy, or not personal privacy for anyone) I would go with the evil you describe. But I wouldn't be too happy about it. So I think it's worth fighting back.
Zigurd 13y ago
Politics is a lot rougher than most people know and the "goodness" of our government is more on the shady end of the spectrum than most people know. I'd bet most people would be horrified about this kind of power if they did know how unclean the sausage factory really is. We read about how military, industry, organized crime, intelligence services, etc. influence other governments in untoward ways and assume it doesn't happen here. Whereas the real difference is more of a matter of degree.
tejay 13y ago
I am probably naive, but I still doubt the ability of the US Government or even the National Security State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security#National_security_state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security#National_secu...) to be tightly wound enough to advance together to attack our civil liberties in concert. Look at what a mess they've created in other aspects of nat'l policy. Rather, I believe this slow but steady institutional creep against our civil liberties is mostly the work of independent bureaucrats who realize that by expanding their individual silos of power (i.e., expanding what their departments surveil and parse), they're a) keeping open the funding spigot, b) expanding their personal power and c) solidifying their job security. "National defense," since 1776, but especially since World War 2, has always been a bi-partisan rallying cry, after all. In practice, the guys who get on TV (also known elected leaders), try as they might, have very little control over what actual policy is implemented in the realm of national security. They're just appealing to our most base instincts to remain elected, I think.

by dilap 13y ago

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.
epoxyhockey 13y ago
I try to personalize the situation. Government officials are not magical unicorns. They are people like you and me. People, like your next door neighbor. What if your next door neighbor could scan through your email, credit card purchases and call transcripts without your knowledge? Now imagine that they actually are doing so right now.
- XorNot 13y ago
  But its not your next door neighbour. There's a whole system in place to make sure it's not your next door neighbour, and in fact we generally accept as a society that preventing people's social groups gathering information on each other largely solves problems with privacy (provided we also don't allow people to rebroadcast things as they please). How much do you care about the credit card purchases of someone you've never met, who lives on the other side of the country, and who you wouldn't recognize the face off if you saw them? How much of your internet posting is done on the exact same assumption?
  - epoxyhockey 13y ago
    But its not your next door neighbour Well, if you live in the Washington DC area, the chance substantially increases. ;-) Though, if you have ever been in a position to gain a glimpse into strangers' behavior, be it what bars/pubs they frequent, how they make income on the side, what stocks they trade, or any number of not widely publicized tricks-of-a-trade, I can guarantee you that you would use that knowledge for your own gain and/or entertainment. Your use of that information is untraceable, and in the very worst case can be plausibly denied.
    - XorNot 13y ago
      But it's not untraceable. There's a reason the LOVEINT cases at the NSA were found: because the NSA goes looking for them in a pretty draconian way. The technical capability to do something doesn't mean you have the legal capability to use it or broadcast it and a good deal of your post is starting to hint at quasi-illegal activity in the first place.

IvyMike 13y ago

> a lot of people are OK with mass surveillance given a basically benign, good government That's so crazy to me. We don't have to go back that far in history to find an FBI director who used surveillance to settle petty grudges, and we had a PRESIDENT within my lifetime [1] that abused this type of information. Even if you believe the US government is generally good, there's no way anyone should believe this stuff won't be abused by bad actors within the system. [1] Granted I was 1 year old when Nixon resigned.

GauntletWizard 13y ago

I "Have nothing to hide"... So long as the government agents who're tracking me have nothing, either. I will give up all my phone metadata as soon as everyone gives up all their phone metadata. I don't care about the privacy, only about the power imbalance that it creates. Admittedly, I don't think that it's a good idea: There are many people who do care about privacy, for good reasons. The LGBT teenager who's not out yet - and never will be, to their parents, because of old bigotries. The kinkster with a vanilla SO, who goes out to be beaten and then goes home to have sex. The recovering drug addict, anxious to hide their checkered past, relying on the anonymity of moving to help with their future job prospects and recovery. These are all good reasons to continue a world with privacy... But I personally am fine moving to a more open world, and if society chooses, to damn these people with the rest. It's just important to me that we go into that world with eyes open.

nhaehnle 13y ago
Even if everybody were forced to be equally open with their data, this would serve to amplify power imbalances that already exist. We have fancy technology for analyzing social graphs and sifting through messages, but using this technology requires access to big (or, equivalently, many) machines and the manpower of humans who know how to work the technology. Hence, groups that are already powerful have an easier time acquiring even more power. I agree that given a choice between two evils (no personal privacy, or not personal privacy for anyone) I would go with the evil you describe. But I wouldn't be too happy about it. So I think it's worth fighting back.

Zigurd 13y ago

Politics is a lot rougher than most people know and the "goodness" of our government is more on the shady end of the spectrum than most people know. I'd bet most people would be horrified about this kind of power if they did know how unclean the sausage factory really is. We read about how military, industry, organized crime, intelligence services, etc. influence other governments in untoward ways and assume it doesn't happen here. Whereas the real difference is more of a matter of degree.

tejay 13y ago

I am probably naive, but I still doubt the ability of the US Government or even the National Security State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security#National_security_state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security#National_secu...) to be tightly wound enough to advance together to attack our civil liberties in concert. Look at what a mess they've created in other aspects of nat'l policy. Rather, I believe this slow but steady institutional creep against our civil liberties is mostly the work of independent bureaucrats who realize that by expanding their individual silos of power (i.e., expanding what their departments surveil and parse), they're a) keeping open the funding spigot, b) expanding their personal power and c) solidifying their job security. "National defense," since 1776, but especially since World War 2, has always been a bi-partisan rallying cry, after all. In practice, the guys who get on TV (also known elected leaders), try as they might, have very little control over what actual policy is implemented in the realm of national security. They're just appealing to our most base instincts to remain elected, I think.