4 ms·

mass surveillance =/= authoritarianism This is a false equivalence that keeps being brought up on HN. Yes, authoritarian government have mass surveillance, but

mass surveillance =/= authoritarianism This is a false equivalence that keeps being brought up on HN. Yes, authoritarian government have mass surveillance, but the converse isn't necessarily true. The only very clear example of the government getting more authoritarian is in the TSA. (where they now are fondling our balls for our "safety") and to a smaller extent the DHS, prison authorities, and NSLs - smaller in the sense that it has a smaller impact on society. We're still a nation of laws, and just because the government knows more, doesn't mean it can actually do more. Imagine for a minute that the president himself personally hated your guts and wanted to make your life miserable. Now imagine he also knows everything about you. What advantage does that really give him? Okay, if you didn't pay your taxes or something, then he could screw you over. But assuming you're law abiding, other than making your traveling an absolutely nightmare there isn't a whole lot he can do. You can go into fantasy land and say he'll send the CIA to go blackmail you with information about all the tranny midget porn you watch - but lets stay within the framework of what is legal for the government to do. People aren't afraid of surveillance because it has no impact on our lives. The government isn't actually misusing the data on a large scale. That's why we didn't know about all this NSA stuff for so long. Ironically, now that the surveillance is out in the open "they" can try to become authoritarian. And my bet is that if they start trying people will go ape-shit. They'll all get voted out and everything would get rolled back.

coldtea 13y ago
>This is a false equivalence that keeps being brought up on HN. Yes, authoritarian government have mass surveillance, but the converse isn't necessarily true. Perhaps (which is still arguable). But that's not the case here, because we have both. From the Patriot Act to the SWAT-ization of everyday police operations, and from the TSA to the massively increased legal overload (compared to 1960's laws and practices) and down to the rise of the huge (private) prison business and the constant wars, what more proof exactly do you need? >People aren't afraid of surveillance because it has no impact on our lives. The government isn't actually misusing the data on a large scale. They don't have to. It's enough for them to misuse those in a tiny scale to affect everybody's life. When the next Martin Luther King/Mother Jones/Rosa Parks/Harvey Milk/Aaron Swartz (and thousands of other, less known figures that fought for change) etc appears, they can crush him at will, and everybody will be poorer for it.
- blah32497 13y ago
  It's not like last year they passed the evil-fascist-police bill that allows the cops to buy tanks. This is all happening within the preexisting legal framework. (The Patriot Act has been around for already 12 years) There has been no significant expansion of the power of the state over the past decade. If you think the existing framework is flawed (and I would strongly agree), then definitely fight against it. Vote for people that support your view, and write to your representatives. The fight against surveillance is essentially defeatist and fear mongering. It assumes the government will turn evil and it'll start trying to make your life miserable. It's all part of a collective psychosis. We think that it's an inevitability that one day the US will turn into an evil dystopian nazi regime.
  - peterashford 13y ago
    I think it's rather more that the history of states turning fascist shows that the turn is usually proceeded by the state acquiring extraordinary powers on the basis that "insert-bogeyman-here" is out to get us (see Italy, Spain, Germany for past exemplars) and that current citizens would rather be vigilant and ensure that we don't have a fascist future than sit back and allow the possibility that it might occur. "The fight against surveillance is essentially defeatist and fear mongering. It assumes the government will turn evil and it'll start trying to make your life miserable. It's all part of a collective psychosis. We think that it's an inevitability that one day the US will turn into an evil dystopian nazi regime." I think that history disagrees with you. Have you ever heard the phrase: all that's required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing? People questioning the reach of government surveillance are good people doing something.
    - blah32497 13y ago
      (I'm gunna respond even though I'm getting downvoted b/c hopefully someone gets something out of this.. but keep it coming! =) ) There is nothing inherently evil in surveillance. In and of itself it's a neutral thing. It's what you do with it that is evil or good. First I'd say that I don't really see how the NAZIs gain power because of surveillance. Hitler didn't seize power because the SA had some intricate intelligence apparatus. Nor was it the case for the the fascists in Italy, nor Spain. I would argue it was for them simply a tool for the consolidation of power and their fight against subversion. Just like - in la-la land - if the US government were to turn evil, they would use surveillance to oppress the people. But at that point it's "too-late". The oppression comes first, and then the surveillance to back it up. "I think it's rather more that the history of states turning fascist..." I think maybe the larger issues is that the "cyclicality" of history is really more about people seeing patterns where there are none (and historians justifying their jobs). Virtually all the examples we return too are from the beginning of the 20th century. Somehow because of how horrible WW2 was we feel that this may happen again if we aren't careful. But in reality, history doesn't really "repeat itself" as the old says goes. The NAZI arose during a period of extreme nationalism. There is no reason to believe that this will necessarily happen again. For instance it didn't happen before the end of the 19th century since nationalism is a relatively new concept. And we don't for examples anticipate the return of communism, or disco. I think at this point in our cultural evolution a return to tyranny is simply impossible. We have so much precedent of the success of democracy and our thinking on human rights has evolved to a point where this is simply unsustainable to close with some data: http://thediplomat.com/2013/02/13/5-ways-china-could-become-.. http://thediplomat.com/2013/02/13/5-ways-china-could-become-.... "Statistical analysis shows that authoritarian regimes become progressively more unstable (and democratic transitions more likely) once income rises above $1,000 (PPP) per capita. When per capita income goes above $4,000 (PPP), the likelihood of democratic transitions increases more dramatically. Few authoritarian regimes, unless they rule in oil-producing countries, can survive once per capita income hits more than $6,000 (PPP)."

coldtea 13y ago

>This is a false equivalence that keeps being brought up on HN. Yes, authoritarian government have mass surveillance, but the converse isn't necessarily true. Perhaps (which is still arguable). But that's not the case here, because we have both. From the Patriot Act to the SWAT-ization of everyday police operations, and from the TSA to the massively increased legal overload (compared to 1960's laws and practices) and down to the rise of the huge (private) prison business and the constant wars, what more proof exactly do you need? >People aren't afraid of surveillance because it has no impact on our lives. The government isn't actually misusing the data on a large scale. They don't have to. It's enough for them to misuse those in a tiny scale to affect everybody's life. When the next Martin Luther King/Mother Jones/Rosa Parks/Harvey Milk/Aaron Swartz (and thousands of other, less known figures that fought for change) etc appears, they can crush him at will, and everybody will be poorer for it.

blah32497 13y ago
It's not like last year they passed the evil-fascist-police bill that allows the cops to buy tanks. This is all happening within the preexisting legal framework. (The Patriot Act has been around for already 12 years) There has been no significant expansion of the power of the state over the past decade. If you think the existing framework is flawed (and I would strongly agree), then definitely fight against it. Vote for people that support your view, and write to your representatives. The fight against surveillance is essentially defeatist and fear mongering. It assumes the government will turn evil and it'll start trying to make your life miserable. It's all part of a collective psychosis. We think that it's an inevitability that one day the US will turn into an evil dystopian nazi regime.
- peterashford 13y ago
  I think it's rather more that the history of states turning fascist shows that the turn is usually proceeded by the state acquiring extraordinary powers on the basis that "insert-bogeyman-here" is out to get us (see Italy, Spain, Germany for past exemplars) and that current citizens would rather be vigilant and ensure that we don't have a fascist future than sit back and allow the possibility that it might occur. "The fight against surveillance is essentially defeatist and fear mongering. It assumes the government will turn evil and it'll start trying to make your life miserable. It's all part of a collective psychosis. We think that it's an inevitability that one day the US will turn into an evil dystopian nazi regime." I think that history disagrees with you. Have you ever heard the phrase: all that's required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing? People questioning the reach of government surveillance are good people doing something.
  - blah32497 13y ago
    (I'm gunna respond even though I'm getting downvoted b/c hopefully someone gets something out of this.. but keep it coming! =) ) There is nothing inherently evil in surveillance. In and of itself it's a neutral thing. It's what you do with it that is evil or good. First I'd say that I don't really see how the NAZIs gain power because of surveillance. Hitler didn't seize power because the SA had some intricate intelligence apparatus. Nor was it the case for the the fascists in Italy, nor Spain. I would argue it was for them simply a tool for the consolidation of power and their fight against subversion. Just like - in la-la land - if the US government were to turn evil, they would use surveillance to oppress the people. But at that point it's "too-late". The oppression comes first, and then the surveillance to back it up. "I think it's rather more that the history of states turning fascist..." I think maybe the larger issues is that the "cyclicality" of history is really more about people seeing patterns where there are none (and historians justifying their jobs). Virtually all the examples we return too are from the beginning of the 20th century. Somehow because of how horrible WW2 was we feel that this may happen again if we aren't careful. But in reality, history doesn't really "repeat itself" as the old says goes. The NAZI arose during a period of extreme nationalism. There is no reason to believe that this will necessarily happen again. For instance it didn't happen before the end of the 19th century since nationalism is a relatively new concept. And we don't for examples anticipate the return of communism, or disco. I think at this point in our cultural evolution a return to tyranny is simply impossible. We have so much precedent of the success of democracy and our thinking on human rights has evolved to a point where this is simply unsustainable to close with some data: http://thediplomat.com/2013/02/13/5-ways-china-could-become-.. http://thediplomat.com/2013/02/13/5-ways-china-could-become-.... "Statistical analysis shows that authoritarian regimes become progressively more unstable (and democratic transitions more likely) once income rises above $1,000 (PPP) per capita. When per capita income goes above $4,000 (PPP), the likelihood of democratic transitions increases more dramatically. Few authoritarian regimes, unless they rule in oil-producing countries, can survive once per capita income hits more than $6,000 (PPP)."