7 ms·

Academics Against Mass Surveillance

122 points by jobstijl 13y ago

JoeAltmaier 13y ago
While I agree in principle, opposing surveillance is like pissing into the wind. Privacy is becoming extinct. Soon devices and technologies will be impossible to regulate - specks of dust that record sound and location; recorders that stick to clothing, hair, skin; phones and tablets that come pre-infected in their OS and hardware. We can oppose it, and maybe stave off for a few years, but inevitably we are all going under the microscope. Better to design new social mechanisms to protect against misuse of the data, than try and prevent its collection.
- f_salmon 13y ago
  > Better to design new social mechanisms to protect against misuse of the data, than try and prevent its collection. The only way to achieve this, is to eliminate EVERY kind of asymmetry in society (which we should have achieved a long time ago, since we all always pretend that every life has the exact same value). If you keep any kind of asymmetry within society and accept mass surveillance, democracy is dead because mass surveillance will of course be abused to increase and further protect power monopolies. This means, every kind of power would have to be distributed equally over every citizen. And that also means that everybody would have to receive the same amount of money per hour of work (all education being paid for by everybody, meaning entirely financed via taxes). While that would be the perfect model and the most sane one, I doubt we are culturally mature enough to get there fast enough.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    which we should have achieved a long time ago, since we all always pretend that every life has the exact same value I don't think we've ever pretended this. We've "pretended" that all men are created equal, but what anyone does from there has a great impact on how society will value them. And why not? Two guys created equal: One spends his life on his parents' couch, the other becomes Bill Gates or Michael Jordan. Which one should we value more?
    - TelmoMenezes 13y ago
      That depends. If the couch potato is my neighbour and takes care of my cat when I'm away, I will probably value him more.
  - sroerick 13y ago
    Yes, this point cannot be made enough. Technology will probably eliminate privacy. But the same organizations who belabor this point also claim they need total secrecy to operate. The sword cuts both ways. And it should cut their way first.
- salient 13y ago
  Of course we can oppose surveillance. We can build anti-surveillance systems, and then we can demand companies to support them. Companies like Google could even use data mining in a way that doesn't infringe on user privacy. But their thinking will be "why change the status quo?". That's why it's so important to fight for such changes, and not get trampled by the corporations and governments wishes for complete knowledge of a user/citizen. If Google doesn't like it, too bad. We'll just have to start supporting privacy-focused companies, and let Google die. That's capitalism, no? Adapt or become a dinosaur and die.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    For internet surveillance, sure. For a while. But when the internet is a network of wireless devices, not all of which you own or even know exist, it becomes a swim against a waterfall.
plg 13y ago
Is anyone else thinking that this is like signing up for a no-spam list? In other words, an invitation for spam?
- herbig 13y ago
  Or an NSA watch list
- pdkl95 13y ago
  As several of the recent 30c3 talks mentioned, the concept of "being a target" doesn't really apply when the goal is ubiquitous surveillance.
  - plg 13y ago
    I'm not so sure about that. Isn't there an argument that goes like this: if there is indeed ubiquitous, mass surveillance, in other words if "everyone is a target", then doesn't that just move the problem back to a sort of baseline, where authorities still need to identify targets? (or sub-targets, if you like) In any case I'm glad to see so many people signing this petition. It would be great if it had more populist support.
amirouche 13y ago
must read: http://cultureandempire.com/‎ http://cultureandempire.com/‎
f_salmon 13y ago
Shouldn't the US list be much, much longer taking into account the size of the various countries?
- pdkl95 13y ago
  Yes, it should be. Instead, we see an example of chilling-effect created by surveillance.
  - MofR 13y ago
    OR - Most academic never heard of 'acedemicsagainstmasssurvalence' and know form bitter experience that signing a petition from some unknown group could end up with them claiming to speak on your behalf in the future.
- finnw 13y ago
  Another way to look at it: Of the 9 most populous countries in the world, the US is the only one with any names on that list. So it could be worse. Edit: Technically wrong: There is one name under "Hong Kong."
dobbsbob 13y ago
I don't agree with petitions. Not only do they get ignored but here they use it against you in politics later when public opinion changes, plus it's a list for marketers. Instead harass your local representative mercilessly with letters and espcially angry phone calls those get noticed eventually.
yodsanklai 13y ago
I suppose pretty much everybody is against mass surveillance, academics or not. But what choice do we have? I think the problem is that we don't really live in democracies. It's not only mass surveillance, but also wars, inequalities and so on...
- herbig 13y ago
  I don't know, I've been surprised by just how many of the people I know either don't know anything at all about this, or simply don't care.
  - BrownBuffalo 13y ago
    This also plays out in the turn-out of voters on election day - its just a disconnect in community. Not saying its bad -or- good, but its reflective of how diluted our outlets are and the lack of trust we all have in everything and it becomes a culture of indifference.
    - lkbm 13y ago
      If we had a direct vote on mass surveillance I wouldn't be at all surprised if American voters rejected it, but that's not how we make political decisions in the US. There are very few candidates who oppose mass surveillance (though we did elect a president who spoke out against trading freedom for security during his campaign), and most of them also have a bunch of other policy positions that are sufficiently distasteful to enough people that even opponents of mass surveillance will either reject him/her for those other positions, or reject him/her for being "unelectable".
      - rayiner 13y ago
        I doubt it. Neither party really opposes surveillance, and if there was broad public opposition to surveillance, one or the other would. I posit that you're not seeing a failure of representative democracy to properly express what is a position with majority support. Rather, you're failing to perceive the nature of the electorate. I remember I stared college the year after 9/11 and was in school when the Iraq war started. Conservative place as far as colleges go, but left of center for the region as a whole. I heard a lot of talk about turning the middle east into a glass parking lot. That was not a position anyone was afraid to take publicly. Imagine my surprise when I'd come back to my very liberal circle in northern Virginia and hear about the "overwhelming public opposition to the Iraq war." Simply put, ideological minorities often don't realize that they are that.
javajosh 13y ago
Anyone who throws their hands up in the air (and I'm talking to you yodsanklai and JoeAltmaier, dobbsbob...and basically 80% of the people on this thread) but YOU are a big part of the problem. It doesn't matter even if the petition is totally ineffectual to change things on it's own: it's value is in it's very existence, and it signals a strong position against something that is very, very wrong with our society at the moment. No movement ever started fully formed like Aphrodite from the head of Zues - they all must start somewhere. So please, if you agree with the desired outcome, why would you naysay ANY attempt to change things, no matter how "naive" or "ineffectual" or "pointless"? Is it not better to have good people speaking truth to power, even if they are not listened to? All I ask is that you consider this question before criticizing someone else's attempt to advocate for positions that you yourselves agree with.
rikacomet 13y ago
none from India?

122 points by jobstijl 13y ago

While I agree in principle, opposing surveillance is like pissing into the wind. Privacy is becoming extinct. Soon devices and technologies will be impossible to regulate - specks of dust that record sound and location; recorders that stick to clothing, hair, skin; phones and tablets that come pre-infected in their OS and hardware. We can oppose it, and maybe stave off for a few years, but inevitably we are all going under the microscope. Better to design new social mechanisms to protect against misuse of the data, than try and prevent its collection.

f_salmon 13y ago
> Better to design new social mechanisms to protect against misuse of the data, than try and prevent its collection. The only way to achieve this, is to eliminate EVERY kind of asymmetry in society (which we should have achieved a long time ago, since we all always pretend that every life has the exact same value). If you keep any kind of asymmetry within society and accept mass surveillance, democracy is dead because mass surveillance will of course be abused to increase and further protect power monopolies. This means, every kind of power would have to be distributed equally over every citizen. And that also means that everybody would have to receive the same amount of money per hour of work (all education being paid for by everybody, meaning entirely financed via taxes). While that would be the perfect model and the most sane one, I doubt we are culturally mature enough to get there fast enough.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  which we should have achieved a long time ago, since we all always pretend that every life has the exact same value I don't think we've ever pretended this. We've "pretended" that all men are created equal, but what anyone does from there has a great impact on how society will value them. And why not? Two guys created equal: One spends his life on his parents' couch, the other becomes Bill Gates or Michael Jordan. Which one should we value more?
  - TelmoMenezes 13y ago
    That depends. If the couch potato is my neighbour and takes care of my cat when I'm away, I will probably value him more.
- sroerick 13y ago
  Yes, this point cannot be made enough. Technology will probably eliminate privacy. But the same organizations who belabor this point also claim they need total secrecy to operate. The sword cuts both ways. And it should cut their way first.
salient 13y ago
Of course we can oppose surveillance. We can build anti-surveillance systems, and then we can demand companies to support them. Companies like Google could even use data mining in a way that doesn't infringe on user privacy. But their thinking will be "why change the status quo?". That's why it's so important to fight for such changes, and not get trampled by the corporations and governments wishes for complete knowledge of a user/citizen. If Google doesn't like it, too bad. We'll just have to start supporting privacy-focused companies, and let Google die. That's capitalism, no? Adapt or become a dinosaur and die.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  For internet surveillance, sure. For a while. But when the internet is a network of wireless devices, not all of which you own or even know exist, it becomes a swim against a waterfall.

plg 13y ago

Is anyone else thinking that this is like signing up for a no-spam list? In other words, an invitation for spam?

herbig 13y ago
Or an NSA watch list
pdkl95 13y ago
As several of the recent 30c3 talks mentioned, the concept of "being a target" doesn't really apply when the goal is ubiquitous surveillance.
- plg 13y ago
  I'm not so sure about that. Isn't there an argument that goes like this: if there is indeed ubiquitous, mass surveillance, in other words if "everyone is a target", then doesn't that just move the problem back to a sort of baseline, where authorities still need to identify targets? (or sub-targets, if you like) In any case I'm glad to see so many people signing this petition. It would be great if it had more populist support.

amirouche 13y ago

must read: http://cultureandempire.com/‎ http://cultureandempire.com/‎

f_salmon 13y ago

Shouldn't the US list be much, much longer taking into account the size of the various countries?

pdkl95 13y ago
Yes, it should be. Instead, we see an example of chilling-effect created by surveillance.
- MofR 13y ago
  OR - Most academic never heard of 'acedemicsagainstmasssurvalence' and know form bitter experience that signing a petition from some unknown group could end up with them claiming to speak on your behalf in the future.
finnw 13y ago
Another way to look at it: Of the 9 most populous countries in the world, the US is the only one with any names on that list. So it could be worse. Edit: Technically wrong: There is one name under "Hong Kong."

dobbsbob 13y ago

I don't agree with petitions. Not only do they get ignored but here they use it against you in politics later when public opinion changes, plus it's a list for marketers. Instead harass your local representative mercilessly with letters and espcially angry phone calls those get noticed eventually.

yodsanklai 13y ago

I suppose pretty much everybody is against mass surveillance, academics or not. But what choice do we have? I think the problem is that we don't really live in democracies. It's not only mass surveillance, but also wars, inequalities and so on...

herbig 13y ago
I don't know, I've been surprised by just how many of the people I know either don't know anything at all about this, or simply don't care.
- BrownBuffalo 13y ago
  This also plays out in the turn-out of voters on election day - its just a disconnect in community. Not saying its bad -or- good, but its reflective of how diluted our outlets are and the lack of trust we all have in everything and it becomes a culture of indifference.
  - lkbm 13y ago
    If we had a direct vote on mass surveillance I wouldn't be at all surprised if American voters rejected it, but that's not how we make political decisions in the US. There are very few candidates who oppose mass surveillance (though we did elect a president who spoke out against trading freedom for security during his campaign), and most of them also have a bunch of other policy positions that are sufficiently distasteful to enough people that even opponents of mass surveillance will either reject him/her for those other positions, or reject him/her for being "unelectable".
    - rayiner 13y ago
      I doubt it. Neither party really opposes surveillance, and if there was broad public opposition to surveillance, one or the other would. I posit that you're not seeing a failure of representative democracy to properly express what is a position with majority support. Rather, you're failing to perceive the nature of the electorate. I remember I stared college the year after 9/11 and was in school when the Iraq war started. Conservative place as far as colleges go, but left of center for the region as a whole. I heard a lot of talk about turning the middle east into a glass parking lot. That was not a position anyone was afraid to take publicly. Imagine my surprise when I'd come back to my very liberal circle in northern Virginia and hear about the "overwhelming public opposition to the Iraq war." Simply put, ideological minorities often don't realize that they are that.

javajosh 13y ago

Anyone who throws their hands up in the air (and I'm talking to you yodsanklai and JoeAltmaier, dobbsbob...and basically 80% of the people on this thread) but YOU are a big part of the problem. It doesn't matter even if the petition is totally ineffectual to change things on it's own: it's value is in it's very existence, and it signals a strong position against something that is very, very wrong with our society at the moment. No movement ever started fully formed like Aphrodite from the head of Zues - they all must start somewhere. So please, if you agree with the desired outcome, why would you naysay ANY attempt to change things, no matter how "naive" or "ineffectual" or "pointless"? Is it not better to have good people speaking truth to power, even if they are not listened to? All I ask is that you consider this question before criticizing someone else's attempt to advocate for positions that you yourselves agree with.

rikacomet 13y ago

none from India?