4 ms·

I consider myself an educated, well-informed person, and I have no problem whatsoever with government surveillance. Like anything, it can be abused, but I don't

I consider myself an educated, well-informed person, and I have no problem whatsoever with government surveillance. Like anything, it can be abused, but I don't think that outweighs the benefits. I think it's sad that it makes you 'angry' that some people simply disagree with you. We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern. If you have a problem with it, stand for election.

duairc 12y ago
> We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern. > > If you have a problem with it, stand for election. There must be a name for this kind of fallacy.
- edanm 12y ago
  Is it really a fallacy? Part of democracy is accepting that you don't necessarily agree with everyone about everything, and you have to compromise.
  - ionised 12y ago
    When you have secret laws that protect secret proceedings or as we actually have now, agencies that operate in a legal black hole and are completely unaccountable then yes, the idea that this is somehow a democracy is comical.
    - grkvlt 12y ago
      No. Just because one part of an organisation does not have a particular property, it does not negate that property for all other parts. The USA and UK are, quite obviously, democracies. There are free and fair secret elections for government in which anyone can vote, and anyone can stand for election as a candidate. That makes them democracies, the behaviour of their secret intelligence services is irrelevant. I worry about the thought processes that must occur for people to think this; or similar things, like conflating an instance of some law enforcement department abusing its power with a totalitarian police state... I understand hyperbole as a rhetorical device, but it isn't helpful when assumed as fact.
      - ionised 12y ago
        > There are free and fair secret elections. Sorry, but I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one. Lobbying and uncapped campaign donations are tantamount to legalised bribery. The system is utterly corrupt. Free they may be, but calling them fair is a gross misrepresentation in my opinion. > I worry about the thought processes that must occur for people to think this; or similar things, like conflating an instance of some law enforcement department abusing its power with a totalitarian police state. We're not saying it's a police state. We're saying it is becoming one because of the very tools that these agencies possess and abuse without accountability. As an example, you've basically had a man (a criminal) James Clapper lie directly to congress knowingly and unabashedly. He's somehow still walking around, free and lol'ing at the general public he so joyously likes to mislead and scaremonger. > I worry about the thought processes that must occur for people to think this; or similar things. I honestly think the same of people who think that there is no problem here, nothing to worry about or even that it's a good thing. I honestly can't wrap my head around the immense wilfull ignorance some people seem to be displaying. It makes me sad, angry and disgusted all at once.
        grkvlt 12y ago
        > We're not saying it's a police state. We're saying it is becoming one because of the very tools that these agencies possess and abuse without accountability Right, this is my problem. I have no problem with posession of these tools. States possess much worse things, nuclear weapons spring to mind. And abuse of these tools in an unaccountable fashion is wrong, 100% with you on that. However it is not clear to me that such abuses have occurred, or are occurring in a systematic way. Are there any documented (to the extent possible) cases of this? I didn't think even the Snowden documents showed that. In fact, it looked like they were full of caveats about US and UK citizen surveillance being a problematic area, and stated requirements for legal reviews and checks in these cases?
    - edanm 12y ago
      As grkvlt has said, this isn't a black or white issue. We're not either a) a democracy or b) not a democracy, we're obviously more democratic in some areas and less so in others. I agree that having secret proceedings, etc., is a big problem. But there are cases where they're necessary, or at least many people think so. Like it or not, changing the way things work now means gaining some things (e.g. more freedom, more transparency) but potentially giving some things up (some measure of security). Some people might be willing to give up different measures of freedom for different measures of security - others will have different numbers. That's why, in a democracy, we either convince people or compromise with them.
  - eevilspock 12y ago
    Say you were born in 1850, but had the understanding about race and slavery that you do now. Slavery makes you angry (I'm assuming here) and you make an impassioned post about the evils of slavery. In reply you get, "We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern." Is it "sad that it makes you 'angry' that some people simply disagree with you"? Is it ok to dismiss your anger because you don't "stand for election"?
    - edanm 12y ago
      I think if I were born in 1850, the right thing to do would be to try and convince other people of why I'm right about race and slavery. Yes, part of democracy is accepting that some people will disagree with you. The right way to go is to either compromise or to convince them you're right. Incidentally, that's what actually happens most of the time.
- collyw 12y ago
  I call it "faith in democracy", as there is no evidence of it happening in any modern "democracy". Just got to believe....
- pdkl95 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
noir_lord 12y ago
Created 9 minutes ago (as of this post) and has one post. Doffs tin foil hat. I see this a lot on a variety of forums whenever topics like this come up. It would be interesting to do an analysis of the age of the average commenter’s account by topic across popular comment type sites.
- pja 12y ago
  We know that the security state is spending large amounts of money employing people to run 'personas' on social media sites, make blog comments etc etc. Sometimes these are spectacularly obvious, but there are plenty who are good enough at their work to look plausible. The goal is to create the feeling amongst those who are seeking to change the status quo that the population is not with them & that changing things will be difficult, whilst at the same time creating the impression for anyone reading the comments that certain viewpoints are unpopular or contested.
  - grkvlt 12y ago
    Yes, I'm sure this has happened many times, and will continue to happen, although probably not as much on HN as on jihadi extremist forums and so on... But the knee-jerk responses of 'shill' or 'astroturfer' to dismiss anyone whose opinion differs from the local majority is sad, and seems to be getting more common on many sites I frequent.
aluhut 12y ago
What are these benefits?
- peterlawest 12y ago
  I believe it helps ensure security. I don't believe they'd bother doing it if it didn't. I think you're a bit arrogant for assuming they give a fuck what you write to your girlfriend on iMessages. I know you probably disagree with that, but this is my point - not everyone agrees that surveillance is bad. And I'm not alone - I think most people don't really care about surveillance. And this isn't a conspiracy - it's just a simple case of people not agreeing with you - this happens - get over it.
  - throwawayaway 12y ago
    having a policeman standing in your kitchen to prevent domestic dispute, ensuring security. a webcam in all bedrooms would ensure more security and possibly prevent other types of crime. most people wouldn't go for those - some security measures are too invasive and ripe for abuse to support. unless you've missed it, your location and contact endpoints are now permanently stored, and some of your conversations both written and audible are. if one of your associates is within a certain number of hops from someone deemed undesirable - so are you. the reason the london met phone hacking scandal resulted in outcry was that the general public could understand what happened. this is slightly beyond their ken but it's the same problem - questionable powers that are ripe for abuse.
  - ionised 12y ago
    > I believe it helps ensure security. Your beliefs are wrong, as we have been shown that this mass surveillance has failed to prevent even one terrorist attack since its inception. Couple that with the immense amount of (wasted) tax payer money it costs to run and you've got a disgusting abuse of power and resources in exchange for the mere illusion of security to those who fail to actually do the research required to see through the bullshit.
    - quasque 12y ago
ionised 12y ago
There hasn't been any evidence to support these 'benefits'.
- peterlawest 12y ago
  I don't know what else to say apart from that I've seen the same coverage as you, and I'm not bothered by it. I'm sorry that this seems to infuriate you people so much, but that's my opinion. If I'm happy with it, I'm happy with it. So are many people. Your indignation isn't going to going to change my mind, or many other people's minds.
  - gjm11 12y ago
    Downvoting for "you people", a phrase which pretty much universally seems to indicate dismissive contempt and disinterest in engaging the other party's point of view.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >I don't know what else to say apart from that I've seen the same coverage as you, and I'm not bothered by it. Sure, but then again the majority of Southerners weren't bothered by the slavery or the lynchings either. It took a civil war to make them change their ways. I mean, if we are to put "not bothered" as some kind of argument.
    - eevilspock 12y ago
      Sadly, even 100 years after the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation, and 200 years after the Declaration that "all men are created equal", we had huge resistance to the much belated civil rights acts of the 60's. Yes, peterlawest is entirely right. Our indignation isn't going to going to change his mind, or that of many others like him. "People don't change their minds. They die, and are replaced by people with different opinions" -- Arturo Albergati, via Paul Graham (http://www.paulgraham.com/quo.html http://www.paulgraham.com/quo.html) "Science progresses one funeral at a time." -- Max Planck
yodsanklai 12y ago
> Like anything, it can be abused, but I don't think that outweighs the benefits. In a recent past, my great-grand-father was arrested and beaten up by the Gestapo for his political views (sorry for the emotional argument but i think it's appropriate). My point is that even if you perceive your country as a democracy where the leaders behave for the best, it may not be so forever. And as history shows, it can change very fast. It's important that we have strong laws that protect the people from their leaders.
pizza234 12y ago
There are a few problems in here. Most notably though, I find terrible the statement that "we have a democracy" when essentially what we're talking about are tools whose abuse (which is going to be very welcomed by the government[s]) is exactly to suppress the democracy itself. Not only this, but also that fact the this is put in a context where government[s] are increasingly given powers to silence dissidence and legally rape people (or minorities, at worst), in an immoral (probable cause hello!) or worst, unlawful way (Snowden docs here). All of this, with the fact that the "benefits" are not proven, and are actually very arguable. It's naive to think that indiscriminately listening to a billion conversations is an easy way to investigate "terrorism". I don't think honestly that it's a well informed opinion to assume that we have a democracy just because we can vote somebody; more specifically, black/hispanic low-class people would not have the same opinion, at least, in some countries.
- grkvlt 12y ago
  > government[s] are increasingly given powers to silence dissidence and legally rape people 1. Governments have always had these powers. The state has 'a monopoly on violence' and that can be abused in many different ways, without the need for pervasive surveillance. But it isn't, at least in the USA and the UK, we don't have 'death squads' roaming the streets or summary extra-judicial executions by firing squad for supporting the wrong political party, or having the wrong religion. 2. Wait, legally rape people... What?
pja 12y ago
The communists claimed to have a democracy too. A state can maintain all the forms of democracy whilst in reality being run on a completely different basis by a parallel internal oligarchy. "If you have a problem with it, stand for election" is facile: First past the post electoral district representative governments are almost designed to eliminate single issue candidates from ever having any electoral power. The only way to make a difference is to convince the main parties that this matters & that takes years of ground work against a well funded group which will oppose your every move using its access to the machinery of government. It isn't called the military-industrial-congressional complex for nothing you know. As an aside, very few people have a problem with targeted government surveillance. What I have a problem with is the dragnet sweeping up of every communication, keeping as much as possible for future use against anyone and anybody whilst keeping this policy secret from the population in question. Historically this kind of action has been seen as a signifier of a totalitarian states who are afraid of their own population revolting against them and I fear that the UK/US (and by extension the five-eyes countries) have put in place the full machinery for a panopticon, in which any dissent against the ruling cadres is quietly quashed. This isn't a road I personally wish to see my country taking, yet the politicians and public at large seem blind to the risk, handing over sweeping powers to the security services with almost no oversight or control.
coldtea 12y ago
>I consider myself an educated, well-informed person, and I have no problem whatsoever with government surveillance Well, I don't consider that stance well-informed. Surely its not informed of the tons of abuses of surveillance from "democratic" governments. And its also not informed of thousands of people rotting in jail, targeted by the police, tortured etc. Perhaps people who think that way, believe that all governments are like their local bubble -- or that it has to be some third-world dictatorship for those abuses to happen. But I'm pretty sure they're also misinformed about the abuses in their local bubble too. If you're an American for example, you might not know FBI has an attrocious record (under McCarthyism, under the the direction of Hoover, in the sixties against students and black protesters, up to Occupy Wall Street). If you're British, you might not know of an equally disgusting history. And don't get me started on places like Italy, Greece, Spain etc. Or Latin America for that matter. Or they know those things but just don't care, because either "this time is different" ("and now we're fully and trully a transparent democracy" -- which is the most laughable ignorance one can muster), or they agree with the abuses. But there's an even easier explanation: they only care for themselves, and since they don't ever do anything to challenge things you think they are safe. And it might even be true. But those that do challenge things (from civil rights activists to new political parties, and from artists to people experimenting with new ways of living), are the ones who make society better. Not the cover-my-asses. And it's those people who challenge things that very much are targeted by the abuses. And what exactly are the benefits? Living in a nanny state? [edit: fixed typo, child commenter: you a funny man]
- pjc50 12y ago
  nunny state No, that's Ireland (where the investigation of a mass grave of children in a nunnery is failing to get off the ground)
kghose 12y ago
Isn't it ironic that you are being downvoted?
Shish2k 12y ago
> We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern. I think those are separate things -- being in a democracy means the majority decide what happens; it doesn't mean that the majority are well-informed rational deciders of objective truth. If the government were kicking puppies for entertainment, and nobody knew about it, then the majority wouldn't use their democratic powers to vote against that either :P
pjc50 12y ago
Standing for election will potentially get you put on a list of "extremists": http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/green-party-peer-put-on-database-of-extremists-by-police http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/green-party-... The question is not so much can it be abused, but to what extent it is being abused. Remember, the security services are not above having people murdered if they're sufficiently troublesome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21283169 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21283169
Nursie 12y ago
>> I consider myself an educated, well-informed person, and I have no problem whatsoever with government surveillance. Like anything, it can be abused, but I don't think that outweighs the benefits. You have cared enough to actually think about it and are prepared to engage in debate. Congrats, you are more interested/intelligent than 90% of the population. >> I think it's sad that it makes you 'angry' that some people simply disagree with you. No, I'm angry that most people don't care enough or aren't smart enough to think about it, and that's the majority, and so nothing can be done. Your assertion that I'm angry that people disagree with me is incorrect and patronising. >> We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern. Our democracy is incredibly weak, it's arguable we even live under a democracy when we have secret trials and secret laws. >> If you have a problem with it, stand for election. That's a guaranteed way to waste time and money while achieving nothing.
quasque 12y ago
I find this view rather short-sighted. To some extent I agree with you that there are benefits to mass surveillance, and that on the whole it is (probably) not currently being widely abused. However, this is not predictive of the future. By setting up such a pervasive surveillance machine, this massively enables abuses by future governments that may not be quite as benign towards its citizens. Just consider how 'useful' this mass data mining of private communications would have been for the East German Stasi, or during McCarthyism in the USA, or many other examples of overly authoritarian governance. The danger is that a system set up to protect state security, ostensibly with the best of intentions, can be subverted later on as a tool of governmental abuse.
SeanDav 12y ago
This attitude is incredibly naive (the fact that you made an account 2 hours ago to express this opinion, means you probably agree and are just trolling). Governments change, but data is forever, what you say now or do in public may be politically neutral or acceptable at the moment, but might be worth a jail sentence in 20 years time. Your data will never disappear and you can be held accountable for something you said 15 years ago, even if your opinion has changed or if it was out of context. For example, have you ever expressed a view about abortion, either for or against (or homosexuality, or religion, or politics? Right now any of the views you expressed may be socially and legally acceptable. It is conceivable that the legal views on this could change 10 years down the line and if you expressed a view that is out of favor with a government of the future you could potentially be in serious trouble.

duairc 12y ago

> We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern. > > If you have a problem with it, stand for election. There must be a name for this kind of fallacy.

edanm 12y ago
Is it really a fallacy? Part of democracy is accepting that you don't necessarily agree with everyone about everything, and you have to compromise.
- ionised 12y ago
  When you have secret laws that protect secret proceedings or as we actually have now, agencies that operate in a legal black hole and are completely unaccountable then yes, the idea that this is somehow a democracy is comical.
  - grkvlt 12y ago
    No. Just because one part of an organisation does not have a particular property, it does not negate that property for all other parts. The USA and UK are, quite obviously, democracies. There are free and fair secret elections for government in which anyone can vote, and anyone can stand for election as a candidate. That makes them democracies, the behaviour of their secret intelligence services is irrelevant. I worry about the thought processes that must occur for people to think this; or similar things, like conflating an instance of some law enforcement department abusing its power with a totalitarian police state... I understand hyperbole as a rhetorical device, but it isn't helpful when assumed as fact.
    - ionised 12y ago
      > There are free and fair secret elections. Sorry, but I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one. Lobbying and uncapped campaign donations are tantamount to legalised bribery. The system is utterly corrupt. Free they may be, but calling them fair is a gross misrepresentation in my opinion. > I worry about the thought processes that must occur for people to think this; or similar things, like conflating an instance of some law enforcement department abusing its power with a totalitarian police state. We're not saying it's a police state. We're saying it is becoming one because of the very tools that these agencies possess and abuse without accountability. As an example, you've basically had a man (a criminal) James Clapper lie directly to congress knowingly and unabashedly. He's somehow still walking around, free and lol'ing at the general public he so joyously likes to mislead and scaremonger. > I worry about the thought processes that must occur for people to think this; or similar things. I honestly think the same of people who think that there is no problem here, nothing to worry about or even that it's a good thing. I honestly can't wrap my head around the immense wilfull ignorance some people seem to be displaying. It makes me sad, angry and disgusted all at once.
      - grkvlt 12y ago
        > We're not saying it's a police state. We're saying it is becoming one because of the very tools that these agencies possess and abuse without accountability Right, this is my problem. I have no problem with posession of these tools. States possess much worse things, nuclear weapons spring to mind. And abuse of these tools in an unaccountable fashion is wrong, 100% with you on that. However it is not clear to me that such abuses have occurred, or are occurring in a systematic way. Are there any documented (to the extent possible) cases of this? I didn't think even the Snowden documents showed that. In fact, it looked like they were full of caveats about US and UK citizen surveillance being a problematic area, and stated requirements for legal reviews and checks in these cases?
  - edanm 12y ago
    As grkvlt has said, this isn't a black or white issue. We're not either a) a democracy or b) not a democracy, we're obviously more democratic in some areas and less so in others. I agree that having secret proceedings, etc., is a big problem. But there are cases where they're necessary, or at least many people think so. Like it or not, changing the way things work now means gaining some things (e.g. more freedom, more transparency) but potentially giving some things up (some measure of security). Some people might be willing to give up different measures of freedom for different measures of security - others will have different numbers. That's why, in a democracy, we either convince people or compromise with them.
- eevilspock 12y ago
  Say you were born in 1850, but had the understanding about race and slavery that you do now. Slavery makes you angry (I'm assuming here) and you make an impassioned post about the evils of slavery. In reply you get, "We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern." Is it "sad that it makes you 'angry' that some people simply disagree with you"? Is it ok to dismiss your anger because you don't "stand for election"?
  - edanm 12y ago
    I think if I were born in 1850, the right thing to do would be to try and convince other people of why I'm right about race and slavery. Yes, part of democracy is accepting that some people will disagree with you. The right way to go is to either compromise or to convince them you're right. Incidentally, that's what actually happens most of the time.
collyw 12y ago
I call it "faith in democracy", as there is no evidence of it happening in any modern "democracy". Just got to believe....
pdkl95 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

noir_lord 12y ago

Created 9 minutes ago (as of this post) and has one post. Doffs tin foil hat. I see this a lot on a variety of forums whenever topics like this come up. It would be interesting to do an analysis of the age of the average commenter’s account by topic across popular comment type sites.

pja 12y ago
We know that the security state is spending large amounts of money employing people to run 'personas' on social media sites, make blog comments etc etc. Sometimes these are spectacularly obvious, but there are plenty who are good enough at their work to look plausible. The goal is to create the feeling amongst those who are seeking to change the status quo that the population is not with them & that changing things will be difficult, whilst at the same time creating the impression for anyone reading the comments that certain viewpoints are unpopular or contested.
- grkvlt 12y ago
  Yes, I'm sure this has happened many times, and will continue to happen, although probably not as much on HN as on jihadi extremist forums and so on... But the knee-jerk responses of 'shill' or 'astroturfer' to dismiss anyone whose opinion differs from the local majority is sad, and seems to be getting more common on many sites I frequent.

aluhut 12y ago

What are these benefits?

peterlawest 12y ago
I believe it helps ensure security. I don't believe they'd bother doing it if it didn't. I think you're a bit arrogant for assuming they give a fuck what you write to your girlfriend on iMessages. I know you probably disagree with that, but this is my point - not everyone agrees that surveillance is bad. And I'm not alone - I think most people don't really care about surveillance. And this isn't a conspiracy - it's just a simple case of people not agreeing with you - this happens - get over it.
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  having a policeman standing in your kitchen to prevent domestic dispute, ensuring security. a webcam in all bedrooms would ensure more security and possibly prevent other types of crime. most people wouldn't go for those - some security measures are too invasive and ripe for abuse to support. unless you've missed it, your location and contact endpoints are now permanently stored, and some of your conversations both written and audible are. if one of your associates is within a certain number of hops from someone deemed undesirable - so are you. the reason the london met phone hacking scandal resulted in outcry was that the general public could understand what happened. this is slightly beyond their ken but it's the same problem - questionable powers that are ripe for abuse.
- ionised 12y ago
  > I believe it helps ensure security. Your beliefs are wrong, as we have been shown that this mass surveillance has failed to prevent even one terrorist attack since its inception. Couple that with the immense amount of (wasted) tax payer money it costs to run and you've got a disgusting abuse of power and resources in exchange for the mere illusion of security to those who fail to actually do the research required to see through the bullshit.
  - quasque 12y ago

ionised 12y ago

There hasn't been any evidence to support these 'benefits'.

peterlawest 12y ago
I don't know what else to say apart from that I've seen the same coverage as you, and I'm not bothered by it. I'm sorry that this seems to infuriate you people so much, but that's my opinion. If I'm happy with it, I'm happy with it. So are many people. Your indignation isn't going to going to change my mind, or many other people's minds.
- gjm11 12y ago
  Downvoting for "you people", a phrase which pretty much universally seems to indicate dismissive contempt and disinterest in engaging the other party's point of view.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >I don't know what else to say apart from that I've seen the same coverage as you, and I'm not bothered by it. Sure, but then again the majority of Southerners weren't bothered by the slavery or the lynchings either. It took a civil war to make them change their ways. I mean, if we are to put "not bothered" as some kind of argument.
  - eevilspock 12y ago
    Sadly, even 100 years after the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation, and 200 years after the Declaration that "all men are created equal", we had huge resistance to the much belated civil rights acts of the 60's. Yes, peterlawest is entirely right. Our indignation isn't going to going to change his mind, or that of many others like him. "People don't change their minds. They die, and are replaced by people with different opinions" -- Arturo Albergati, via Paul Graham (http://www.paulgraham.com/quo.html http://www.paulgraham.com/quo.html) "Science progresses one funeral at a time." -- Max Planck

yodsanklai 12y ago

> Like anything, it can be abused, but I don't think that outweighs the benefits. In a recent past, my great-grand-father was arrested and beaten up by the Gestapo for his political views (sorry for the emotional argument but i think it's appropriate). My point is that even if you perceive your country as a democracy where the leaders behave for the best, it may not be so forever. And as history shows, it can change very fast. It's important that we have strong laws that protect the people from their leaders.

pizza234 12y ago

There are a few problems in here. Most notably though, I find terrible the statement that "we have a democracy" when essentially what we're talking about are tools whose abuse (which is going to be very welcomed by the government[s]) is exactly to suppress the democracy itself. Not only this, but also that fact the this is put in a context where government[s] are increasingly given powers to silence dissidence and legally rape people (or minorities, at worst), in an immoral (probable cause hello!) or worst, unlawful way (Snowden docs here). All of this, with the fact that the "benefits" are not proven, and are actually very arguable. It's naive to think that indiscriminately listening to a billion conversations is an easy way to investigate "terrorism". I don't think honestly that it's a well informed opinion to assume that we have a democracy just because we can vote somebody; more specifically, black/hispanic low-class people would not have the same opinion, at least, in some countries.

grkvlt 12y ago
> government[s] are increasingly given powers to silence dissidence and legally rape people 1. Governments have always had these powers. The state has 'a monopoly on violence' and that can be abused in many different ways, without the need for pervasive surveillance. But it isn't, at least in the USA and the UK, we don't have 'death squads' roaming the streets or summary extra-judicial executions by firing squad for supporting the wrong political party, or having the wrong religion. 2. Wait, legally rape people... What?

pja 12y ago

The communists claimed to have a democracy too. A state can maintain all the forms of democracy whilst in reality being run on a completely different basis by a parallel internal oligarchy. "If you have a problem with it, stand for election" is facile: First past the post electoral district representative governments are almost designed to eliminate single issue candidates from ever having any electoral power. The only way to make a difference is to convince the main parties that this matters & that takes years of ground work against a well funded group which will oppose your every move using its access to the machinery of government. It isn't called the military-industrial-congressional complex for nothing you know. As an aside, very few people have a problem with targeted government surveillance. What I have a problem with is the dragnet sweeping up of every communication, keeping as much as possible for future use against anyone and anybody whilst keeping this policy secret from the population in question. Historically this kind of action has been seen as a signifier of a totalitarian states who are afraid of their own population revolting against them and I fear that the UK/US (and by extension the five-eyes countries) have put in place the full machinery for a panopticon, in which any dissent against the ruling cadres is quietly quashed. This isn't a road I personally wish to see my country taking, yet the politicians and public at large seem blind to the risk, handing over sweeping powers to the security services with almost no oversight or control.

coldtea 12y ago

>I consider myself an educated, well-informed person, and I have no problem whatsoever with government surveillance Well, I don't consider that stance well-informed. Surely its not informed of the tons of abuses of surveillance from "democratic" governments. And its also not informed of thousands of people rotting in jail, targeted by the police, tortured etc. Perhaps people who think that way, believe that all governments are like their local bubble -- or that it has to be some third-world dictatorship for those abuses to happen. But I'm pretty sure they're also misinformed about the abuses in their local bubble too. If you're an American for example, you might not know FBI has an attrocious record (under McCarthyism, under the the direction of Hoover, in the sixties against students and black protesters, up to Occupy Wall Street). If you're British, you might not know of an equally disgusting history. And don't get me started on places like Italy, Greece, Spain etc. Or Latin America for that matter. Or they know those things but just don't care, because either "this time is different" ("and now we're fully and trully a transparent democracy" -- which is the most laughable ignorance one can muster), or they agree with the abuses. But there's an even easier explanation: they only care for themselves, and since they don't ever do anything to challenge things you think they are safe. And it might even be true. But those that do challenge things (from civil rights activists to new political parties, and from artists to people experimenting with new ways of living), are the ones who make society better. Not the cover-my-asses. And it's those people who challenge things that very much are targeted by the abuses. And what exactly are the benefits? Living in a nanny state? [edit: fixed typo, child commenter: you a funny man]

pjc50 12y ago
nunny state No, that's Ireland (where the investigation of a mass grave of children in a nunnery is failing to get off the ground)

kghose 12y ago

Isn't it ironic that you are being downvoted?

Shish2k 12y ago

> We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern. I think those are separate things -- being in a democracy means the majority decide what happens; it doesn't mean that the majority are well-informed rational deciders of objective truth. If the government were kicking puppies for entertainment, and nobody knew about it, then the majority wouldn't use their democratic powers to vote against that either :P

pjc50 12y ago

Standing for election will potentially get you put on a list of "extremists": http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/green-party-peer-put-on-database-of-extremists-by-police http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/green-party-... The question is not so much can it be abused, but to what extent it is being abused. Remember, the security services are not above having people murdered if they're sufficiently troublesome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21283169 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21283169

Nursie 12y ago

>> I consider myself an educated, well-informed person, and I have no problem whatsoever with government surveillance. Like anything, it can be abused, but I don't think that outweighs the benefits. You have cared enough to actually think about it and are prepared to engage in debate. Congrats, you are more interested/intelligent than 90% of the population. >> I think it's sad that it makes you 'angry' that some people simply disagree with you. No, I'm angry that most people don't care enough or aren't smart enough to think about it, and that's the majority, and so nothing can be done. Your assertion that I'm angry that people disagree with me is incorrect and patronising. >> We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern. Our democracy is incredibly weak, it's arguable we even live under a democracy when we have secret trials and secret laws. >> If you have a problem with it, stand for election. That's a guaranteed way to waste time and money while achieving nothing.

quasque 12y ago

I find this view rather short-sighted. To some extent I agree with you that there are benefits to mass surveillance, and that on the whole it is (probably) not currently being widely abused. However, this is not predictive of the future. By setting up such a pervasive surveillance machine, this massively enables abuses by future governments that may not be quite as benign towards its citizens. Just consider how 'useful' this mass data mining of private communications would have been for the East German Stasi, or during McCarthyism in the USA, or many other examples of overly authoritarian governance. The danger is that a system set up to protect state security, ostensibly with the best of intentions, can be subverted later on as a tool of governmental abuse.

SeanDav 12y ago

This attitude is incredibly naive (the fact that you made an account 2 hours ago to express this opinion, means you probably agree and are just trolling). Governments change, but data is forever, what you say now or do in public may be politically neutral or acceptable at the moment, but might be worth a jail sentence in 20 years time. Your data will never disappear and you can be held accountable for something you said 15 years ago, even if your opinion has changed or if it was out of context. For example, have you ever expressed a view about abortion, either for or against (or homosexuality, or religion, or politics? Right now any of the views you expressed may be socially and legally acceptable. It is conceivable that the legal views on this could change 10 years down the line and if you expressed a view that is out of favor with a government of the future you could potentially be in serious trouble.