5 ms·

I think there will need to be another wave of global revolutions to end this. Even the vast majority of "democratic" governments are extremely reluctant to give

I think there will need to be another wave of global revolutions to end this. Even the vast majority of "democratic" governments are extremely reluctant to give this power up now, and the more they use it the harder they will fight against giving it up, which probably means violent and bloody revolutions will be necessary to regain the rights we thought we already (re)gained decades or centuries ago. When people caught doing it will be severely punished, then you'll know the tide has turned. Until then, even if new laws are passed to "limit" the surveillance, they probably won't change much, as they'll keep doing it in secret, and then get protected by higher-ups when getting caught.

nmrm 12y ago
> violent and bloody revolutions will be necessary to regain the rights we thought we already (re)gained decades or centuries ago. Digital privacy is one of these funny freedoms which everyone either greatly over or under-estimates. I don't think anyone with a firm grasp on politics really thinks digital privacy will spark violent uprisings, so I'll put the question another way: do you really believe you're morally justified in killing over domestic spying?
- jcbrand 12y ago
  It's not "digital" privacy, it's just privacy. Even if you avoid digitally networked devices(which is almost impossible), your photos still appear on facebook et al, you're still being recorded by CCTV everywhere you go, your banking transactions and medical data is still being recorded etc.
  - meowface 12y ago
    Privacy isn't exactly a black and white thing. You have no expectation of privacy if you're in a public street, so being filmed isn't the worst thing in the world. If you're filmed in your own home, perhaps through your webcam, then that's a different story.
    - jcbrand 12y ago
      If the CCTV cameras weren't connected to the internet and their recordings were periodically deleted, this wouldn't be a problem at all. Even Richard Stallman has said as much. What however is happening more and more, is that recorded data is kept indefinitely and is networked. Have you heard what Binney has said what the software he wrote for the NSA does? There are various domains from where it gathers data (cellphone, banking, social media, gps etc.). These domains are graphed and mapped in such a way that they can pull out all the attributes any individual has from any any or all of the domains. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=590cy1biewc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=590cy1biewc In other words, the data doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's all being graphed and correlated in order to build a comprehensive picture of your life.
- john_b 12y ago
  I don't think anyone except a few fringe anarcho-libertarian types really expects masses of people to start a violent uprising solely because of government and corporate spying. What's really dangerous about ubiquitous spying is that it enables other abuses and forms of corruption that were previously impossible or cost-prohibitive. It's these abuses, which seem virtually inevitable in a privacy-less world, which will likely incite public anger and resistance.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
happyscrappy 12y ago
You can be as bloody and violent as you like, the genie is not going back into the bottle. Satellite imaging is improving, the cost of cameras and storage are falling, all manner of sensors are improving daily. I don't know what the answer is, but it is not some foolish violence.
- pling 12y ago
  Civilian monitoring networks. We watch back?
  - jcbrand 12y ago
    I'm also starting to think that the genie is out of the bottle and the only solution is to "democratize" surveillance.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      I agree and I wonder if the right thing to do might be completely abandoning the concept of privacy. I think it might happen regardless of what we do, so maybe instead of trying to fight to the last drop of blood, we should just run full-speed in the other direction. Just embrace, as a society, that everyone can know everything about everybody, and learn to live honestly. It's just a thought that has been floating around my head recently.
      - frabcus 12y ago
        I'm told David Brin's (non-fiction) "The Transparent Society" covers this idea in detail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
      - contingencies 12y ago
        Taking responsibility for your own actions is a key part of growing up and the central tenet of major world philosophies such as Buddhism. However, modern social science indicates clearly that people behave differently when they believe they are under surveillance and when part of large groups. So there is a real, psychological requirement for privacy and anonymity some of the time. There has to be space for this... a balance. In general, "behind closed doors" has been put forward as an appropriate scope for that in a physical sense, though we are increasingly digitally monitored there as well. For instance, it is not uncommon for national gestapo of various ilks to seize hardware and search for digital evidence when someone is 'suspected' of something (ie. pretty much as they please). Similarly, mobile and landline telephones and wifi access are monitored, as is probably cable TV activity. And in general, the population of many regions is uploading photos of each other in these environments, providing streams of public social network and other online activity that can accurately predict their movements in and out of the home. So pretending that "behind closed doors" means private doesn't really fly anymore. In addition to this personal privacy, we need an option for public anonymity ... including online.

nmrm 12y ago

> violent and bloody revolutions will be necessary to regain the rights we thought we already (re)gained decades or centuries ago. Digital privacy is one of these funny freedoms which everyone either greatly over or under-estimates. I don't think anyone with a firm grasp on politics really thinks digital privacy will spark violent uprisings, so I'll put the question another way: do you really believe you're morally justified in killing over domestic spying?

jcbrand 12y ago
It's not "digital" privacy, it's just privacy. Even if you avoid digitally networked devices(which is almost impossible), your photos still appear on facebook et al, you're still being recorded by CCTV everywhere you go, your banking transactions and medical data is still being recorded etc.
- meowface 12y ago
  Privacy isn't exactly a black and white thing. You have no expectation of privacy if you're in a public street, so being filmed isn't the worst thing in the world. If you're filmed in your own home, perhaps through your webcam, then that's a different story.
  - jcbrand 12y ago
    If the CCTV cameras weren't connected to the internet and their recordings were periodically deleted, this wouldn't be a problem at all. Even Richard Stallman has said as much. What however is happening more and more, is that recorded data is kept indefinitely and is networked. Have you heard what Binney has said what the software he wrote for the NSA does? There are various domains from where it gathers data (cellphone, banking, social media, gps etc.). These domains are graphed and mapped in such a way that they can pull out all the attributes any individual has from any any or all of the domains. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=590cy1biewc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=590cy1biewc In other words, the data doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's all being graphed and correlated in order to build a comprehensive picture of your life.
john_b 12y ago
I don't think anyone except a few fringe anarcho-libertarian types really expects masses of people to start a violent uprising solely because of government and corporate spying. What's really dangerous about ubiquitous spying is that it enables other abuses and forms of corruption that were previously impossible or cost-prohibitive. It's these abuses, which seem virtually inevitable in a privacy-less world, which will likely incite public anger and resistance.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

happyscrappy 12y ago

You can be as bloody and violent as you like, the genie is not going back into the bottle. Satellite imaging is improving, the cost of cameras and storage are falling, all manner of sensors are improving daily. I don't know what the answer is, but it is not some foolish violence.

pling 12y ago
Civilian monitoring networks. We watch back?
- jcbrand 12y ago
  I'm also starting to think that the genie is out of the bottle and the only solution is to "democratize" surveillance.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    I agree and I wonder if the right thing to do might be completely abandoning the concept of privacy. I think it might happen regardless of what we do, so maybe instead of trying to fight to the last drop of blood, we should just run full-speed in the other direction. Just embrace, as a society, that everyone can know everything about everybody, and learn to live honestly. It's just a thought that has been floating around my head recently.
    - frabcus 12y ago
      I'm told David Brin's (non-fiction) "The Transparent Society" covers this idea in detail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
    - contingencies 12y ago
      Taking responsibility for your own actions is a key part of growing up and the central tenet of major world philosophies such as Buddhism. However, modern social science indicates clearly that people behave differently when they believe they are under surveillance and when part of large groups. So there is a real, psychological requirement for privacy and anonymity some of the time. There has to be space for this... a balance. In general, "behind closed doors" has been put forward as an appropriate scope for that in a physical sense, though we are increasingly digitally monitored there as well. For instance, it is not uncommon for national gestapo of various ilks to seize hardware and search for digital evidence when someone is 'suspected' of something (ie. pretty much as they please). Similarly, mobile and landline telephones and wifi access are monitored, as is probably cable TV activity. And in general, the population of many regions is uploading photos of each other in these environments, providing streams of public social network and other online activity that can accurately predict their movements in and out of the home. So pretending that "behind closed doors" means private doesn't really fly anymore. In addition to this personal privacy, we need an option for public anonymity ... including online.