4 ms·

Is there not any rational reason for them to be unconcerned or for it? They probably believe that they will not be targeted by it, that if an algorithm scans o

by jfoster 12y ago

Is there not any rational reason for them to be unconcerned or for it? They probably believe that they will not be targeted by it, that if an algorithm scans over their data that it's no big deal, and that it may lead to some criminals being caught. They can live their entire lives from start to finish, and whether their own communications were ever intercepted will likely have had zero impact on their life. I'm not trying to be dismissive of people who are concerned, just wanting to point out that there are also valid reasons to take the other view.

NotAtWork 12y ago
These same people seem awfully shy when I ask to go through their photos, just to see if they have any using drugs. But that's exactly it: if you leave a gaping hole for the feds to get through I (in the sense of a hypothetical attacker) can go through it too, especially with how easily most federal secrets leak out and the fact that rekeying is essentially impossible for this use.
- jfoster 12y ago
  Of course they're shy of you going through their photos. They know you personally, and you are a person, not an algorithm. Whilst it is possible that a person may go through their photos as part of mass surveillance operations, they believe it's unlikely to happen. Your second point is true only if the access mechanism is reliant on weak security. It doesn't have to be.
otakucode 12y ago
>They probably believe that they will not be targeted by it That would not be rational. They have no capacity (nor does anyone else) to predict which of their behaviors will be cause for targetting at some point in the future. Additionally, once they are profiled for their 'normal usage pattern', any life changes which cause statistically significant alteration of that pattern are likely to result in scrutiny. For instance, you are currently involved in a conversation on a website called "Hacker News" with people whose backgrounds and motivations you do not know. The likelihood you're NOT connected to someone who is a criminal is probably very, very low. Everyone should expect to be targetted. If not today, then at any point for the rest of your life because all of these stores are maintained forever.
- jfoster 12y ago
  A mass, non-algorithmic, deep-dive approach is simply not economically feasible, so I don't agree that everyone should expect to come under scrutiny. The approach taken has to be targeted. That's not to say that there won't be completely innocent people who get scrutinized, but to me it seems that the average non-criminal person would be quite correct in assuming that the likelihood of ending up scrutinized by humans is minuscule. I probably should have mentioned in my original comment that looking at it this way is purely self-interested. In reality, perhaps there are non-average attributes (eg. particular religions) which might see clusters of innocent people scrutinized. People outside those clusters may or may not take issue with that. It depends on their values. I don't mean to suggest that one opinion or the other on this is "correct", just that there might be rational (albeit self-interested) views on both sides of the argument.
  - otakucode 12y ago
    >so I don't agree that everyone should expect to come under scrutiny I think we're just using the word 'scrutiny' differently. I count extensive computational analysis of behavior patterns to be scrutiny. My worries are not that a human being will listen to my calls, read my emails, etc. My worries are that a piece of software will do it. The piece of software knows exactly and precisely whether I deviate from the norm and it would have no tolerance whatever for such deviation. Yes, we could pretty much completely guarantee maintenance of the status quo with automated analysis and really very civilized and quiet means of disrupting communication. It would prevent revolutions, riots, terrorism, and all sorts of negative things. But it would also doom everyone to a quiet tyranny and completely prevent any improvements as well as detriments.

by jfoster 12y ago

NotAtWork 12y ago

These same people seem awfully shy when I ask to go through their photos, just to see if they have any using drugs. But that's exactly it: if you leave a gaping hole for the feds to get through I (in the sense of a hypothetical attacker) can go through it too, especially with how easily most federal secrets leak out and the fact that rekeying is essentially impossible for this use.

jfoster 12y ago
Of course they're shy of you going through their photos. They know you personally, and you are a person, not an algorithm. Whilst it is possible that a person may go through their photos as part of mass surveillance operations, they believe it's unlikely to happen. Your second point is true only if the access mechanism is reliant on weak security. It doesn't have to be.

otakucode 12y ago

>They probably believe that they will not be targeted by it That would not be rational. They have no capacity (nor does anyone else) to predict which of their behaviors will be cause for targetting at some point in the future. Additionally, once they are profiled for their 'normal usage pattern', any life changes which cause statistically significant alteration of that pattern are likely to result in scrutiny. For instance, you are currently involved in a conversation on a website called "Hacker News" with people whose backgrounds and motivations you do not know. The likelihood you're NOT connected to someone who is a criminal is probably very, very low. Everyone should expect to be targetted. If not today, then at any point for the rest of your life because all of these stores are maintained forever.

jfoster 12y ago
A mass, non-algorithmic, deep-dive approach is simply not economically feasible, so I don't agree that everyone should expect to come under scrutiny. The approach taken has to be targeted. That's not to say that there won't be completely innocent people who get scrutinized, but to me it seems that the average non-criminal person would be quite correct in assuming that the likelihood of ending up scrutinized by humans is minuscule. I probably should have mentioned in my original comment that looking at it this way is purely self-interested. In reality, perhaps there are non-average attributes (eg. particular religions) which might see clusters of innocent people scrutinized. People outside those clusters may or may not take issue with that. It depends on their values. I don't mean to suggest that one opinion or the other on this is "correct", just that there might be rational (albeit self-interested) views on both sides of the argument.
- otakucode 12y ago
  >so I don't agree that everyone should expect to come under scrutiny I think we're just using the word 'scrutiny' differently. I count extensive computational analysis of behavior patterns to be scrutiny. My worries are not that a human being will listen to my calls, read my emails, etc. My worries are that a piece of software will do it. The piece of software knows exactly and precisely whether I deviate from the norm and it would have no tolerance whatever for such deviation. Yes, we could pretty much completely guarantee maintenance of the status quo with automated analysis and really very civilized and quiet means of disrupting communication. It would prevent revolutions, riots, terrorism, and all sorts of negative things. But it would also doom everyone to a quiet tyranny and completely prevent any improvements as well as detriments.