4 ms·

I find it so depressing that the once beacons of "democracy" in the world, are rapidly trying to catch-up to China when it comes to surveillance, and even censo

I find it so depressing that the once beacons of "democracy" in the world, are rapidly trying to catch-up to China when it comes to surveillance, and even censorship, most of them already being well past the level of surveillance the Stasi or the communist states had. UK is probably the most aggressive from the ones trying to "win" this race right now with both its surveillance and its "porn & others filter". But Australia has been making some big moves lately as well trying to catch-up. US, of course, already has a mature level of surveillance of everyone, and it has also tried to introduce some censorship with with SOPA. It also has some Kafkaesque measure in place such as the no-fly lists of tens of thousand of people, put there with no evidence, just some suspicions. Then there is the TSA, the border checks where border can mean up to 50 miles from the border or more, the cash seizing, the civil forfeiture laws, the militarization of police and the increasing use of SWAT teams and "no-knock" warrants for non-violent crimes and so on. Canada has also tried a few times to introduce various surveillance laws, but it has been stopped by the population for the most part. What's even more worrying is that it's now pretty obvious all of these countries are working together and planning together when to introduce such laws, which is why you see statements within days or weeks at most from US, UK, Canada about "Tor being a threat" and online anonymity in general, and so on. They're also trying to introduce new surveillance laws more or less at the same time, because then they can make it look more like it's a "natural thing" to do - "hey, look, all democratic countries are doing it - how bad can it really be then?!". Except virtually none of them are doing it by consulting the population. The governments in power simply decide by themselves to introduce them, and that's it. At best, they try to push in the media some more extreme murder as a "danger to the nation" - and that we need these laws to protect against those kinds of murders". They're almost starting to turn this into a science. After all, they're already researching how to manipulate the public through Twitter, Facebook and so on. They're starting to figure out what "works" and how to press the public's hot buttons in order to get them to support whatever they want to pass.

tptacek 12y ago
The argument in this comment is nonsensical. The UK's civil rights scheme is significantly different from that of the US. The US and the UK do not in fact introduce surveillance bills in any kind of synchrony. The US funded Tor, and continues to fund the security of Tor and tools like it (that might be news to you; take my word for it, though: it's an overt, deliberate, and important program). And appeals to "that's how they do it in the UK" or "that's how they do it in the US" are more likely to alienate voters than to garner support. This reads more like free-association than truth-finding. But, good job for working SOPA into it!
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  > The argument in this comment is nonsensical. If I were to summarize higherpurpose's thesis for him I would write: Western governments once known for their commitments to freedom and civil liberties are now losing their ability to rightfully claim these good reputations. There are a number of current real world issues today, some mentioned in the article and others closely related, facing modern individual expression where the commitments that once gave these Western governments their good names are in fact being actively curtailed. We've seen a simultaneous rise in budding forms of both surveillance and censorship as well as a rise in the militarization of police and invasive executive and judicial techniques. Perhaps because Western countries share historical roots and political goals these changes have been so correlated in them - we've seen a lot of anecdotal evidence of this, some hard evidence in the form of reports from oversight committees and more hard evidence from leaked documents/cables and have good reasons to logically conclude that so partnering would be efficient and desirable to the agencies in question (motive, opportunity and evidence). I'm also starting to become aware not only of programs that watch societies but also ones that have degrees of success in manipulating them in targeted ways at scale. I am struck by how the nature of programs that seek active manipulation of political expression and emotion conflict with the commitments to individual liberty that I was raised to believe is the justification of the state. > The UK's civil rights scheme is significantly different from that of the US. He doesn't assume or state that. He merely states that both were examples of modern states that enshrine some sort of civil liberty. It does not matter whether the scheme is different or similar. > The US and the UK do not in fact introduce surveillance bills in any kind of synchrony I believe he's talking about the "UKUSA Agreement". At this level (the UKUSA agreement dates back now 70 years) synchronicity is not a discussion of days or weeks but of years. > The US funded Tor, and continues to fund the security of Tor and tools like it (that might be news to you; take my word for it, though: it's an overt, deliberate, and important program). I don't think this covers his point - he was using Tor as an example of a subject of internationally harmonized political media coverage. > And appeals to "that's how they do it in the UK" or "that's how they do it in the US" are more likely to alienate voters than to garner support. I'm not sure how to understand this comment or how it fits the discussion? You seem to be making a meta point about the strategic political value of invoking certain topics? Wouldn't engineering a comment to exclude these divorce it more from 'truth-finding' and more toward overt political maneuvering? Should we read your comments with the understanding you comb prose for how appeals will affect voters? > But, good job for working SOPA into it! IMO SOPA is on topic as per the summary at the top.
xnull2guest 12y ago
> US, of course, already has a mature level of surveillance of everyone, and it has also tried to introduce some censorship with with SOPA. SOPA, PIPA and ISP provisions in the TPP - there's been a lot of effort to pass legislation that would bring content filtering to the US. If done by the TPP it will be particularly difficult to stop. > Canada has also tried a few times to introduce various surveillance laws, but it has been stopped by the population for the most part. Canadian intelligence will partner with other countries to circumvent domestic law where it can. [1] [2] [1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-spy-agencies-chastised-for-duping-courts/article16081238/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-spy-age... [2] http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/25/court-rebukes-csis-for-secretly-asking-international-allies-to-spy-on-canadian-terror-suspects/ http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/25/court-rebukes-csis-f... As will others (including GCHQ, NSA). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8457529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8457529 > What's even more worrying is that it's now pretty obvious all of these countries are working together and planning together when to introduce such laws, which is why you see statements within days or weeks at most from US, UK, Canada about "Tor being a threat" and online anonymity in general, and so on. You'll even see countries promising each other as part of secret agreements that they will get their people to pass certain laws. http://youtu.be/Pbps1EwAW-0?t=50m29s http://youtu.be/Pbps1EwAW-0?t=50m29s > After all, they're already researching how to manipulate the public through Twitter, Facebook and so on. They're starting to figure out what "works" and how to press the public's hot buttons in order to get them to support whatever they want to pass. For those curious. http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/22/hacking-anonymous http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED-The... http://mirror.as35701.net/video.fosdem.org//2014/Janson/Sunday/NSA_operation_ORCHESTRA_Annual_Status_Report.webm http://mirror.as35701.net/video.fosdem.org//2014/Janson/Sund... http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world-of-quants-and-data-crunchers-who-helped-obama-win/ http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world... http://mprcenter.org/blog/2013/01/how-obama-won-the-social-media-battle-in-the-2012-presidential-campaign/ http://mprcenter.org/blog/2013/01/how-obama-won-the-social-m... https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/04/former-l-times-reporter-cleared-stories-cia-publication/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/04/former-l-times... http://www.msi.org/reports/distinguishing-among-mechanisms-of-social-contagion-in-new-product-adoption/ http://www.msi.org/reports/distinguishing-among-mechanisms-o... http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/massive_turnout.pdf http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/massive_turnout.pdf https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8476106 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8476106

tptacek 12y ago

The argument in this comment is nonsensical. The UK's civil rights scheme is significantly different from that of the US. The US and the UK do not in fact introduce surveillance bills in any kind of synchrony. The US funded Tor, and continues to fund the security of Tor and tools like it (that might be news to you; take my word for it, though: it's an overt, deliberate, and important program). And appeals to "that's how they do it in the UK" or "that's how they do it in the US" are more likely to alienate voters than to garner support. This reads more like free-association than truth-finding. But, good job for working SOPA into it!

xnull2guest 12y ago
> The argument in this comment is nonsensical. If I were to summarize higherpurpose's thesis for him I would write: Western governments once known for their commitments to freedom and civil liberties are now losing their ability to rightfully claim these good reputations. There are a number of current real world issues today, some mentioned in the article and others closely related, facing modern individual expression where the commitments that once gave these Western governments their good names are in fact being actively curtailed. We've seen a simultaneous rise in budding forms of both surveillance and censorship as well as a rise in the militarization of police and invasive executive and judicial techniques. Perhaps because Western countries share historical roots and political goals these changes have been so correlated in them - we've seen a lot of anecdotal evidence of this, some hard evidence in the form of reports from oversight committees and more hard evidence from leaked documents/cables and have good reasons to logically conclude that so partnering would be efficient and desirable to the agencies in question (motive, opportunity and evidence). I'm also starting to become aware not only of programs that watch societies but also ones that have degrees of success in manipulating them in targeted ways at scale. I am struck by how the nature of programs that seek active manipulation of political expression and emotion conflict with the commitments to individual liberty that I was raised to believe is the justification of the state. > The UK's civil rights scheme is significantly different from that of the US. He doesn't assume or state that. He merely states that both were examples of modern states that enshrine some sort of civil liberty. It does not matter whether the scheme is different or similar. > The US and the UK do not in fact introduce surveillance bills in any kind of synchrony I believe he's talking about the "UKUSA Agreement". At this level (the UKUSA agreement dates back now 70 years) synchronicity is not a discussion of days or weeks but of years. > The US funded Tor, and continues to fund the security of Tor and tools like it (that might be news to you; take my word for it, though: it's an overt, deliberate, and important program). I don't think this covers his point - he was using Tor as an example of a subject of internationally harmonized political media coverage. > And appeals to "that's how they do it in the UK" or "that's how they do it in the US" are more likely to alienate voters than to garner support. I'm not sure how to understand this comment or how it fits the discussion? You seem to be making a meta point about the strategic political value of invoking certain topics? Wouldn't engineering a comment to exclude these divorce it more from 'truth-finding' and more toward overt political maneuvering? Should we read your comments with the understanding you comb prose for how appeals will affect voters? > But, good job for working SOPA into it! IMO SOPA is on topic as per the summary at the top.

xnull2guest 12y ago

> US, of course, already has a mature level of surveillance of everyone, and it has also tried to introduce some censorship with with SOPA. SOPA, PIPA and ISP provisions in the TPP - there's been a lot of effort to pass legislation that would bring content filtering to the US. If done by the TPP it will be particularly difficult to stop. > Canada has also tried a few times to introduce various surveillance laws, but it has been stopped by the population for the most part. Canadian intelligence will partner with other countries to circumvent domestic law where it can. [1] [2] [1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-spy-agencies-chastised-for-duping-courts/article16081238/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-spy-age... [2] http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/25/court-rebukes-csis-for-secretly-asking-international-allies-to-spy-on-canadian-terror-suspects/ http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/25/court-rebukes-csis-f... As will others (including GCHQ, NSA). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8457529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8457529 > What's even more worrying is that it's now pretty obvious all of these countries are working together and planning together when to introduce such laws, which is why you see statements within days or weeks at most from US, UK, Canada about "Tor being a threat" and online anonymity in general, and so on. You'll even see countries promising each other as part of secret agreements that they will get their people to pass certain laws. http://youtu.be/Pbps1EwAW-0?t=50m29s http://youtu.be/Pbps1EwAW-0?t=50m29s > After all, they're already researching how to manipulate the public through Twitter, Facebook and so on. They're starting to figure out what "works" and how to press the public's hot buttons in order to get them to support whatever they want to pass. For those curious. http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/22/hacking-anonymous http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED-The... http://mirror.as35701.net/video.fosdem.org//2014/Janson/Sunday/NSA_operation_ORCHESTRA_Annual_Status_Report.webm http://mirror.as35701.net/video.fosdem.org//2014/Janson/Sund... http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world-of-quants-and-data-crunchers-who-helped-obama-win/ http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world... http://mprcenter.org/blog/2013/01/how-obama-won-the-social-media-battle-in-the-2012-presidential-campaign/ http://mprcenter.org/blog/2013/01/how-obama-won-the-social-m... https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/04/former-l-times-reporter-cleared-stories-cia-publication/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/04/former-l-times... http://www.msi.org/reports/distinguishing-among-mechanisms-of-social-contagion-in-new-product-adoption/ http://www.msi.org/reports/distinguishing-among-mechanisms-o... http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/massive_turnout.pdf http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/massive_turnout.pdf https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8476106 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8476106