5 ms·

The sad thing is that you don't have to have real surveillance to do this. All you need is the belief that the surveillance is going on. It would be a great pl

The sad thing is that you don't have to have real surveillance to do this. All you need is the belief that the surveillance is going on. It would be a great plot for a movie: Snowden et al, were given fake information to lead the world to believe it was being surveilled, eliminating a lot of bad behavior.

danepowell 12y ago
Except it doesn't it really eliminate bad behavior- it just stifles innovation and civil liberty.
- golemotron 12y ago
  I'm sure it eliminates some bad behavior too. Just not bad behavior from the very determined.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    In general, no. When you start assuming everyone is a bad guy you end up with everyone from journalists to drug dealers to captains of industry trying to make sure their own secrets are safe from the surveillance machine. The surveillance people have a saying. To find a needle in a haystack first you need a haystack. But you don't want a bleeding haystack, you just want the needle -- and now you've put a haystack on top of it. Now all the good guys are developing and using anti-surveillance methods. The bad guys were already assuming they were under surveillance. They aren't being deterred by surveillance of everybody else, they're just getting access to new tools developed by the good guys, and are aided by the fact that anti-surveillance methods are no longer suspicious.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
> It would be a great plot for a movie: Snowden et al, were given fake information to lead the world to believe it was being surveilled, eliminating a lot of bad behavior. Potentially saving the government a lot of money in the process. Money, which in the movie of course went to private hands of evil politicians and businessmen instead of being saved. As the plot develops, the protagonist slowly uncovers the evidence of that widespread conspiracy and in the climax (after enough scenery porn and helicopter chases to justify the budget for 3D version) heroicly exposes corrupt actors for what they are to the entire world. Cue in happy ending and closing credits, as behind them the whole world tears itself apart in a yet another case of Hollywood not thinking through the morality and consequences of protagonist's actions. I'd definitely go see that movie.
- golemotron 12y ago
  I would too, except that the way you've described it, the script will probably go to Michael Bay. Nah, I'd go regardless.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    I was aiming for an even funnier twist of Government Was Right After All, Asimov's "The Dead Past"-style. The world goes to hell because the illusion of surveillance was actually effective in preventing terrorism (also sneaking in a jab at the ending of "Surrogates").
SilasX 12y ago
Even better: prosecute people in high profile case, but they turn out to be completely fake personas -- actors hired to appear in court to look like they're coming down hard.
pdeuchler 12y ago
A "fun" conspiracy theory I've been mulling over for a bit... What if Snowden was a false flag operation? After all, what good is panopticon if nobody is aware of it?
- glitchdout 12y ago
  > what good is panopticon if nobody is aware of it? You can blackmail all those in positions of power (politicians , judges, etc) into doing what you want? Who cares what the rest of the population (those low-life sheep) think. (This is what most likely goes on in their minds.)
- jacquesm 12y ago
  About as much as a doomsday device.
- colechristensen 12y ago
  The best false flag is when the actor doesn't know he's in on it. See Snowden doing the things he's doing, let him do them with minimal restraint, and let the truth into the wild. However, I don't actually believe it. This assumes competence above and beyond reasonable suspicion. It's much more believable that security was really just very poor. At some point somebody might have done a little less than possible to let him go, but that's about as much as I'm willing to believe.
- EC1 12y ago
  God damnit I don't know what to believe any more.
  - Cyther606 12y ago
    Snowden steered the conversation towards the US political establishment's _massive_ hypocrisy. At the time, the US was wagging their finger hard at Chinese tech companies, as if to say US tech companies would never stoop to the level of backdooring consumer hardware or spying on their users and handing that data over wholesale to government spies. In addition to embarassing the American political establishment, Snowden revealed JTRIG; he revealed acts of industrial and political espionage; and he revealed the undermining of public cryptographic standards by government henchmen. This to me is the big one, and it's why it's so unlikely for Snowden to be a limited hangout. Prior to Snowden, if you weren't being paranoid, you were just sticking your head in the sand. You would be exposing yourself to the risks of parallel construction, backdoors in hardware, sabotage of public cryptographic standards, and the manipulation of online discourse if Snowden hadn't given people like me the power to credibly parry critics who are all too quick to discredit with terms like "troll" and "conspiracy theorist". Snowden showed James Clapper to be a criminal, too. And the IRS claiming its own electronic paper trail of criminality could be somehow "lost" in this age of pervasive surveillance lends credibility to the idea of there being a clear divide between those who are above the law, and the rest of us. The Rulers and the Ruled.
vorg 12y ago
> you don't have to have real surveillance to do this. All you need is the belief that the surveillance is going on A standard play these thugs often set up is a single intricate surveillance incident where the mark knows they're being watched very closely, then do another one much later on. This is intended to leave the victim in a state of constant paranoia during the majority of the times they're not being watched. It takes a lot of self-control to remain calm most times when this one's used against you. Another technique when the surveillers have less control is the fatwa. I was in Hong Kong about 12 years ago on a ferry from some outer island when one (a young Australian-sounding male) of two people talking a few seats behind me suddenly said to the other (a young North American girl) "There's some people back home who want to know where in the world that guy up there is at all times. I better ring this in." He then talked loudly on the phone giving some details about me. The girl he was with had an embarrassed expression on her face like she couldn't believe what she was hearing. This all happened while I was moving from Melbourne (Australia, not Florida) to China to live. Unfortunately, that surveillance fatwa against me seems to still be in place over a decade later, and those who issued it are even willing to nudge along local people in China to use methods that would be illegal back in Australia/NZ. Perhaps good news is that those in control of the surveillance always use intermediaries to hide themselves, and most intermediaries have a need to show off rather than hide themselves. By doing things like talking to yourself or "to God" a lot out loud within hearing of where bugs may be, changing what you say for different locations, you can often find out something about probable actors involved when stuff you've said comes back to you.
- tomlongson 12y ago
  Why was there a fatwa against you?
  - vorg 12y ago
    You won't find the reason in any public court document, nor will asking the populace involved reveal the real intent because the reason such puppeteers give their intermediaries, often different reasons to different intermediaries, is never the real purpose behind surveillance. Much targeted surveillance using human agents becomes interference of some sort by those same agents. Often when surveillance becomes interference, the puppeteers tell their intermediaries they're trying to "help" the mark, but in reality, they're only pretending because the real intent of anyone behind this type of activity is always to harm. I experienced this when someone up here tried to shunt me out of work teaching college students and into work teaching children, telling people I should do the work that pays the most. They pretended to be helping so they would appear to be "good guys" to their intermediaries, but their puppeteers were really conducting harmful manipulation for their own ends. They ultimate reason behind surveillance, whether one-to-one or broadcasted "fatwas", seems to be to protect free cash flows, or maintain power structures, and what not.
lectrick 12y ago
> fake information to lead the world to believe it was being surveilled This already exists... and has for thousands of years. It's called "religion." ;)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

danepowell 12y ago

Except it doesn't it really eliminate bad behavior- it just stifles innovation and civil liberty.

golemotron 12y ago
I'm sure it eliminates some bad behavior too. Just not bad behavior from the very determined.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  In general, no. When you start assuming everyone is a bad guy you end up with everyone from journalists to drug dealers to captains of industry trying to make sure their own secrets are safe from the surveillance machine. The surveillance people have a saying. To find a needle in a haystack first you need a haystack. But you don't want a bleeding haystack, you just want the needle -- and now you've put a haystack on top of it. Now all the good guys are developing and using anti-surveillance methods. The bad guys were already assuming they were under surveillance. They aren't being deterred by surveillance of everybody else, they're just getting access to new tools developed by the good guys, and are aided by the fact that anti-surveillance methods are no longer suspicious.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

> It would be a great plot for a movie: Snowden et al, were given fake information to lead the world to believe it was being surveilled, eliminating a lot of bad behavior. Potentially saving the government a lot of money in the process. Money, which in the movie of course went to private hands of evil politicians and businessmen instead of being saved. As the plot develops, the protagonist slowly uncovers the evidence of that widespread conspiracy and in the climax (after enough scenery porn and helicopter chases to justify the budget for 3D version) heroicly exposes corrupt actors for what they are to the entire world. Cue in happy ending and closing credits, as behind them the whole world tears itself apart in a yet another case of Hollywood not thinking through the morality and consequences of protagonist's actions. I'd definitely go see that movie.

golemotron 12y ago
I would too, except that the way you've described it, the script will probably go to Michael Bay. Nah, I'd go regardless.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  I was aiming for an even funnier twist of Government Was Right After All, Asimov's "The Dead Past"-style. The world goes to hell because the illusion of surveillance was actually effective in preventing terrorism (also sneaking in a jab at the ending of "Surrogates").

SilasX 12y ago

Even better: prosecute people in high profile case, but they turn out to be completely fake personas -- actors hired to appear in court to look like they're coming down hard.

pdeuchler 12y ago

A "fun" conspiracy theory I've been mulling over for a bit... What if Snowden was a false flag operation? After all, what good is panopticon if nobody is aware of it?

glitchdout 12y ago
> what good is panopticon if nobody is aware of it? You can blackmail all those in positions of power (politicians , judges, etc) into doing what you want? Who cares what the rest of the population (those low-life sheep) think. (This is what most likely goes on in their minds.)
jacquesm 12y ago
About as much as a doomsday device.
colechristensen 12y ago
The best false flag is when the actor doesn't know he's in on it. See Snowden doing the things he's doing, let him do them with minimal restraint, and let the truth into the wild. However, I don't actually believe it. This assumes competence above and beyond reasonable suspicion. It's much more believable that security was really just very poor. At some point somebody might have done a little less than possible to let him go, but that's about as much as I'm willing to believe.
EC1 12y ago
God damnit I don't know what to believe any more.
- Cyther606 12y ago
  Snowden steered the conversation towards the US political establishment's _massive_ hypocrisy. At the time, the US was wagging their finger hard at Chinese tech companies, as if to say US tech companies would never stoop to the level of backdooring consumer hardware or spying on their users and handing that data over wholesale to government spies. In addition to embarassing the American political establishment, Snowden revealed JTRIG; he revealed acts of industrial and political espionage; and he revealed the undermining of public cryptographic standards by government henchmen. This to me is the big one, and it's why it's so unlikely for Snowden to be a limited hangout. Prior to Snowden, if you weren't being paranoid, you were just sticking your head in the sand. You would be exposing yourself to the risks of parallel construction, backdoors in hardware, sabotage of public cryptographic standards, and the manipulation of online discourse if Snowden hadn't given people like me the power to credibly parry critics who are all too quick to discredit with terms like "troll" and "conspiracy theorist". Snowden showed James Clapper to be a criminal, too. And the IRS claiming its own electronic paper trail of criminality could be somehow "lost" in this age of pervasive surveillance lends credibility to the idea of there being a clear divide between those who are above the law, and the rest of us. The Rulers and the Ruled.

vorg 12y ago

> you don't have to have real surveillance to do this. All you need is the belief that the surveillance is going on A standard play these thugs often set up is a single intricate surveillance incident where the mark knows they're being watched very closely, then do another one much later on. This is intended to leave the victim in a state of constant paranoia during the majority of the times they're not being watched. It takes a lot of self-control to remain calm most times when this one's used against you. Another technique when the surveillers have less control is the fatwa. I was in Hong Kong about 12 years ago on a ferry from some outer island when one (a young Australian-sounding male) of two people talking a few seats behind me suddenly said to the other (a young North American girl) "There's some people back home who want to know where in the world that guy up there is at all times. I better ring this in." He then talked loudly on the phone giving some details about me. The girl he was with had an embarrassed expression on her face like she couldn't believe what she was hearing. This all happened while I was moving from Melbourne (Australia, not Florida) to China to live. Unfortunately, that surveillance fatwa against me seems to still be in place over a decade later, and those who issued it are even willing to nudge along local people in China to use methods that would be illegal back in Australia/NZ. Perhaps good news is that those in control of the surveillance always use intermediaries to hide themselves, and most intermediaries have a need to show off rather than hide themselves. By doing things like talking to yourself or "to God" a lot out loud within hearing of where bugs may be, changing what you say for different locations, you can often find out something about probable actors involved when stuff you've said comes back to you.

tomlongson 12y ago
Why was there a fatwa against you?
- vorg 12y ago
  You won't find the reason in any public court document, nor will asking the populace involved reveal the real intent because the reason such puppeteers give their intermediaries, often different reasons to different intermediaries, is never the real purpose behind surveillance. Much targeted surveillance using human agents becomes interference of some sort by those same agents. Often when surveillance becomes interference, the puppeteers tell their intermediaries they're trying to "help" the mark, but in reality, they're only pretending because the real intent of anyone behind this type of activity is always to harm. I experienced this when someone up here tried to shunt me out of work teaching college students and into work teaching children, telling people I should do the work that pays the most. They pretended to be helping so they would appear to be "good guys" to their intermediaries, but their puppeteers were really conducting harmful manipulation for their own ends. They ultimate reason behind surveillance, whether one-to-one or broadcasted "fatwas", seems to be to protect free cash flows, or maintain power structures, and what not.

lectrick 12y ago

> fake information to lead the world to believe it was being surveilled This already exists... and has for thousands of years. It's called "religion." ;)

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]