14 ms·

Bills like this worry me greatly as an advocate for internet freedoms and because of a desire to a right to privacy. When I discuss government plans for the in

by jblok 12y ago

Bills like this worry me greatly as an advocate for internet freedoms and because of a desire to a right to privacy. When I discuss government plans for the internet with non-technical people it worries me even more that they aren't at all concerned about it. I hear arguments like 'I have nothing to hide' and 'If it stops terrorism, why not'. I try to tell people that they should demand a right to privacy from the state, but I find it hard to not come across as a tin foil hat wearing goverment-skeptic. What arguments do you use with people that don't understand the web all that well to get them to care about this stuff?

pjc50 12y ago
It's tricky because people find it hard to see the big systematic picture, and "respectable" people like to assume that the police are the good guys and anyone they oppose must be a bad guy. Your best bet is to find something where they disagree with the government or officialdom and build out from there. The "council uses RIPA surveillance to catch woman sending child to school in different catchment area" story is a good one here; almost everyone thinks that councils are officious busybodies. Health records privacy is another good one. "Do you think the government should track all your alcohol purchases?" (I wrote in a previous comment with a US context: - legal. It's against the law; there are strong 1st and 4th arguments against surveillance, and 5th and 6th amendment arguments as well. Some people have even tried to argue that if encryption is a munition the 2nd amendment applies. The "we could stop bad people" argument applies especially to the 4th. Similar legal protections exist in Europe, although not generally as strong (article 8). - practical: either a system is secure or it isn't. Handing it over to anyone increases the risk of compromise. Bans on effective encryption are self-defeating. - collateral damage: US intelligence agencies have a track record of killing innocent people themselves (e.g. drone strikes), supporting murderous governments (CIA in south america), funding terrorism and failing to prosecute the guilty (Iran-contra), use of intelligence for domestic immoral politics (Watergate, FBI vs MLK). Handing over data about your e.g. Chilean users to the CIA may result in them being murdered. - international hypocrisy: saying that mass surveillance is OK says it's OK for other governments too. Do you support Chinese interception against their adversaries? Are you happy to turn over your entire email history on entering a country? - finally, I'm going to question how much it does help. The Paris terrorists were known to the police, as was the killer of Lee Rigby. Intercept evidence is generally not used in trials. Nobody is presenting a cache of encrypted emails found on a computer used by the Parisian terrorists and saying "if we'd decrypted this we could have prevented it". Edit: see also on HN today https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/british-spy-agency-considers-journalists-threat-vacuums-their-emails https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/british-spy-agency-con...
- tomtoise 12y ago
  The last point is the strongest in this context. The others are a bit too straw-man (Do you support Chinese interception against their adversaries? Are you happy to turn over your entire email history on entering a country?) Not that I'm saying you're wrong, you're completely right. It's just that we need non-emotive and cool heads when we argue this.
  - pjc50 12y ago
    Why are those straw men? They're questions of universal applicability and jurisdiction, and both based on real things that have happened. For example, the proposition that "MI5 should have access to the full communications history of everyone in the country" implies that as people enter the country MI5 should acquire their entire email history.
    - tomtoise 12y ago
      You're dealing with 'could' and 'what if'. For example, you state that handing over data about Chilean users may result in them being murdered. I could just as easily argue that if you didn't hand over the data, Chilean users may be murdered. I'm not saying they will be or anything like that, obviously. Compared to your last point, which is rooted in solid fact (They were both monitored, it did nothing to prevent the attack) and can't be argued with, the other two are a bit.. flimsy. All I'm saying is if I was arguing against you (Which I'm not), it'd be easy to call you hysterical when you go on about murder and the Chinese. For clarity, ignored your first point because not US and second point is sound, so I left that out as well :)
      - pjc50 12y ago
        Ah I see - the inherent hypotheticalness of statements about the future. But as you say, the pro-surveillance case also rests on forward-looking statements about what the security services are going to do with the data. In that case we have to go backwards. The National reminded me today of this incident: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19860903&id=FbZAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qqUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2699,654646 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19860903&id=F... (Leon Brittan's involvment in politically motivated surveillance of CND). There's also the long and ugly history of Northern Ireland, and the more recent business of planting police informers in environmental groups. The problem with trying to use recent history to prove a point is that everyone's already made up their mind which side they're on for things like extraordinary rendition, "School of the Americas", torture, Iran-Contra, arms-to-Iraq (Matrix Churchill), etc. Matrix Churchill might be a good example, tbh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Report : MI5 instructed and secured secret permission for exports to Iraq, but then tried to protect the secrecy of this at the cost of not just allowing Matrix Churchill directors to be jailed but censoring their only legal defence and getting ministers to lie to parliament.
neuronic 12y ago
You could make an Angry Birds or Candy Crush saga add-on with an Internet security theme.
- amirmc 12y ago
  See http://beta.datadealer.com http://beta.datadealer.com
  - tomtoise 12y ago
    Oh great. A new way to waste my time at work. Ontopic though, this could actually be a good way to educate people on the dangers of sharing. Only 5 mins in myself so far though.
skidoo 12y ago
If they have nothing to hide, why not live with all doors and windows unlocked and wide open, round the clock? Why not permanently leave their keys in the ignition of their vehicles? Why not post their login info on their homepages or walls or whatever? I tell people nothing is free, and the freer something appears, the greater the inevitable cost. And when the cost involves rights, being innocent while being on the defensive is never ever a fun ordeal.
- rayiner 12y ago
  They mean they have nothing to hide from the government. That can be reconciled with locking their doors because they might trust the government more than their neighbors.
  - amirmc 12y ago
    Let's not extrapolate what we think they mean from what they actually say. Most people don't challenge their own opinions so even the 'locking your door' argument helps them begin to articulate more precisely. From there it's possible to have a discussion. You might arrive at a point where people understand the nuances of privacy and I still consider that a win (eg "I don't care if the police know about my affair but I don't want the neighbourhood to know")
    - rayiner 12y ago
      First, if you ask someone about government surveillance, you have to assume that context in evaluating their response. People don't parrot back context that's already part of the conversation. Second, I think you have to apply the principle of charity. Instead of assuming that people mindlessly parrot an opinion, think about what sorts of reasonable assumptions might render their positions self-consistent. One of the most powerful ways to persuade is to figure out someone else's reasoning to the point you can articulately argue their position, and then to refocus the disagreement on the assumptions underlying that reasoning.
      - 12y ago
JimmyM 12y ago
"It fundamentally changes the relationship between people and state." is the most ironclad argument I've heard. Albeit a bit of a cliché these days. There's some advantage to the tin foil hat, too. It's probably fine for now if you're not Muslim, but if you are then your associations and visited websites could be used to put you somewhere very uncomfortable without a trial. Say if libertarians or socialists or christian conservatives started carrying out attacks, your political and personal affiliations could make life very uncomfortable.
- ptaffs 12y ago
  Maybe you're being subtle, i agree with your point. >> christian conservatives started carrying out attacks The Centennial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta was such a thing, the KKK and anti-abortion terrorism is supposedly radicalized Christian. But because The Establishment is generally Conservative Christian, it's treated differently. I wish we could drop the affiliation and just call them Radicalized people. I'd hate to be associated with Radical Atheists if ever a violent act of terrorism was performed by non-believers. >> libertarians or socialists Occupy? Though Guy (the face of Occupy/Anon) was a Catholic.
  - JimmyM 12y ago
    I believe that many different groups including vegans, conservative Christians, extreme right-libertarian militia organisations and various anarchist/communist groups have carried out attacks that have been characterised as terrorist in the past - and therefore that they could plausibly carry out attacks again, implicating 'fellow travelers' as they did so. I'm not sure about Occupy I'm afraid, as it didn't really take off in the UK. I also think that the general demographics of the people who make up the establishment are pretty important when you consider who ends up being imprisoned without trial. I think that we understand each other, but you've added some interesting points and examples that I hadn't thought of.
pgeorgi 12y ago
I usually go with "The problem isn't the current government, the problem is what might be in the future. The Netherlands stored data about their citizens' religious affiliation. The Nazis really appreciated that when they came and rounded up the Jews."
- robmcm 12y ago
  That's normally my go to example, however I often wonder, if this bad government did come into power, wouldn't they just pass a load of laws to snoop anyway? The only disadvantage is they wouldn't have as much historical data.
  - gutnor 12y ago
    Unless there is a coup or revolution, a bad government is elected and as is common in most democracies will hold as little as 30% of the vote for a while. A law that already exists does not require further discussion or vote and can be perverted immediately. So in addition of the benefit of not having historical data, it also delay or prevent its introduction.
  - Cakez0r 12y ago
    What if this bad government is already in power and are inching their way towards their full potential badness. 1. Do something somewhat unacceptable. 2. Wait for it to become the accepted norm. 3. GOTO 1 This is why issues like this have to be nipped in the bud. Toxic ideas need to be stopped before they gain too much inertia, otherwise it won't be possible or practical to stop them playing out. I guess it's like a game of chess. Moving a pawn might seem innocuous, but it's just one move in a larger strategy.
- pjc50 12y ago
  I think people find arguments involving Nazis easy to dismiss as hyperbole. Especially in the UK when we weren't invaded. Also people who are accepting or supportive of mass surveillance usually imagine themselves firmly in the safe majority not the oppressed minority.
raphinou 12y ago
I like to remind people that they do not decide themselves if what they do is ok or not, it's the people interpreting the collected data. In that regard, I read a good illustration (invented I guess): imagine a guy that does to a shop buy an alarm clock, then going to buy a barrel, and after that going to buy chemicals in a third shop. Wouldn't this guy seem suspect from the data collected? It was a teacher preparing a chemistry lesson, buying a barrel to collect rain water in his garden, and replacing his old alarm clock. He might have nothing to hide, but that's not a reason why his acts can't be misinterpreted....
Clanan 12y ago
Those arguments often represent a symptom of an underlying belief about "the government". I find that many people view "the government" as this monolithic, do-gooding entity. One useful approach is to redefine it - government isn't a benevolent entity, it's a huge group of people with varying goals and beliefs, who wield lots of power over your life. Do you want those people to have that sort of access?
- razster 12y ago
  Well seeing as I don't have time in my life as is to run a government, to protect us from ourselves, and to make sure our system continues to run - I see no other alternative.
SagelyGuru 12y ago
The Lords should never abuse procedure. This is infamy and they just lost another fan.
flatline 12y ago
A conservative friend of mine was really bothered by the recent IRS targeting of conservative groups' applications for tax-exempt status. I think this is a great example of how even our modern day, relatively ethical governments can and do abuse their power and discriminate along political lines - and against a groups you would normally think have some protections higher up.
nly 12y ago
I always found it odd that people seem to consider the national census as an invasive nuisance but have no problem with much more insidious micro-snooping in to their everyday lives. It makes me sad, after they inevitably discontinue it, that there won't be any reliable historical record of families living in the UK. It's been taken every 10 years, recording the names of occupants since 1841. Access is protected for 100 years to give people a chance to die off. It's the only record you're required to be on in the UK and I don't really have a problem with that.
john_b 12y ago
The fundamental reason is that most people see the state as a protective entity. People don't give their information to someone they don't trust (at least not for free). But they fundamentally trust the government as a whole, even if they may mistrust individual parts of it [1]. This is a hard notion to combat because the government is a protective entity. It's arguably the most important function of any government: protecting its citizens. Even corrupt and dysfunctional governments can still protect their citizens from external threats. In Western nations, one of the biggest threats to the average citizen, particularly his or her rights, is the government itself. Separation of powers is supposed to keep it in check, but at least in the U.S., the slow and steady increase in the power of the executive branch in the past century combined with technological developments has meant that it now has the potential to exercise tyrannical levels of power over virtually any person or class of person. People don't need to understand the web or even how the technology of mass surveillance works. Citizens as a whole don't make political decisions based on detailed information anyway. Surveillance reform can only be accomplished by getting a large enough people to distrust the government itself. Skepticism won't be enough--fear of being vulnerable to terrorists (or any of the other usual fears like child pornographers and such) will trump skepticism. In the U.S., the constitution is a document which gives limited powers to the federal government and justifies each of them. People today generally think of government power in opposite terms: it gets power by default and only has to give it up if that power later proves to be unnecessary. This is the real change that needs to be made, one of mentality not just of laws. The laws will follow if the mentality of the citizenry as a whole changes. The great deal of skepticism that younger Americans show towards government compared to their elders is encouraging, but that will only lead to change in the long run. I'm not sure what the sitution in the UK is like. The basic problem with the main media narratives surrounding surveillance is that most (but not all) look at mass surveillance by the government and only conclude (correctly) that mass surveillance is bad and that the government better have very good reasons for doing it. Government fearmongering follows, placating the skepticism. Mass surveillance needs to be seen for what it really is: the signature of an embryonic tyranny. Even if we presently have saint-like politicians who will only use such power for good, our government was set up so that we would not, and indeed should not, need to trust it. [1] The surveys that regularly show high public disapproval of Congress come to mind.
chrismcb 12y ago
If you are in the UK you can remind them that the current anti terrorist law is used to go after people who watch television.
CurtMonash 12y ago
I focus the argument on chilling effects, as in http://www.dbms2.com/2013/07/29/very-chilling-effects/ http://www.dbms2.com/2013/07/29/very-chilling-effects/ To quote: I’ve worried for years about a terrible and under-appreciated danger of privacy intrusion, which in a recent post I characterized as a chilling effect upon the exercise of ordinary freedoms. When government — or an organization such as your employer, your insurer, etc. — watches you closely, it can be dangerous to deviate from the norm. Even the slightest non-conformity could have serious consequences. I wish that were an exaggeration; let’s explore why it isn’t.

by jblok 12y ago

pjc50 12y ago

It's tricky because people find it hard to see the big systematic picture, and "respectable" people like to assume that the police are the good guys and anyone they oppose must be a bad guy. Your best bet is to find something where they disagree with the government or officialdom and build out from there. The "council uses RIPA surveillance to catch woman sending child to school in different catchment area" story is a good one here; almost everyone thinks that councils are officious busybodies. Health records privacy is another good one. "Do you think the government should track all your alcohol purchases?" (I wrote in a previous comment with a US context: - legal. It's against the law; there are strong 1st and 4th arguments against surveillance, and 5th and 6th amendment arguments as well. Some people have even tried to argue that if encryption is a munition the 2nd amendment applies. The "we could stop bad people" argument applies especially to the 4th. Similar legal protections exist in Europe, although not generally as strong (article 8). - practical: either a system is secure or it isn't. Handing it over to anyone increases the risk of compromise. Bans on effective encryption are self-defeating. - collateral damage: US intelligence agencies have a track record of killing innocent people themselves (e.g. drone strikes), supporting murderous governments (CIA in south america), funding terrorism and failing to prosecute the guilty (Iran-contra), use of intelligence for domestic immoral politics (Watergate, FBI vs MLK). Handing over data about your e.g. Chilean users to the CIA may result in them being murdered. - international hypocrisy: saying that mass surveillance is OK says it's OK for other governments too. Do you support Chinese interception against their adversaries? Are you happy to turn over your entire email history on entering a country? - finally, I'm going to question how much it does help. The Paris terrorists were known to the police, as was the killer of Lee Rigby. Intercept evidence is generally not used in trials. Nobody is presenting a cache of encrypted emails found on a computer used by the Parisian terrorists and saying "if we'd decrypted this we could have prevented it". Edit: see also on HN today https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/british-spy-agency-considers-journalists-threat-vacuums-their-emails https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/british-spy-agency-con...

tomtoise 12y ago
The last point is the strongest in this context. The others are a bit too straw-man (Do you support Chinese interception against their adversaries? Are you happy to turn over your entire email history on entering a country?) Not that I'm saying you're wrong, you're completely right. It's just that we need non-emotive and cool heads when we argue this.
- pjc50 12y ago
  Why are those straw men? They're questions of universal applicability and jurisdiction, and both based on real things that have happened. For example, the proposition that "MI5 should have access to the full communications history of everyone in the country" implies that as people enter the country MI5 should acquire their entire email history.
  - tomtoise 12y ago
    You're dealing with 'could' and 'what if'. For example, you state that handing over data about Chilean users may result in them being murdered. I could just as easily argue that if you didn't hand over the data, Chilean users may be murdered. I'm not saying they will be or anything like that, obviously. Compared to your last point, which is rooted in solid fact (They were both monitored, it did nothing to prevent the attack) and can't be argued with, the other two are a bit.. flimsy. All I'm saying is if I was arguing against you (Which I'm not), it'd be easy to call you hysterical when you go on about murder and the Chinese. For clarity, ignored your first point because not US and second point is sound, so I left that out as well :)
    - pjc50 12y ago
      Ah I see - the inherent hypotheticalness of statements about the future. But as you say, the pro-surveillance case also rests on forward-looking statements about what the security services are going to do with the data. In that case we have to go backwards. The National reminded me today of this incident: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19860903&id=FbZAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qqUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2699,654646 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19860903&id=F... (Leon Brittan's involvment in politically motivated surveillance of CND). There's also the long and ugly history of Northern Ireland, and the more recent business of planting police informers in environmental groups. The problem with trying to use recent history to prove a point is that everyone's already made up their mind which side they're on for things like extraordinary rendition, "School of the Americas", torture, Iran-Contra, arms-to-Iraq (Matrix Churchill), etc. Matrix Churchill might be a good example, tbh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Report : MI5 instructed and secured secret permission for exports to Iraq, but then tried to protect the secrecy of this at the cost of not just allowing Matrix Churchill directors to be jailed but censoring their only legal defence and getting ministers to lie to parliament.

neuronic 12y ago

You could make an Angry Birds or Candy Crush saga add-on with an Internet security theme.

amirmc 12y ago
See http://beta.datadealer.com http://beta.datadealer.com
- tomtoise 12y ago
  Oh great. A new way to waste my time at work. Ontopic though, this could actually be a good way to educate people on the dangers of sharing. Only 5 mins in myself so far though.

skidoo 12y ago

If they have nothing to hide, why not live with all doors and windows unlocked and wide open, round the clock? Why not permanently leave their keys in the ignition of their vehicles? Why not post their login info on their homepages or walls or whatever? I tell people nothing is free, and the freer something appears, the greater the inevitable cost. And when the cost involves rights, being innocent while being on the defensive is never ever a fun ordeal.

rayiner 12y ago
They mean they have nothing to hide from the government. That can be reconciled with locking their doors because they might trust the government more than their neighbors.
- amirmc 12y ago
  Let's not extrapolate what we think they mean from what they actually say. Most people don't challenge their own opinions so even the 'locking your door' argument helps them begin to articulate more precisely. From there it's possible to have a discussion. You might arrive at a point where people understand the nuances of privacy and I still consider that a win (eg "I don't care if the police know about my affair but I don't want the neighbourhood to know")
  - rayiner 12y ago
    First, if you ask someone about government surveillance, you have to assume that context in evaluating their response. People don't parrot back context that's already part of the conversation. Second, I think you have to apply the principle of charity. Instead of assuming that people mindlessly parrot an opinion, think about what sorts of reasonable assumptions might render their positions self-consistent. One of the most powerful ways to persuade is to figure out someone else's reasoning to the point you can articulately argue their position, and then to refocus the disagreement on the assumptions underlying that reasoning.
    - 12y ago

JimmyM 12y ago

"It fundamentally changes the relationship between people and state." is the most ironclad argument I've heard. Albeit a bit of a cliché these days. There's some advantage to the tin foil hat, too. It's probably fine for now if you're not Muslim, but if you are then your associations and visited websites could be used to put you somewhere very uncomfortable without a trial. Say if libertarians or socialists or christian conservatives started carrying out attacks, your political and personal affiliations could make life very uncomfortable.

ptaffs 12y ago
Maybe you're being subtle, i agree with your point. >> christian conservatives started carrying out attacks The Centennial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta was such a thing, the KKK and anti-abortion terrorism is supposedly radicalized Christian. But because The Establishment is generally Conservative Christian, it's treated differently. I wish we could drop the affiliation and just call them Radicalized people. I'd hate to be associated with Radical Atheists if ever a violent act of terrorism was performed by non-believers. >> libertarians or socialists Occupy? Though Guy (the face of Occupy/Anon) was a Catholic.
- JimmyM 12y ago
  I believe that many different groups including vegans, conservative Christians, extreme right-libertarian militia organisations and various anarchist/communist groups have carried out attacks that have been characterised as terrorist in the past - and therefore that they could plausibly carry out attacks again, implicating 'fellow travelers' as they did so. I'm not sure about Occupy I'm afraid, as it didn't really take off in the UK. I also think that the general demographics of the people who make up the establishment are pretty important when you consider who ends up being imprisoned without trial. I think that we understand each other, but you've added some interesting points and examples that I hadn't thought of.

pgeorgi 12y ago

I usually go with "The problem isn't the current government, the problem is what might be in the future. The Netherlands stored data about their citizens' religious affiliation. The Nazis really appreciated that when they came and rounded up the Jews."

robmcm 12y ago
That's normally my go to example, however I often wonder, if this bad government did come into power, wouldn't they just pass a load of laws to snoop anyway? The only disadvantage is they wouldn't have as much historical data.
- gutnor 12y ago
  Unless there is a coup or revolution, a bad government is elected and as is common in most democracies will hold as little as 30% of the vote for a while. A law that already exists does not require further discussion or vote and can be perverted immediately. So in addition of the benefit of not having historical data, it also delay or prevent its introduction.
- Cakez0r 12y ago
  What if this bad government is already in power and are inching their way towards their full potential badness. 1. Do something somewhat unacceptable. 2. Wait for it to become the accepted norm. 3. GOTO 1 This is why issues like this have to be nipped in the bud. Toxic ideas need to be stopped before they gain too much inertia, otherwise it won't be possible or practical to stop them playing out. I guess it's like a game of chess. Moving a pawn might seem innocuous, but it's just one move in a larger strategy.
pjc50 12y ago
I think people find arguments involving Nazis easy to dismiss as hyperbole. Especially in the UK when we weren't invaded. Also people who are accepting or supportive of mass surveillance usually imagine themselves firmly in the safe majority not the oppressed minority.

raphinou 12y ago

I like to remind people that they do not decide themselves if what they do is ok or not, it's the people interpreting the collected data. In that regard, I read a good illustration (invented I guess): imagine a guy that does to a shop buy an alarm clock, then going to buy a barrel, and after that going to buy chemicals in a third shop. Wouldn't this guy seem suspect from the data collected? It was a teacher preparing a chemistry lesson, buying a barrel to collect rain water in his garden, and replacing his old alarm clock. He might have nothing to hide, but that's not a reason why his acts can't be misinterpreted....

Clanan 12y ago

Those arguments often represent a symptom of an underlying belief about "the government". I find that many people view "the government" as this monolithic, do-gooding entity. One useful approach is to redefine it - government isn't a benevolent entity, it's a huge group of people with varying goals and beliefs, who wield lots of power over your life. Do you want those people to have that sort of access?

razster 12y ago
Well seeing as I don't have time in my life as is to run a government, to protect us from ourselves, and to make sure our system continues to run - I see no other alternative.

SagelyGuru 12y ago

The Lords should never abuse procedure. This is infamy and they just lost another fan.

flatline 12y ago

A conservative friend of mine was really bothered by the recent IRS targeting of conservative groups' applications for tax-exempt status. I think this is a great example of how even our modern day, relatively ethical governments can and do abuse their power and discriminate along political lines - and against a groups you would normally think have some protections higher up.

nly 12y ago

I always found it odd that people seem to consider the national census as an invasive nuisance but have no problem with much more insidious micro-snooping in to their everyday lives. It makes me sad, after they inevitably discontinue it, that there won't be any reliable historical record of families living in the UK. It's been taken every 10 years, recording the names of occupants since 1841. Access is protected for 100 years to give people a chance to die off. It's the only record you're required to be on in the UK and I don't really have a problem with that.

john_b 12y ago

The fundamental reason is that most people see the state as a protective entity. People don't give their information to someone they don't trust (at least not for free). But they fundamentally trust the government as a whole, even if they may mistrust individual parts of it [1]. This is a hard notion to combat because the government is a protective entity. It's arguably the most important function of any government: protecting its citizens. Even corrupt and dysfunctional governments can still protect their citizens from external threats. In Western nations, one of the biggest threats to the average citizen, particularly his or her rights, is the government itself. Separation of powers is supposed to keep it in check, but at least in the U.S., the slow and steady increase in the power of the executive branch in the past century combined with technological developments has meant that it now has the potential to exercise tyrannical levels of power over virtually any person or class of person. People don't need to understand the web or even how the technology of mass surveillance works. Citizens as a whole don't make political decisions based on detailed information anyway. Surveillance reform can only be accomplished by getting a large enough people to distrust the government itself. Skepticism won't be enough--fear of being vulnerable to terrorists (or any of the other usual fears like child pornographers and such) will trump skepticism. In the U.S., the constitution is a document which gives limited powers to the federal government and justifies each of them. People today generally think of government power in opposite terms: it gets power by default and only has to give it up if that power later proves to be unnecessary. This is the real change that needs to be made, one of mentality not just of laws. The laws will follow if the mentality of the citizenry as a whole changes. The great deal of skepticism that younger Americans show towards government compared to their elders is encouraging, but that will only lead to change in the long run. I'm not sure what the sitution in the UK is like. The basic problem with the main media narratives surrounding surveillance is that most (but not all) look at mass surveillance by the government and only conclude (correctly) that mass surveillance is bad and that the government better have very good reasons for doing it. Government fearmongering follows, placating the skepticism. Mass surveillance needs to be seen for what it really is: the signature of an embryonic tyranny. Even if we presently have saint-like politicians who will only use such power for good, our government was set up so that we would not, and indeed should not, need to trust it. [1] The surveys that regularly show high public disapproval of Congress come to mind.

chrismcb 12y ago

If you are in the UK you can remind them that the current anti terrorist law is used to go after people who watch television.

CurtMonash 12y ago

I focus the argument on chilling effects, as in http://www.dbms2.com/2013/07/29/very-chilling-effects/ http://www.dbms2.com/2013/07/29/very-chilling-effects/ To quote: I’ve worried for years about a terrible and under-appreciated danger of privacy intrusion, which in a recent post I characterized as a chilling effect upon the exercise of ordinary freedoms. When government — or an organization such as your employer, your insurer, etc. — watches you closely, it can be dangerous to deviate from the norm. Even the slightest non-conformity could have serious consequences. I wish that were an exaggeration; let’s explore why it isn’t.