6 ms·

How do you stop the mass surveillance machine once the gears are turning? This is a question I ask myself frequently, and I can't find the right path to get ou

How do you stop the mass surveillance machine once the gears are turning? This is a question I ask myself frequently, and I can't find the right path to get out of this vicious cycle.

vijayr 11y ago
I don't think it is possible. It is not just the gov, it is also private and public companies. Forget snooping for a second - let us just consider the public data. Once it is out there, who knows how many organizations have it? And even if we did, how are we going to force them to destroy it and not continue collecting more data? Most people give their data willingly either out of laziness or ignorance. If I have 15 different "store cards" in my wallet and let those stores happily track every single item I buy, willingly, who is to blame?
- kbenson 11y ago
  If this is the natural progression of "information wants to be free", then it's probably worthwhile for us to figure out methods to live within this new reality. I'm not saying we shouldn't still fight it, but there should be a backup plan, in case it is futile.
  - seanp2k2 11y ago
    The backup plan is that we are not immortal, so however bad it gets, at least no one can force us to endure it forever.
    - vijayr 11y ago
      Isn't "forever" in this case "as long as one lives"? But then, it is possible to tarnish somebody's name and legacy even after their death.
- LLWM 11y ago
  Most people give their data willingly because they get something worthwhile in exchange. The store cards exist because people trade tracking of their purchase data for discounted prices. Nobody is to blame because there is nothing to blame anyone for.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    It is like a child giving me a shiny rock because they like the pie I made better. Am I not to blame because I understand the value of the diamond better than the child and use the information asymmetry to my advantage?
    - LLWM 11y ago
      Your example only makes sense to you because you assume that the child could sell the diamond for enough money to buy the pie from you (or from someone else who has just as good of a pie) and have some left over. In the actual situation under discussion, there is no such option. If that's not the case and you really would only part with the pie for that high of a price, and no other pie will do for the child, then what is there to complain about? How much do you think it costs to buy a pie made by, say, Gordon Ramsay? Feel free to replace with someone who is actually a good chef and not just a famous one if I made a poor choice.
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        The example was to show someone taking advantage of information asymmetry. You are now just arguing the analogy. Do you believe it is acceptable to take advantage of information asymmetry when getting goods or services from someone (including children)?
        LLWM 11y ago
        I don't believe it is acceptable for there to be information asymmetry in the first place. Arguing about what to do when it's there is about as fruitful as arguing about how hard you should be allowed to beat your slaves.
api 11y ago
Power is an end in itself. The war on drugs and the war on terror (and war in general) is a great way to expand it.
giardini 11y ago
I would propose that - all surveillance cease at some fixed moment and - all information collected for a preceding fixed period (say 3 years', or maybe all of it) be made available for public inspection forever. By "all" I mean just that - ALL information. Everything collected about everybody: presidents, prime ministers, senators & congressmen, corporations, churches, public and private institutions, trusts, public and private officials, their secretaries, clerks, bartenders and hired courtesans,etc - all of us would have our private information revealed. This would cause an upheaval in the politics of the nation but would also provide a bonanza of invaluable information for society to review going forward. Do you want to know how corporate leaders break the law? Just look at the data and gather statistics. Are our politicians making illegal deals? Ditto. And of course, is my wife hiding something from me? Allow prosecutions to proceed and the revealed information to be submitted as evidence. We might have to set up special courts and do triage to handle the influx of lawsuits and criminal arrests but we could at least get some of the rats out of the barn. Whether we burn the barn down or not is society's choice (doesn't seem we have a very good barn right now anyway - reminds me a bit of Animal House).
- olefoo 11y ago
  While this makes for a great piece of speculative fiction; I think you underestimate the violence that the powers that be are willing to deploy to defend the present arrangement.
- kbenson 11y ago
  The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that privacy, as we currently know it, is a short lived phenomenon due to increased anonymity of large masses of people without the corresponding technology to accurately track information coming from them. The hundred person village of the past had little anonymity. The teeming metropoli of the future will have little as well. Privacy is information, and information moves towards more access, not less. As much as it pains me to admit it, there are parallels between privacy/surveillance and patents, copyrights and DRM, but the the roles are often reversed. That not to say it's all bad, there are some possible upsides to a world with less privacy. For example, with the lack of any expectation of privacy for vast swaths of the average day, we may see a shift to people aligning their beliefs and actions, and that may be made easier by a shift in some of the less tolerant beliefs. This would by no means be a guaranteed, it would take work. In the end though, I think whether privacy is somehow protected or not, one of the most important things we can do is make sure we are informed of, and inform the public of, what's likely and what's possible to have intercepted by surveillance. No matter the outcome, that's useful information for everyone to have, so they can act accordingly.
unabridged 11y ago
I don't believe we can escape it. Surveillance technology becomes cheaper everyday, in the long term tiny automated drones with cameras will be cheaper than a steak from a real cow. Even if you limit the government's power, there will be private surveillance everywhere. Even if you stop companies in your country from making them, some other country will. Our only hope is to better align our laws with our beliefs. Removing victimless crimes like drug laws will redirect this mass surveillance machine toward violent criminals. Full transparency in the government will prevent government officials from using the surveillance for personal gain or to harm political opponents.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
e12e 11y ago
It's kind of funny when you think about DDR and the Stasi; the other super-power ran the other into the ground, and now that power is performing mass surveillance in place of the Stasi...

How do you stop the mass surveillance machine once the gears are turning? This is a question I ask myself frequently, and I can't find the right path to get out of this vicious cycle.

vijayr 11y ago

I don't think it is possible. It is not just the gov, it is also private and public companies. Forget snooping for a second - let us just consider the public data. Once it is out there, who knows how many organizations have it? And even if we did, how are we going to force them to destroy it and not continue collecting more data? Most people give their data willingly either out of laziness or ignorance. If I have 15 different "store cards" in my wallet and let those stores happily track every single item I buy, willingly, who is to blame?

kbenson 11y ago
If this is the natural progression of "information wants to be free", then it's probably worthwhile for us to figure out methods to live within this new reality. I'm not saying we shouldn't still fight it, but there should be a backup plan, in case it is futile.
- seanp2k2 11y ago
  The backup plan is that we are not immortal, so however bad it gets, at least no one can force us to endure it forever.
  - vijayr 11y ago
    Isn't "forever" in this case "as long as one lives"? But then, it is possible to tarnish somebody's name and legacy even after their death.
LLWM 11y ago
Most people give their data willingly because they get something worthwhile in exchange. The store cards exist because people trade tracking of their purchase data for discounted prices. Nobody is to blame because there is nothing to blame anyone for.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  It is like a child giving me a shiny rock because they like the pie I made better. Am I not to blame because I understand the value of the diamond better than the child and use the information asymmetry to my advantage?
  - LLWM 11y ago
    Your example only makes sense to you because you assume that the child could sell the diamond for enough money to buy the pie from you (or from someone else who has just as good of a pie) and have some left over. In the actual situation under discussion, there is no such option. If that's not the case and you really would only part with the pie for that high of a price, and no other pie will do for the child, then what is there to complain about? How much do you think it costs to buy a pie made by, say, Gordon Ramsay? Feel free to replace with someone who is actually a good chef and not just a famous one if I made a poor choice.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      The example was to show someone taking advantage of information asymmetry. You are now just arguing the analogy. Do you believe it is acceptable to take advantage of information asymmetry when getting goods or services from someone (including children)?
      - LLWM 11y ago
        I don't believe it is acceptable for there to be information asymmetry in the first place. Arguing about what to do when it's there is about as fruitful as arguing about how hard you should be allowed to beat your slaves.

api 11y ago

Power is an end in itself. The war on drugs and the war on terror (and war in general) is a great way to expand it.

giardini 11y ago

I would propose that - all surveillance cease at some fixed moment and - all information collected for a preceding fixed period (say 3 years', or maybe all of it) be made available for public inspection forever. By "all" I mean just that - ALL information. Everything collected about everybody: presidents, prime ministers, senators & congressmen, corporations, churches, public and private institutions, trusts, public and private officials, their secretaries, clerks, bartenders and hired courtesans,etc - all of us would have our private information revealed. This would cause an upheaval in the politics of the nation but would also provide a bonanza of invaluable information for society to review going forward. Do you want to know how corporate leaders break the law? Just look at the data and gather statistics. Are our politicians making illegal deals? Ditto. And of course, is my wife hiding something from me? Allow prosecutions to proceed and the revealed information to be submitted as evidence. We might have to set up special courts and do triage to handle the influx of lawsuits and criminal arrests but we could at least get some of the rats out of the barn. Whether we burn the barn down or not is society's choice (doesn't seem we have a very good barn right now anyway - reminds me a bit of Animal House).

olefoo 11y ago
While this makes for a great piece of speculative fiction; I think you underestimate the violence that the powers that be are willing to deploy to defend the present arrangement.
kbenson 11y ago
The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that privacy, as we currently know it, is a short lived phenomenon due to increased anonymity of large masses of people without the corresponding technology to accurately track information coming from them. The hundred person village of the past had little anonymity. The teeming metropoli of the future will have little as well. Privacy is information, and information moves towards more access, not less. As much as it pains me to admit it, there are parallels between privacy/surveillance and patents, copyrights and DRM, but the the roles are often reversed. That not to say it's all bad, there are some possible upsides to a world with less privacy. For example, with the lack of any expectation of privacy for vast swaths of the average day, we may see a shift to people aligning their beliefs and actions, and that may be made easier by a shift in some of the less tolerant beliefs. This would by no means be a guaranteed, it would take work. In the end though, I think whether privacy is somehow protected or not, one of the most important things we can do is make sure we are informed of, and inform the public of, what's likely and what's possible to have intercepted by surveillance. No matter the outcome, that's useful information for everyone to have, so they can act accordingly.

unabridged 11y ago

I don't believe we can escape it. Surveillance technology becomes cheaper everyday, in the long term tiny automated drones with cameras will be cheaper than a steak from a real cow. Even if you limit the government's power, there will be private surveillance everywhere. Even if you stop companies in your country from making them, some other country will. Our only hope is to better align our laws with our beliefs. Removing victimless crimes like drug laws will redirect this mass surveillance machine toward violent criminals. Full transparency in the government will prevent government officials from using the surveillance for personal gain or to harm political opponents.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

e12e 11y ago

It's kind of funny when you think about DDR and the Stasi; the other super-power ran the other into the ground, and now that power is performing mass surveillance in place of the Stasi...