3 ms·

The internet is a perfect surveillance machine. It is irresistible to those in power. I believe it shifts the balance of power towards the center more than it e

by guelo 12y ago

The internet is a perfect surveillance machine. It is irresistible to those in power. I believe it shifts the balance of power towards the center more than it empowers distributed forces. For example, protesters have more tools to organize but governments have more tools to know what protesters are up to, they know where protesters will show up, how many and who they are. So there are no surprises. Overall advantage goes to the government. The Hong Kong protests probably would have sparked a revolution 20 years ago, but today they got nothing. As governments get better at this the internet will be a huge stabilizing force for power.

dyoo1979 12y ago
Does North Korea fit into your model? Why, or why not?
tormeh 12y ago
More importantly, modern telecommunications (internet etc.) are government/military infrastructure under government control and surveillance. Just like GPS etc. It's often hard to remember this and sometimes we even pretend that the internet is a place free of government control, which is delusional. The wires, cables and radio towers are under military control in any kind of crisis. It boils down to this: If you're a freedom fighter/terrorist on the internet then you're there because the government's cost-benefit analysis favours you being there. Sometimes that's as innocent as the government having principles, avoiding bad PR or collateral damage, but if you're allowed to be on the internet then you're either not quite dangerous enough or the government's too weak technically or politically to shut you down (not relevant for those in the semi-developed world).
- cm2187 12y ago
  The thing with the internet is that governments are allowing themselves practices that have been long forbidden in the physical world, and for very good reasons. Whether the technology was initially a military technology is irrelevant. In most democracies, the state cannot open your mail or tap your phone without a warrant. But for some reason it's fair game to tap all your electronic communications. The sort of things that this law enables is nothing short of forcing all libraries, bookshops and newsagents to ask your ID when you pick a book or newspaper, keep records of what you read and send them to the state. Imagine how this would have gone in the sixties when you had strong political clashes in the society, whether it was leftists or social rights movements. I think the issue is that the cynicism and short-termism of French politicians is combined with a lack of understanding of the technology (even today that generation and social group barely uses internet) to form a perfect storm.
tajen 12y ago
> The Hong Kong protests would have sparked a revolution 20 years ago I'm not advanced on the topic, but as I understand Hong Kong is protesting against the corruption of their new owner, China. And 25 years ago in China was Tianenmen, where the regimen squashed the revolution. Yes Internet helps centralization too. It matches the concentration of money seen with the new enormous tech corporations. The irresistible surveillance machine is currently more in the hands of the corporation owners: Facebook has mapped every relationships between people in the world. I'm wondering whether the NSA has a better knowledge than us on our own citizen's communications. I'm wondering whether the NSA provides information to the French government about those communications.

by guelo 12y ago

dyoo1979 12y ago

Does North Korea fit into your model? Why, or why not?

tormeh 12y ago

More importantly, modern telecommunications (internet etc.) are government/military infrastructure under government control and surveillance. Just like GPS etc. It's often hard to remember this and sometimes we even pretend that the internet is a place free of government control, which is delusional. The wires, cables and radio towers are under military control in any kind of crisis. It boils down to this: If you're a freedom fighter/terrorist on the internet then you're there because the government's cost-benefit analysis favours you being there. Sometimes that's as innocent as the government having principles, avoiding bad PR or collateral damage, but if you're allowed to be on the internet then you're either not quite dangerous enough or the government's too weak technically or politically to shut you down (not relevant for those in the semi-developed world).

cm2187 12y ago
The thing with the internet is that governments are allowing themselves practices that have been long forbidden in the physical world, and for very good reasons. Whether the technology was initially a military technology is irrelevant. In most democracies, the state cannot open your mail or tap your phone without a warrant. But for some reason it's fair game to tap all your electronic communications. The sort of things that this law enables is nothing short of forcing all libraries, bookshops and newsagents to ask your ID when you pick a book or newspaper, keep records of what you read and send them to the state. Imagine how this would have gone in the sixties when you had strong political clashes in the society, whether it was leftists or social rights movements. I think the issue is that the cynicism and short-termism of French politicians is combined with a lack of understanding of the technology (even today that generation and social group barely uses internet) to form a perfect storm.

tajen 12y ago

> The Hong Kong protests would have sparked a revolution 20 years ago I'm not advanced on the topic, but as I understand Hong Kong is protesting against the corruption of their new owner, China. And 25 years ago in China was Tianenmen, where the regimen squashed the revolution. Yes Internet helps centralization too. It matches the concentration of money seen with the new enormous tech corporations. The irresistible surveillance machine is currently more in the hands of the corporation owners: Facebook has mapped every relationships between people in the world. I'm wondering whether the NSA has a better knowledge than us on our own citizen's communications. I'm wondering whether the NSA provides information to the French government about those communications.