Swiss endorse new surveillance powers • Hacker News Board

Re: Swiss endorse new surveillance powers

#31

Post by nitrogen » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #23

planetjones wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also live and work in Zurich in a 'techie' job and almost everyone is happy with the new surveillance laws and powers. They are sensible, needed and have the correct number of safeguards. Why do you think they go too far?

Because some people are either blind or severely minimise existing threats, often while maximising other threats

Has anybody, ever, in the history of this type of surveillance, provided concrete proof of the effectiveness thereof against the supposed threats that are used to justify it?

Re: Swiss endorse new surveillance powers

#32

Post by raverbashing » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 6:07 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #31

raverbashing wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because some people are either blind or severely minimise existing threats, often while maximising other threats

Has anybody, ever, in the history of this type of surveillance, provided concrete proof of the effectiveness thereof against the supposed threats that are used to justify it?

I don't think there is one about mass surveillance, which is not the case.

It seems the case for individual, case-by-case basis is pretty clear (though there seems to be an issue with false positives)

Re: Swiss endorse new surveillance powers

#33

Post by noxin » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 6:17 PM UTC

kyledrake wrote: post #8

From the article, it sounds like it is only allowed for specific individuals/organizations and requires approval from multiple people and a due process warrant. Not exactly the NSA-style illegal warrantless dragnet going on elsewhere.

It also allows scanning all the border-crossing internet traffic. Which is an NSA-style dragnet since there is mostly international traffic in a small country.

Re: Swiss endorse new surveillance powers

#34

Post by rayiner » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 6:21 PM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #28

DannyBee wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think it really boils down to not enough people understanding the issues and the problems." FWIW: This is literally the retort everyone has to anything they disagree with that gets approved. It's unrelated to surveillance. People always assume "if only people knew what i knew, they would have agreed with me". This is a really bad assumption. In fact, most of the time, i'd argue exactly the opposite: People underst…

> FWIW: This is literally the retort everyone has to anything they disagree with that gets approved. Probably because it's true in most cases . Most people don't have a deep understanding of even a single issue, let alone multiple. This could have very well been another "Brexit-like" vote in Switzerland, where people were just scaremongered into voting for the law without understanding all of the implications.

What factual information do you think is missing from peoples' understanding. In my experience people assume the government is doing more spying than it is.

Re: Swiss endorse new surveillance powers

#35

Post by pmoriarty » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 6:40 PM UTC

benevol wrote: post #3

As a reminder, Switzerland has its own surveillance scandal in its past, the so-called "Fichenskandal" [0] during which almost 1 million people were under surveillance (out of approximately 7 million), between 1900 and 1990. [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichenskandal (german language)

"lmost 1 million people were under surveillance (out of approximately 7 million), between 1900 and 1990."

It's probably all of them now -- if not by their own government, then by the US spy agencies, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, the various cell phone providers, credit card providers, stores, cameras, etc.

It's very hard not to be under surveillance these days, unless you're willing to completely unplug, move to a remote area, and become self-sufficient.

Re: Swiss endorse new surveillance powers

#36

Post by snewk » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 6:42 PM UTC

pmoriarty wrote: post #35

benevol wrote: post #3

As a reminder, Switzerland has its own surveillance scandal in its past, the so-called "Fichenskandal" [0] during which almost 1 million people were under surveillance (out of approximately 7 million), between 1900 and 1990. [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichenskandal (german language)

"lmost 1 million people were under surveillance (out of approximately 7 million), between 1900 and 1990." It's probably all of them now -- if not by their own government, then by the US spy agencies, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, the various cell phone providers, credit card providers, stores, cameras, etc. It's very hard not to be under surveillance these days, unless you're willing to completely unplug, move to a re…

> move to a remote area, and become self-sufficient

this behavior may even be considered 'radical' enough to warrant more direct surveillance.

Re: Swiss endorse new surveillance powers

#37

Post by Animats » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 6:56 PM UTC

We need better handling of surveillance after the fact. Now that everyone knows that massive surveillance is going on, that's no longer a secret. So most surveillance requests should be be released.

How about declassifying 75% of surveillance requests after 3 years? The Government gets to pick the 25% that stay secret. That provides lots of info about who's listening to what, but narrowly targeted ones can be kept secret. Then, every 3 years, release 75% of the remainder. After a decade or so, only the really important ones are still secret. This would make it clear who's spending time listening to what, without disrupting investigations.

A Federal judge just released 200 surveillance requests.[1] They're from 2012, and even prosecutors didn't claim they still needed to be kept from the public. Maybe the time for this has come.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/meet-the-...

Re: Swiss endorse new surveillance powers

#38

Post by FreeFull » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 6:59 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #37

We need better handling of surveillance after the fact. Now that everyone knows that massive surveillance is going on, that's no longer a secret. So most surveillance requests should be be released. How about declassifying 75% of surveillance requests after 3 years? The Government gets to pick the 25% that stay secret. That provides lots of info about who's listening to what, but narrowly targeted ones can be kept se…

Wouldn't this encourage the government to increase surveillance, so they can always keep all the ones they really care about secret?

Re: Swiss endorse new surveillance powers

#39

Post by kakoni » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 7:09 PM UTC

benevol wrote: post #3

As a reminder, Switzerland has its own surveillance scandal in its past, the so-called "Fichenskandal" [0] during which almost 1 million people were under surveillance (out of approximately 7 million), between 1900 and 1990. [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichenskandal (german language)

Heres the English wikipedia link, "Secret files scandal" [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_files_scandal

Re: Swiss endorse new surveillance powers

#40

Post by DannyBee » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 7:12 PM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #28

DannyBee wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think it really boils down to not enough people understanding the issues and the problems." FWIW: This is literally the retort everyone has to anything they disagree with that gets approved. It's unrelated to surveillance. People always assume "if only people knew what i knew, they would have agreed with me". This is a really bad assumption. In fact, most of the time, i'd argue exactly the opposite: People underst…

> FWIW: This is literally the retort everyone has to anything they disagree with that gets approved. Probably because it's true in most cases . Most people don't have a deep understanding of even a single issue, let alone multiple. This could have very well been another "Brexit-like" vote in Switzerland, where people were just scaremongered into voting for the law without understanding all of the implications.

"Probably because it's true in most cases. Most people don't have a deep understanding of even a single issue, let alone multiple. " What evidence do you have of this?

As far as i'm aware, research studies basically show that providing more facts one way or the other only makes people's convictions stronger. It doesn't change their minds that often. It's actually incredibly hard to change people's minds.

Now, you are free to argue this is completely irrational, and i'd 100% agree. But it does mean that people know what you know and understand what you understand and still disagree. Whether that makes sense to do so or not.

See, e.g., http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/37/11/2098/ and pretty much every study since.

Another example: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1...

"Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest"

Like I said, i'd strongly argue comprehension is not the problem. Until people realize that is the case, and stop just dismissing anyone who disagrees as ignorant, nothing will change.