Live data from Hacker News

The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

backchannel.com

11–20 of 131 posts

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#11
Mass surveillance in the digital age is a Pandora's box that's been opened.

Without comprehensively putting extreme restrictions on what people can put online, there is only ever going to be an exponentially growing trove of data to mine that reveals implications far removed from whatever whoever made it available intended to communicate.

While it may be possible to significantly cut back the amount of surveillance done on communications intended to be private, I think people need to accept that the automation of surveillance and of inferring likely connections from it are developments which irreversibly change how society functions going forward.

What's more, technology has a very persistent tendency to become accessible to more people over time. I have yet to see any reasons this wouldn't be true specifically in the case of automated surveillance. Remember the story about someone trying facial recognition to tie pictures of strangers on the subway to VKontakte profiles? That's just a small taste of the implications.

I think it's realistically possible to push back a large portion of the surveillance that invades private communications, likely by technological means more often than legal ones. And I think the article highlights that possibility, especially at a time when distrust in government is reaching a peak in America and elsewhere. That said, I'm waiting for the Pandora's box of wide access to powerful surveillance tools using publicly available information to be seen for what it is.

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#12
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> until terrorism ceases to be a force in the world I think you're basically implying this, but I think it's worth elaborating: there is no particular reason for terrorism to cease being a force in the world if things stay grossly similar to the way they are today. Unlike, say, war, which requires state actors to maintain aggression, terrorism requires just one individual with an idea. Even addressing root causes won…

Which is why government allows for surveillance directly in its constitution. Search warrants have always existed. There is no government without a search warrant, since no government allows privacy against the state's will. Until you are your own king, you will always have to live under the permission of government.

The scope of that surveillance should be kept in check though. Search warrants seem reasonable to me (assuming the process of obtaining a warrant is somewhat restrictive) but broad unchecked surveillance isn't reasonable to me.

Giving a government too much access and control seems bad for both the government and the people.

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#13
Between the inauguration and living in DC, all anyone can talk about lately is politics. So I've had the opportunity to probe a bunch of mainstream Democrats on this issue. The overwhelming response has been not caring (though many are more worried now that Trump is in the charge of the surveillance apparatus rather than Obama). Even to the extent people care, nobody cares enough to want to spend limited political capital on the issue. To the extent policy is necessarily subject to political compromise, privacy doesn't seem to even make the top 10 of issues Democrats are willing to fight for.

It seems inevitable to me that the same generation that willingly hands over all their personal information to Google and Facebook, and sees government mostly as a positive force for enforcing civil rights and increasing social equality will embrace the expansion of the surveillance state.

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#14
post #12
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why government allows for surveillance directly in its constitution. Search warrants have always existed. There is no government without a search warrant, since no government allows privacy against the state's will. Until you are your own king, you will always have to live under the permission of government.

The scope of that surveillance should be kept in check though. Search warrants seem reasonable to me (assuming the process of obtaining a warrant is somewhat restrictive) but broad unchecked surveillance isn't reasonable to me. Giving a government too much access and control seems bad for both the government and the people.

I get that but a lot of people are questioning any surveillance.

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#15
> (If you’re wondering what data the NSA collects, its own site[1] offers a list and this statement: “The standard operating procedure for the Domestic Surveillance Directorate is to ‘collect all available information from all available sources all the time, every time, always.’”)

The linked site is a PARODY. There is no such thing as the Domestic Surveillance Directorate, that would be the FBI. How the author of this article fell for that, I don't know.

[1] https://nsa.gov1.info/data/

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#16
post #6

One reason that leaders as diametrically opposed as Obama and Trump can be aligned on surveillance is simple: The majority of Americans don’t care. The reason why this keeps getting worse and worse.

Partially, it's also that anyone strongly opposed to surveillance realistically can't get elected to high office. If you oppose the intelligence agencies, they have access to the data necessary to ruin you by leaking that your running mate had ECT or someone similar.

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#17
post #13

Between the inauguration and living in DC, all anyone can talk about lately is politics. So I've had the opportunity to probe a bunch of mainstream Democrats on this issue. The overwhelming response has been not caring (though many are more worried now that Trump is in the charge of the surveillance apparatus rather than Obama). Even to the extent people care, nobody cares enough to want to spend limited political ca…

> and sees government mostly as a positive force for enforcing civil rights and increasing social equality will embrace the expansion of the surveillance state.

This isn't unique to the generation you talk about.

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#18
post #8

> Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed. Calling all engineers! We do have the power amongst ourselves to add technical impediments to surveillance to the services we're building, and to the internet as a whole. The technology exists to prevent surveillance, we just need to care, and to use it. Also keep in mind that net neutrality would be an automatic byproduct of an internet that pre…

Net neutrality by encryption seems like a much better idea than government imposed NN. It's optional and not one size fits all.

Let's encrypt all the things!

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#19
post #13

Between the inauguration and living in DC, all anyone can talk about lately is politics. So I've had the opportunity to probe a bunch of mainstream Democrats on this issue. The overwhelming response has been not caring (though many are more worried now that Trump is in the charge of the surveillance apparatus rather than Obama). Even to the extent people care, nobody cares enough to want to spend limited political ca…

In the managerial culture no one really cares about the rules, because they don't think the rules apply to them because they are not doing anything wrong and they are privileged. They understand that some people in the country are not privileged and those rules are for "them", not for "us".

The only way to make them change their minds is if a lot of them become targets of the control apparatus and in liberal democracies that never happens. Democrats are afraid that Republicans are going to use the apparatus on them and vice versa. No one cares about the rule of law.

In fact privilege has nothing to do with your actions, it has to do with who you are in relation to the government and those in power. Privilege can't really be taken away by new laws. Privilege can't even be given by new laws. Because the laws don't apply to those with privilege. It's possible to get privilege by doing what those in power want you to do and that's mostly act as they want you to act on their terms. Privilege is about power and control. It's nothing to be guilty about, because it's not something you did. It was something that was done for you.

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#20
When Obama says that Snowden created serious security implications, do you think that's from a point of privilege, or simply placing ideology over practicality? Based on everything I know, both Obama and Snowden appear to be fairly authentic characters. It seems weird that they would have opposing view points. If we're to assume the best ideals are forged though intelligent reasoning and debate, shouldn't they have both concluded the same? Glenn Greenwald has proven himself to be less than authentic at times. If I could pass a criticism Snowden's way, it was who he went to, not what he did. Am I wrong to feel this way?
Post reply on HN