Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mass Surveillance in the United States

wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: Mass Surveillance in the United States

#61

Post by daniel-cussen »

apo wrote: post #27

> Contemporary mass surveillance relies upon annual presidential executive orders declaring a continued State of National Emergency, first signed by George W. Bush on September 14, 2001 and then continued on an annual basis by President Barack Obama,[3] and upon several subsequent national security Acts including the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendment Act's PRISM surveillance program. Mass surveillance is a bipartisa…

How could digital data storage media not count as "effects"? It's not letters, sure, but it's definitely "effects."

Especially because the last word in a lawyerly list of items is usually a catch-all designed to future-proof the law. It was meant to catch things they couldn't conceive of at the time.

Re: Mass Surveillance in the United States

#62

Post by oil25 »

One way we can begin to address, or at least help recognize, mass surveillance is to use the same tools of surveillance the oppressors use on us. A recent phenomenon I have observed on YouTube is the rise in "First Amendment audit" videos, where somebody stands in the public space and awkwardly films police, politicians and other elected officials (our servants) going about their day and duties. The videos often escalate into a ridiculous display of ego and threat of force, even though no crime is being committed, which I think is a healthy reminder of how uncomfortable it is to be "watched" by someone. It may already be too late - we may be seriously "out-gunned" by state and corporate surveillance for meaningful resistance - but these video reminders may be a gateway into awakening collective consciousness on some level to bring about actual change.

Re: Mass Surveillance in the United States

#63

Post by faceblob2 »

parliament32 wrote: post #51
apo wrote: post #27

> Contemporary mass surveillance relies upon annual presidential executive orders declaring a continued State of National Emergency, first signed by George W. Bush on September 14, 2001 and then continued on an annual basis by President Barack Obama,[3] and upon several subsequent national security Acts including the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendment Act's PRISM surveillance program. Mass surveillance is a bipartisa…

Regarding the national emergencies, here's the best part: You can't really declare a military national emergency without a declared war going on. But since the US wants to keep it's emergency-surveillance powers, and it can't choose random countries to go to war with constantly... they declared a "War on Terror", which (while sounding like a campaign slogan) satisfies the requirement for "the country is at war so we…

The cleverest part is repeatedly staging false flag terror events against one's own people, blaming it on a patsy or simply an idea ("terror"), pounding fear-based jingoism into the public psyche, and using this to justify any authoritarian constitution-crushing measures out of government's putative concern for citizens' safety. It's clever because nobody could be that evil. Or at least, not our boys.

Re: Mass Surveillance in the United States

#64

Post by faceblob2 »

oil25 wrote: post #62

One way we can begin to address, or at least help recognize, mass surveillance is to use the same tools of surveillance the oppressors use on us. A recent phenomenon I have observed on YouTube is the rise in "First Amendment audit" videos, where somebody stands in the public space and awkwardly films police, politicians and other elected officials (our servants) going about their day and duties. The videos often esca…

We can rise up together and physically dismantle the infrastructure they have erected. We can move to encrypted communications and/or ditch our phones altogether. But that requires a concerted effort by large swaths of people, and as far as I can see, there is no collective mentality toward this end. Most people are hooked to their phones, and therefore are hooked to the surveillance state, and they would hardly dream of getting rid of the device that embodies their choicest addiction.

Re: Mass Surveillance in the United States

#65

Post by stebann »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #25
sambull wrote: post #2

"By 2020, about 30,000 unmanned drones are expected to be deployed in the United States for the purpose of surveillance and law enforcement"

Given the direction it's going, USA will likely want face recognition in the streets in the near future. I wonder how will the government convince their citizens it's for their own good. Maybe it will start in troublesome neighborhoods, show some benefits, and slowly expand everywhere.

Dictatorship

Re: Mass Surveillance in the United States

#66

Post by aaron-santos »

AlexandrB wrote: post #29

We're heading into a world where privacy is obsolete. Slowly eroded "from the bottom" by the slow creep of the Overton window of what's acceptable by tech companies and "from the top" by advances in military surveillance tech and increasing willingness by western government to use this tech on their own citizens. In this environment will meaningful[1] political action even be possible? [1] Meaningful as in: outside o…

If facial identification tech becomes commoditized, someone is going to figure out that combination of realtime identification and block lists enable the boycotting of individuals based on political affiliation, their employer (think fossil fuel industry), or any other non-protected class. Guerilla surveillance could serve as a check against individuals deciding to work for a business if it hurts their ability to go about their daily lives. But let's face it, something like this would go down like modern day Muscadins.

Re: Mass Surveillance in the United States

#67

Post by kragen »

carapace wrote: post #52
kragen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friend was raped by the police, in the police station. Giving all the power to the police does not eliminate crime; it just changes who commits the crimes.

Dude that's horrible. Let me try to be delicate. Those "police" should fear ubiquitous surveillance, not you. We have to exercise our democratic power to make sure that e.g. Internal Affairs can find and deal with criminals who have infiltrated police.

ⓐ if the police have access to ubiquitous surveillance of everyone, you aren't going to have any democratic power. In fact my friend didn't either; we had a dictatorship. But in large part because we didn't have ubiquitous surveillance, opposing it was possible, and we eventually restored democracy, despite the US's support for the dictatorship.

ⓑ they weren't "infiltrating" the police. They were the police. If you give people unlimited power to fuck others up, they will abuse it. If you think Internal Affairs is a solution to this, look up Serpico, and consider how many cops came before him and kept their mouths shut.

Re: Mass Surveillance in the United States

#68

Post by carapace »

kragen wrote: post #67
carapace wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude that's horrible. Let me try to be delicate. Those "police" should fear ubiquitous surveillance, not you. We have to exercise our democratic power to make sure that e.g. Internal Affairs can find and deal with criminals who have infiltrated police.

ⓐ if the police have access to ubiquitous surveillance of everyone, you aren't going to have any democratic power. In fact my friend didn't either; we had a dictatorship. But in large part because we didn't have ubiquitous surveillance, opposing it was possible, and we eventually restored democracy, despite the US's support for the dictatorship. ⓑ they weren't "infiltrating" the police. They were the police. If you g…

In that situation, you're already in the Morlocks (corrupt power) and Eloi (helpless victims) scenario. It's too late.

FWIW, I'm sorry we supported your dictatorship.

Here in SF our police can't steal fajitas and get away with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fajitagate

I apologize for the tasteless humor. We have had problems:

> Plaintiffs alleged mistreatment at the hands of four veteran officers, known as the "Riders", who were alleged to have kidnapped, planted evidence, and beaten citizens. Plaintiffs also alleged that the Oakland Police Department (OPD) turned a blind eye to police misconduct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_v._City_of_Oakland

Oakland PD has been under a federal babysitter ever since.

But the civil culture is still pretty messed up. Some Oakland police "rescued" a minor from her pimp and then passed her around:

> According to interviews with the victim, elected officials, and sources close to OPD, in addition to documents obtained by the Express, at least fourteen Oakland Police officers, three Richmond Police officers, and four Alameda County Sheriff's deputies had sex with the girl who goes by the name Celeste Guap.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160612121948/http://www.eastba...

And then there was the jailhouse "Fight Club" in SF:

> The San Francisco district attorney’s office dropped all criminal charges Friday against three sheriff’s deputies accused of forcing city jail inmates to fight each other in gladiator-style battles more than three years ago.

> The decision to dismiss the inmate “fight club” case comes after prosecutors said they learned the Sheriff’s Department mishandled the investigation into deputies Scott Neu, Eugene Jones and Clifford Chiba by destroying evidence and improperly conducting joint administrative and criminal investigations.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/DA-drops-charges-i...

The common theme here is that cops are people, they do wrong sometimes, and we have systems to try to correct that when it happens. Those systems are flawed and sometimes fail completely. Rule of law takes effort. Automation should be deployed used to reduce that effort, not reinforce dictatorships. That's what I'm saying: we can't escape techno-totalitarianism so it behooves us to do the work to make it humane.

Re: Mass Surveillance in the United States

#69

Post by dTal »

imglorp wrote: post #45
insickness wrote: post #33

This may be an unpopular opinion but I'm not against more surveillance cameras in public places. As a photographer, I have the right, and should continue to have the right, to film in any public place. Private businesses and the government should do it too. Put cameras on all police officers and as many public employees as possible. As long as fair access is maintained to the footage, the more the better.

I feel like this is a popular misconception, a sort of strawman argument. It kind of goes like "you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, so taking some pictures in public is okay." It could even be extended to say the footage could be reviewed later if a crime were committed, that helps public safety. But that's not what's happening here, it's not just a camera. It's a vast data aggregation network th…

To redraw the analogy - it's fine to take pictures in a public place. It's not fine to follow someone around all day, every day, constantly taking pictures of them. That's called stalking, and automating it on a mass scale doesn't make it right.

Re: Mass Surveillance in the United States

#70

Post by insickness »

imglorp wrote: post #45
insickness wrote: post #33

This may be an unpopular opinion but I'm not against more surveillance cameras in public places. As a photographer, I have the right, and should continue to have the right, to film in any public place. Private businesses and the government should do it too. Put cameras on all police officers and as many public employees as possible. As long as fair access is maintained to the footage, the more the better.

I feel like this is a popular misconception, a sort of strawman argument. It kind of goes like "you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, so taking some pictures in public is okay." It could even be extended to say the footage could be reviewed later if a crime were committed, that helps public safety. But that's not what's happening here, it's not just a camera. It's a vast data aggregation network th…

You made a jump from being able to trace every move someone makes to 'an oppressive government rounding up dissenters for re-education.' Keeping movement secret is not what keeps the government from rounding up dissenters for re-education. Governments were rounding up dissenters for re-education a long time ago. They could use passport and license photos for that if they wanted to. Should we prevent those technologies as well? No, what will keep governments from rounding up dissenters is stopping government from rounding up dissenters, not trying to turn back the time on technology.
Post reply on HN