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

Global Mass Surveillance – The Fourteen Eyes

privacytools.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 161 posts

Re: Global Mass Surveillance – The Fourteen Eyes

#41

Post by boomboomsubban »

crispyporkbites wrote: post #33
dsbleia wrote: post #30

I'm asking this question not to spark a contentious debate or be ridiculed. But I'm genuinely curious, as someone who has little experience with China and only lived in the US, is the US just as much of a surveillance state as China? We often hear a lot of 'information' (bordering propaganda), about China being an "authoritarian surveillance state". I don't mean to sound absurd, but is the US that much better in term…

The US is much better. Take for example internet surveillance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_and_surv... China is in another league. They are using deep packet inspection to block services they don’t allow access to, they force some people to install apps on their phone that track them. The great firewall of China is far more visible and impactful than the real Great Wall of China.

>Take for example internet surveillance:

There are three somewhat current reports on there. One comes from the US State department, one from an organization started by Eleanor Roosevelt with strong US ties, and one lists both China and the US as "enemies of the internet."

Re: Global Mass Surveillance – The Fourteen Eyes

#42

Post by ColanR »

jjcon wrote: post #31
ColanR wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a semantic difference that doesn't bear any relevance to what I'm saying. To "realize" that it can be reasonable is to accept the underlying premise - that surveillance is not necessarily (logic term there) unacceptable. I am specifically arguing that we do not (should not) accept a priori the premise that surveillance is not necessarily bad. To do so is to capitulate the entire argument against surveillance,…

I’m not sure moral puritanism is really that useful here. Surveillance isn’t going anywhere and it is demonstrably useful for national security. We are best off working to allow it to operate with ample checks and balances rather than closing our eyes and pretending it is superfluous.

As I said earlier, you're espousing an outlook that has already given up. As other commentators have pointed out, checks and balances are unreliable at best, futile at worst.

If you are interested in negotiating for minor concessions with entities who have demonstrated a willingness to work outside the law (and write new laws where needed), then your pragmatism will boil you slowly.

Re: Global Mass Surveillance – The Fourteen Eyes

#43

Post by casraso »

dsbleia wrote: post #30

I'm asking this question not to spark a contentious debate or be ridiculed. But I'm genuinely curious, as someone who has little experience with China and only lived in the US, is the US just as much of a surveillance state as China? We often hear a lot of 'information' (bordering propaganda), about China being an "authoritarian surveillance state". I don't mean to sound absurd, but is the US that much better in term…

Americans like to think they are immune to propaganda, or that for some reason other countries produce more of it than they do. What I have observed as someone not living in china or america is that they are roughly on equal footing and produce about as much deceptive trash as any other country, my own included. This means you will have a lot of americans answering your question by saying that america does less surveillance, not understanding after all the years of pledging allegiance to the flag and having armed police in their schools, that they are very very similar to china and it would be naive to assume they are not being watched as much.

It is also unlikely they even know what happens in china to a good extent because china itself is not very communicative; they still report the same covid stats since march, for example, and their government websites are full of broken links. It is hard for me to get accurate info on china even from news sites, I wouldn't trust what most people say.

All that said I think China is worse, but Americans would have you believe the difference is gigantic.

Re: Global Mass Surveillance – The Fourteen Eyes

#44

Post by casraso »

jjcon wrote: post #37
dsbleia wrote: post #30

I'm asking this question not to spark a contentious debate or be ridiculed. But I'm genuinely curious, as someone who has little experience with China and only lived in the US, is the US just as much of a surveillance state as China? We often hear a lot of 'information' (bordering propaganda), about China being an "authoritarian surveillance state". I don't mean to sound absurd, but is the US that much better in term…

The US and EU countries have processes, checks and balances on those powers (though not always enough, I think they need more). These checks keep abuse low and keep mass surveillance limited to national security domains. This is in stark contrast to China where this power can be used/abused with almost no oversight or limitations.

What is a specific example of such a process, check, and/or balance that the united states has that china does not?

Re: Global Mass Surveillance – The Fourteen Eyes

#45

Post by thescriptkiddie »

dsbleia wrote: post #30

I'm asking this question not to spark a contentious debate or be ridiculed. But I'm genuinely curious, as someone who has little experience with China and only lived in the US, is the US just as much of a surveillance state as China? We often hear a lot of 'information' (bordering propaganda), about China being an "authoritarian surveillance state". I don't mean to sound absurd, but is the US that much better in term…

I suspect that the main difference is that China is transparent about its surveillance programs, while the US ones are top secret.

Re: Global Mass Surveillance – The Fourteen Eyes

#46

Post by Zak »

jjcon wrote: post #31
ColanR wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a semantic difference that doesn't bear any relevance to what I'm saying. To "realize" that it can be reasonable is to accept the underlying premise - that surveillance is not necessarily (logic term there) unacceptable. I am specifically arguing that we do not (should not) accept a priori the premise that surveillance is not necessarily bad. To do so is to capitulate the entire argument against surveillance,…

I’m not sure moral puritanism is really that useful here. Surveillance isn’t going anywhere and it is demonstrably useful for national security. We are best off working to allow it to operate with ample checks and balances rather than closing our eyes and pretending it is superfluous.

> it is demonstrably useful for national security

Is it? Please demonstrate it by listing terrorist incidents prevented or active terrorists caught due to surveillance other than narrowly-targeted police investigation, or military action in an active combat zone.

To qualify, the use of broad surveillance should be a necessary component of the investigation, i.e. the investigation would not have started or reached the conclusion it did without it. If some of these exist but they're all classified, that's problematic from the perspective of democracy because it prevents the public from making an informed decision about their merit.

Re: Global Mass Surveillance – The Fourteen Eyes

#47

Post by CyberDildonics »

casraso wrote: post #44
jjcon wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US and EU countries have processes, checks and balances on those powers (though not always enough, I think they need more). These checks keep abuse low and keep mass surveillance limited to national security domains. This is in stark contrast to China where this power can be used/abused with almost no oversight or limitations.

What is a specific example of such a process, check, and/or balance that the united states has that china does not?

To start, the chinese government has none at all.

Re: Global Mass Surveillance – The Fourteen Eyes

#48

Post by casraso »

jjcon wrote: post #6

I think it is important that we all take a second to realize that surveillance can be a reasonable apparatus of a well maintained democracy. We should strive to have proper checks and balances on those powers rather than pretend they are not useful or do not exist. With proper checks surveillance can greatly improve national security but it should be kept to that domain and we should seek to prevent abuses. I think u…

I disagree with your premise entirely. I'm not sure a single 'check and balance' exists that can keep surveillance under control. It has an inherent propensity for abuse. There is no amount of bureaucracy or red tape that will make mass surveillance a benevolent force.

Re: Global Mass Surveillance – The Fourteen Eyes

#49

Post by nicholasjarnold »

eivarv wrote: post #28
zionic wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't see many talk about is how much harm the belief that they harvest everything is, on top of just the actual deed itself. If I am an organization that is well known to be spying on everyone and anything, that means I can very convincingly fabricate evidence against my enemies. It goes beyond simple spying, they now have the ability to manufacture whatever truth they'd like.

Though not exactly what you're referring to, my impression is that people discuss the chilling effect [0] quite a bit. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect#Chilling_effec...

Yes, and this so-called Chilling Effect can have a potentially very negative impact on the ability of a democratic society to thrive and possibly to even survive. Democracies require (open, honest) debate. If we self-censor then we hold back on fully-expressing views or positions during debate.

This is one of the fundamental issues that I have with this proliferation of population-scale mass-surveillance (domestically in the US and abroad). It will not lead us into any sort of light, despite the promises about safety or less kiddie pr0n or whatever.

Re: Global Mass Surveillance – The Fourteen Eyes

#50

Post by ColanR »

Zak wrote: post #46
jjcon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure moral puritanism is really that useful here. Surveillance isn’t going anywhere and it is demonstrably useful for national security. We are best off working to allow it to operate with ample checks and balances rather than closing our eyes and pretending it is superfluous.

> it is demonstrably useful for national security Is it? Please demonstrate it by listing terrorist incidents prevented or active terrorists caught due to surveillance other than narrowly-targeted police investigation, or military action in an active combat zone. To qualify, the use of broad surveillance should be a necessary component of the investigation, i.e. the investigation would not have started or reached the…

I don't think that's quite fair. I greatly doubt that successful preventions would be willingly associated with questionably legal surveillance. In the US, "parallel construction" is used specifically to hide how information was obtained and I'm sure similar motivations exist here.
Post reply on HN