The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward • Hacker News Board

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#91

Post by dragonwriter » Sun, Sep 12, 2021, 12:24 PM UTC

specialist wrote: post #43

Scanned this article. I remain ambivalent about ACLU's efforts to defend privacy rights. What is privacy? What would ACLU's future perfect privacy protecting world look like? How, specifically, does our world differ from that world? Is the ACLU just rearranging the deck chairs, as The Titanic sinks? This is a complicated topic. Firstly, I don't trust that the ACLU understands our current surveillance economy. One imp…

> I simply cannot believe that there haven't been many more attempted terrorist attacks.

Given how many of those caught weren't so much “attempted terror attacks” as people talking big who had to be dragged into anything more by the Feds, and how Islamix terror groups have had more to gain by targeting US targets abroad since the 9/11 response started, I can easily believe therr haven't been many foiled attacks by domestic dragnet surveillance.

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#92

Post by dTal » Sun, Sep 12, 2021, 12:41 PM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #56

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't actually need to worry about your obvious question, because it doesn't work . Yours is hypothetical. (And hypothetical questions can be interesting. Also, it can be good to have answers while they're still hypothetical, because sometimes they quit being hypothetical, sometimes very abruptly. But for the current discussion, we can reject mass surveillance on pragmatic grounds without worrying about the theore…

It's not obvious that mass surveillance doesn't work. It seems to work pretty well for the Chinese. Anyway, we have a mass surveillance program because people thought it would work. Perhaps we could have avoided the program if we had more people in that room who had effectively argued that, even if it worked, it was not to be pursued for reasons that have nothing to do with its efficacy. Sometimes principles come in…

While you're not wrong, it seems very clear that these measures are not being pushed for their stated purpose. The fact that they are ineffective at that purpose is powerful and important supporting evidence that we should not ignore.

Here's an example: Article 20 of The French Military Programming Law, which entered into force on 1 January 2015 against heavy criticism from civil liberties groups, gave the state full access to all unencrypted telecommunications, including SMS.

11 months later, Paris was attacked by a wave of terrorism, coordinated by... unencrypted SMS.

In response, the government... pushed through even more intrusive surveillance legislation, and coordinated a public relations push to implicate encrypted messaging providers as "complicit".

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#93

Post by actually_a_dog » Sun, Sep 12, 2021, 1:38 PM UTC

oliv__ wrote: post #85

actually_a_dog wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you've got a problem, then. You don't get rights just for being born. You only get rights within the context of a society that has agreed to respect those rights. Consider this: if you have rights simply because you are human, then there must be something different about humans that gives them those rights, which chimps and bonobos don't have. What is that?

> Consider this: if you have rights simply because you are human, then there must be something different about humans that gives them those rights, which chimps and bonobos don't have. What is that? Uhm consciousness?

How do you know chimps and bonobos aren't conscious?

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#94

Post by specialist » Sun, Sep 12, 2021, 1:47 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #91

specialist wrote: post #43

Scanned this article. I remain ambivalent about ACLU's efforts to defend privacy rights. What is privacy? What would ACLU's future perfect privacy protecting world look like? How, specifically, does our world differ from that world? Is the ACLU just rearranging the deck chairs, as The Titanic sinks? This is a complicated topic. Firstly, I don't trust that the ACLU understands our current surveillance economy. One imp…

> I simply cannot believe that there haven't been many more attempted terrorist attacks. Given how many of those caught weren't so much “attempted terror attacks” as people talking big who had to be dragged into anything more by the Feds, and how Islamix terror groups have had more to gain by targeting US targets abroad since the 9/11 response started, I can easily believe therr haven't been many foiled attacks by do…

I'm split brain on this.

Our War on Terror has been a complete clown show, policy disaster, absolutely made things worse.

And yet, I'm at a loss for why there haven't been more attacks.

Could it be true that "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" and programs like the drone strikes are actually effective?

Are we decapitating terrorists org before they can become effective?

Was putting Saudi govt's nuts in a vice sufficient to stop them from funding follow on efforts?

Are our vassal states doing all the dirty work for us, taking all the hits?

Surely someone, somewhere knows these answers.

So here's my point:

In any of the scenarios where some kind of mass surveillance of foreign actors is necessary or useful, I cannot imagine a system or regiment where that does not bleed into domestic surveillance.

Which has been the whole argument from the beginning. Turf, jurisdictions, distinction between domestic and abroad, etc.

If our counter terrorism has been completely moot, then ya, scrap the whole system. But if its actually been working, then I'm not ready to pull the plug without some kind of plan.

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#95

Post by owl_troupe » Sun, Sep 12, 2021, 6:44 PM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #56

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't actually need to worry about your obvious question, because it doesn't work . Yours is hypothetical. (And hypothetical questions can be interesting. Also, it can be good to have answers while they're still hypothetical, because sometimes they quit being hypothetical, sometimes very abruptly. But for the current discussion, we can reject mass surveillance on pragmatic grounds without worrying about the theore…

It's not obvious that mass surveillance doesn't work. It seems to work pretty well for the Chinese. Anyway, we have a mass surveillance program because people thought it would work. Perhaps we could have avoided the program if we had more people in that room who had effectively argued that, even if it worked, it was not to be pursued for reasons that have nothing to do with its efficacy. Sometimes principles come in…

By "work[ing] well", what is the metric you see as success?

A broad society that has rendered itself completely nonthreatening to its ruling class?

A place where certain forms free expression can result in imprisonment, torture, or execution? [1]

Mass surveillance serving as the infrastructure of religious, ethnic, and political persecution, including genocide? [2]

[1] https://organharvestinvestigation.net/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide#Use_of_biometr...

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#96

Post by pope_meat » Sun, Sep 12, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #89

pope_meat wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A protest that inconveniences no one is a protest that's easily ignored. You have to bring attention to the issue, otherwise everyone else will just go on with their day. Civil disobedience is not a bad thing.

Peaceful protests don’t inconvenience 99.9% of the US population and are largely ignored by the media. Civil disobedience isn’t signing up ahead of time and standing in free speech zones, it’s marching anyway and getting arrested.

Yup yup yup. During the civil rights movement people would do sit ins at businesses that segregated, blocking that businesses ability to make money. They marched in the streets, blocking traffic. Humans hate to change anything unless it becomes necessary, so to bring about meaningful change, you have to be a thorn in the side.