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

Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#61

Post by akiselev »

noelherrick wrote: post #38
analyst74 wrote: post #4

No, surveillance is not a threat to democracy, people not caring about democracy is what threatens democracy. Democracy has never been a right, it's always been a privilege that people demanded, and guess what, when people stop demanding it, power will naturally collude.

I agree with your point that apathy is a threat to democracy, but there are multiple threats to an open and fair system, and a surveillance state is one of them.

I would argue that most (if not all other) internal threats to a democracy are a subset of the vigilance and apathy problem.

If the surveillance state existed before the democracy and continued on without the consent of the governed, then it wasn't a democracy to begin with. If the citizens allowed a surveillance state to take root or their vigilance slipped, then continued vigilance would keep the surveillance state in check. However, I'm making the assumption here that for the surveillance state to take enough power to make it unstoppable (without violent revolution), it would have to grow to the point where its secrecy is no longer maintainable, and the aforementioned vigilance would take over and bring in the rains.

Now that I've written that, it all seems like semantics...

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#62

Post by betterunix »

yen223 wrote: post #54
betterunix wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is just a figure of speech, don't be pedantic about this.

It's not pedantic. One of the most notable aspects of the US constitution is that its power is explicitly derived from the masses - "We the people ..." - and not from some divine power, unlike the British monarchy.

Power is derived from the people, not rights. An early argument was over the very need for an explicit bill of rights. Even the text of the bill of rights suggests that the founders believed that certain rights are inherent:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...

That wording seems to just assume that people have the right to speak freely, that no law is needed to give people that right, and that laws can only restrict that right (and such laws are explicitly forbidden). The phrase "God-given rights" is not meant to assert that God exists, it is meant to assert that certain rights transcend legal codes and exist regardless of what government happens to be in power (or even if there is a government in power).

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#63

Post by jlgreco »

gnaritas wrote: post #59
jlgreco wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To one using "god" as a figure of speech, "self-evident" and "god" are sufficiently equivalent for the purposes of this discussion. You can consider both concepts to imply that the subject is considered beyond question and in need of no external justification. I have no literal believe in gods, but I use the terminology semi-frequently in the manner being described.

The word god is in no way equivalent to self evident and if you use it as such you're simply not communicating well and likely not getting your point across to those listening. Worse, you're using a term that will turn off listeners who tire of religious nonsense being injected in conversations about important issues. There's nothing less self evident than a god, they are certainly not synonyms.

What is "faith", if not considering something to be self evident? Something being self-evident just means that you don't care to provide any justification for it. I see no difference between it and faith. Gods are considered axiomatic by the religious just as the basic set of rights are considered axiomatic by American government literature.

Self evidence does not imply "correct". Far from it.

This has never before arose as a point of contention in conversation for me. You are being rather uniquely odd about it. And in case you missed it, I am not the person further up in the conversation.

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#65

Post by malandrew »

alan_cx wrote: post #46

I would suggest its a threat to society, even humanity it's self. Social interaction only works because we have the ability to keep secrets. We hide our true feelings and intents to enable the great machine to work. If those views became known to all, you'd be in trouble. Worse still, what if you really knew every one else's views. Even worse than that, say a few people knew your real views, then used them to manipul…

I'm curious if you can even attach a quantitative value to information omission and lying through experiment. I suspect that there is some sort of nash equilibrium achieved that creates more overall welfare in a system with information omission and lying than an identical system minus the information omission and lying. I'm curious what quantity of omission/lying (assuming it's measurable) produces the greatest overall welfare even if some individual actors may fare more poorly in said system.

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#66

Post by gnaritas »

jlgreco wrote: post #63
gnaritas wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word god is in no way equivalent to self evident and if you use it as such you're simply not communicating well and likely not getting your point across to those listening. Worse, you're using a term that will turn off listeners who tire of religious nonsense being injected in conversations about important issues. There's nothing less self evident than a god, they are certainly not synonyms.

What is "faith", if not considering something to be self evident? Something being self-evident just means that you don't care to provide any justification for it. I see no difference between it and faith. Gods are considered axiomatic by the religious just as the basic set of rights are considered axiomatic by American government literature. Self evidence does not imply "correct". Far from it. This has never before a…

Oh I'm aware you're not the same guy.

While the religious might consider it self evident, the non religious don't so your choice of wording has the opposite affect that you intend on those of us who consider it nonsense. You've taken something simple like the phrase self evident and replaced it with something provocative and not immediately apparent in meaning to the non religious.

Some people consider faith a virtue, others consider it idiotic, so it seems a poor thing to introduce when you can simply and unambiguously say self evident. I am not unique in this, and it's got nothing to do with being correct or not, rather its about a poor choice in communication by choosing language that means different things to different people. To consider god a synonym for self evident is simply an absurd notion to me and I'm sure to most atheists.

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#67

Post by Qantourisc »

analyst74 wrote: post #4

No, surveillance is not a threat to democracy, people not caring about democracy is what threatens democracy. Democracy has never been a right, it's always been a privilege that people demanded, and guess what, when people stop demanding it, power will naturally collude.

Surveillance alone no, but it puts you 1 step away from an oppressive government before it is.

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#68

Post by jlgreco »

jlgreco wrote: post #63
gnaritas wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word god is in no way equivalent to self evident and if you use it as such you're simply not communicating well and likely not getting your point across to those listening. Worse, you're using a term that will turn off listeners who tire of religious nonsense being injected in conversations about important issues. There's nothing less self evident than a god, they are certainly not synonyms.

What is "faith", if not considering something to be self evident? Something being self-evident just means that you don't care to provide any justification for it. I see no difference between it and faith. Gods are considered axiomatic by the religious just as the basic set of rights are considered axiomatic by American government literature. Self evidence does not imply "correct". Far from it. This has never before a…

Looks like I am on the edge of being hellbanned, as a full hour later I am still unable to directly respond to your comment... Just as well, I suppose.

To be explicit, I am an atheist. More to the point, I am an anti-theist atheist. I think poorly of those who believe in gods. There are very few things I think more idiotic in this world than the belief in gods of any sort.

This said I understand the terminology "self-evident" and do not pretent do muddy my understanding simply because I disagree and disrespect the beliefs of the religious. Things that are considered self-evident by believers are rarely believed by non-believers. Why should they be? If a follower considers something to be self-evident that means that they are not providing any justification to non-believers. Something that is self-evident has no justification outside of itself. There is a reason atheists such as ourselves find this to be absurd and damaging when applied outside of extraordinarily limited domains.

Believers in American style democracy consider certain rights to be self-evident, they provide no justification for these things. Believers of gods similarly provide absolutely no justification for their believes. Both are accurately described as "self-evident" believes, from the perspective of believers. Were they not considered such, then their believers would provide justifications.

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#69

Post by alexqgb »

alexqgb wrote: post #50
analyst74 wrote: post #4

No, surveillance is not a threat to democracy, people not caring about democracy is what threatens democracy. Democracy has never been a right, it's always been a privilege that people demanded, and guess what, when people stop demanding it, power will naturally collude.

Additionally "surveillance" is far too general a concept to be considered harmful or helpful in and of itself. The determining factor lies in the system that surrounds it. In other words, a "democratic surveillance state" isn't an oxymoron. Nor it it necessarily a bad thing. However, it differs sharply from an authoritarian surveillance state, which is invariably horrible. Writing for the Washington Post, Mike Koncza…

Pretty sure that whoever down-voted this didn't actually read the link. Here's the key passage:

"As Aaron Bady has argued in MIT’s Technology Review, the language and concepts for privacy evolved in a world where “walls” were still the dominant metaphor. Peeking through a wall was sufficient to prove you violated someone’s privacy. But technology has opened up a brand new world where walls no longer exist, or things exist in so many places that the idea of walls makes no sense. Without them we need new concepts.

As is often the case, the battle between authoritarianism and democracy can do a lot of the mental work. One of the great things about democracy is its ability to check private and government power, as well as creating institutional structure promoting accountability and transparency. And I fear it is the only way out of the situation our country faces."

The point is that the definition of surveillance itself is changing along with the concept of privacy, leading to shifts in previously-stable balances of power. To a very large extent, these changes - which have both positive and negative aspects - are byproducts of a larger technological shift which has already brought far to many advantages to reverse.

In other words, we need to develop new social norms and structures to ensure the safety of what could otherwise be very dangerous system. We don't have to do this from scratch, but the familiar frames of reference do need updating. And that starts with recognizing that "surveillance" by itself, is neither good nor bad (depending on who is watching who, under what circumstances, and why), but that it can easily be either depending on the context.

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#70

Post by marshray »

analyst74 wrote: post #4

No, surveillance is not a threat to democracy, people not caring about democracy is what threatens democracy. Democracy has never been a right, it's always been a privilege that people demanded, and guess what, when people stop demanding it, power will naturally collude.

You can't have a democracy without citizens who are able to think freely.

You can't think freely when you are aware that an invisible entity is constantly watching every phone call you make and every web page you surf to. Knowing you're under surveillance changes your behavior.

It's a recipe for insanity, not democracy.

Post reply on HN