Academics Against Mass Surveillance • Hacker News Board

Re: Academics Against Mass Surveillance

#21

Post by asgard1024 » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 9:02 PM UTC

lectrick wrote: post #19

yodsanklai wrote: post #14

I suppose pretty much everybody is against mass surveillance, academics or not. But what choice do we have? I think the problem is that we don't really live in democracies. It's not only mass surveillance, but also wars, inequalities and so on...

Any country in charge of its own currency can always fund a war without a vote by simply printing more of it for itself (debasing the currency of course via "invisible tax"), which is why I support cryptocurrencies. Any person who is OK with mass surveillance has clearly never seen the movie The Lives of Others ("Das Leben der Anderen," yes it's German with English subtitles, deal with it) http://www.rottentomatoes.c…

"Any country in charge of its own currency can always fund a war without a vote by simply printing more of it for itself"

Really? How? Who will fight in this war? Their own population, for the worthless currency? And where do the weapons (and gasoline to power these) come from? Or are they going to spray the enemy with bonds and futures?

Re: Academics Against Mass Surveillance

#22

Post by sroerick » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 9:03 PM UTC

f_salmon wrote: post #6

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #2

While I agree in principle, opposing surveillance is like pissing into the wind. Privacy is becoming extinct. Soon devices and technologies will be impossible to regulate - specks of dust that record sound and location; recorders that stick to clothing, hair, skin; phones and tablets that come pre-infected in their OS and hardware. We can oppose it, and maybe stave off for a few years, but inevitably we are all going…

> Better to design new social mechanisms to protect against misuse of the data, than try and prevent its collection. The only way to achieve this, is to eliminate EVERY kind of asymmetry in society (which we should have achieved a long time ago, since we all always pretend that every life has the exact same value). If you keep any kind of asymmetry within society and accept mass surveillance, democracy is dead becaus…

Yes, this point cannot be made enough.

Technology will probably eliminate privacy. But the same organizations who belabor this point also claim they need total secrecy to operate.

The sword cuts both ways. And it should cut their way first.

Re: Academics Against Mass Surveillance

#23

Post by lkbm » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 9:27 PM UTC

BrownBuffalo wrote: post #17

herbig wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, I've been surprised by just how many of the people I know either don't know anything at all about this, or simply don't care.

This also plays out in the turn-out of voters on election day - its just a disconnect in community. Not saying its bad -or- good, but its reflective of how diluted our outlets are and the lack of trust we all have in everything and it becomes a culture of indifference.

If we had a direct vote on mass surveillance I wouldn't be at all surprised if American voters rejected it, but that's not how we make political decisions in the US.

There are very few candidates who oppose mass surveillance (though we did elect a president who spoke out against trading freedom for security during his campaign), and most of them also have a bunch of other policy positions that are sufficiently distasteful to enough people that even opponents of mass surveillance will either reject him/her for those other positions, or reject him/her for being "unelectable".

Re: Academics Against Mass Surveillance

#24

Post by someguyonhn » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 9:36 PM UTC

yodsanklai wrote: post #14

I suppose pretty much everybody is against mass surveillance, academics or not. But what choice do we have? I think the problem is that we don't really live in democracies. It's not only mass surveillance, but also wars, inequalities and so on...

We don't really live in democracies? So the fact that a President of the United States was elected who appointed two liberal leaning Supreme Court justices that were confirmed by a freely and fairly elected Senate and now serve their terms without fear of being removed for making an unpopular decision, making Roe v. Wade less likely to be overturned, and the recent Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 cases to be adjudicated the way they were didn't happen? If that's not democracy I'd love to hear what you think is.

Saying we don't live in a democracy is a popular thing to say (obviously, seeing as this is the top comment) but it's just wrong. Senator McCain and then-Senator Obama had two very separate plans for things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and healthcare reform if they were elected. The fact that the country and the world is the way it is today, for better or worse, is because people went out and voted in a free and fair election, and then did it again and again and again in primaries and general elections for local, state, and federal offices in the US.

The Constitution of the United States says that, had the sitting President of the United States or myself been alive during the start of our country, we would be 3/5ths of a human being... yet he runs the place, and I had the right to have campaigned and voted for him twice had I been inclined. That's democracy in action. The fact that he, myself, the two previously mentioned Supreme Court justices, and anyone else got to exercise our right to vote, knowing if we were intimidated or denied for any reason the judicial system would support our right, is democracy in action. The fact that I can get on HN, reddit, a blog, or walk outside and type/say pretty much whatever vile things I want about the leaders of my country and any other country, is democracy in action.

Obviously Americans are lucky to live in a time and place where we have the ability to perfect our Union.

Please don't disrespect the work of countless often forgotten women, men, and children from around the globe who have sacrificed, willingly or otherwise, very significant parts of, and all too often their entire lives for democracy, by acting like their actions didn't help contribute to others being able to live in (or one day live in) democracies.

Re: Academics Against Mass Surveillance

#25

Post by TelmoMenezes » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 9:57 PM UTC

twoodfin wrote: post #15

f_salmon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Better to design new social mechanisms to protect against misuse of the data, than try and prevent its collection. The only way to achieve this, is to eliminate EVERY kind of asymmetry in society (which we should have achieved a long time ago, since we all always pretend that every life has the exact same value). If you keep any kind of asymmetry within society and accept mass surveillance, democracy is dead becaus…

which we should have achieved a long time ago, since we all always pretend that every life has the exact same value I don't think we've ever pretended this. We've "pretended" that all men are created equal, but what anyone does from there has a great impact on how society will value them. And why not? Two guys created equal: One spends his life on his parents' couch, the other becomes Bill Gates or Michael Jordan. Wh…

That depends. If the couch potato is my neighbour and takes care of my cat when I'm away, I will probably value him more.

Re: Academics Against Mass Surveillance

#26

Post by laumars » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 10:25 PM UTC

someguyonhn wrote: post #24

yodsanklai wrote: post #14

I suppose pretty much everybody is against mass surveillance, academics or not. But what choice do we have? I think the problem is that we don't really live in democracies. It's not only mass surveillance, but also wars, inequalities and so on...

We don't really live in democracies? So the fact that a President of the United States was elected who appointed two liberal leaning Supreme Court justices that were confirmed by a freely and fairly elected Senate and now serve their terms without fear of being removed for making an unpopular decision, making Roe v. Wade less likely to be overturned, and the recent Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 cases to b…

I think the OP's point is that it's a pseudo-democracy. We might vote in a president or political party, but we have no real power over the decisions made.

Just to run in the elections you need heavy corporate sponsorship, which means any major candidate is already tainted with the potential of a conflict of interest. Then you have corporate lobbyists who have the ability to push their agendas in ways that the Joe Public and everyday voter never could.

And even if you could say without a doubt that no corruptions, secret deals with mates nor any conflict of interests existed in any of those in congress (etc), you still have the issue with regards to how much power some some government agencies have and how their not run by elected officials.

Sometimes it feels like all we're voting on is our favourite puppet and whoever gets voted in will just continue on the same regime that his predecessor left. Sometimes it feels like our votes are completely meaningless as if the government suspects something to be unpopular, then they'll just go ahead and do it anyway; but more covertly.

Re: Academics Against Mass Surveillance

#27

Post by someguyonhn » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 11:50 PM UTC

laumars wrote: post #26

someguyonhn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't really live in democracies? So the fact that a President of the United States was elected who appointed two liberal leaning Supreme Court justices that were confirmed by a freely and fairly elected Senate and now serve their terms without fear of being removed for making an unpopular decision, making Roe v. Wade less likely to be overturned, and the recent Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 cases to b…

I think the OP's point is that it's a pseudo-democracy. We might vote in a president or political party, but we have no real power over the decisions made. Just to run in the elections you need heavy corporate sponsorship, which means any major candidate is already tainted with the potential of a conflict of interest. Then you have corporate lobbyists who have the ability to push their agendas in ways that the Joe Pu…

I completely understand that OP isn't a fan of their current democracy. But let's be honest and not hyperbolic about what the situation really is. Again, I can't speak for every nation, but in America our democracy undeniably has its flaws and shortcoming but there is nothing I've ever heard of that is realistically stopping a movement with enough political will from making a change.

But instead of disagreeing on semantics about "real" or "pseudo" democracies, what "real power" is, etc., I'd be interested to know how you, OP, or anyone else would answer these two straightforward questions.

1. What is it about the current democracy you live in that would need to change for it to become a "real" democracy?

2. If enough people were to work together to make that change a reality, is there anything that could realistically stop that change from happening? (And I don't just mean, you might get out-campaigned, I mean no matter how hard you tried nothing could be done.)

Not being able to change what is wrong is I think a fairly simple starting point for defining something that is not a "real democracy".

The fact is, at least in the US any criticism of government that most people have is something that, if there is enough political will from the electorate, if you, me, and anyone else will knock on doors, talk to our neighbors, find candidates, run ourselves if necessary, can't be stopped.

I know people often phrase questions as backhanded insults on discussion forums, but please know I'm being genuine when I say I would be excited to hear you or anyone else describe specifically what needs to change in government, and then explain specifically why it's impossible for those changes to take place.

I believe any changes are definitely possible if the political will is there.

Re: Academics Against Mass Surveillance

#28

Post by laumars » Sat, Jan 04, 2014, 12:13 AM UTC

someguyonhn wrote: post #27

laumars wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the OP's point is that it's a pseudo-democracy. We might vote in a president or political party, but we have no real power over the decisions made. Just to run in the elections you need heavy corporate sponsorship, which means any major candidate is already tainted with the potential of a conflict of interest. Then you have corporate lobbyists who have the ability to push their agendas in ways that the Joe Pu…

I completely understand that OP isn't a fan of their current democracy. But let's be honest and not hyperbolic about what the situation really is. Again, I can't speak for every nation, but in America our democracy undeniably has its flaws and shortcoming but there is nothing I've ever heard of that is realistically stopping a movement with enough political will from making a change. But instead of disagreeing on sem…

I've already answered your points when I addressed what I thought was wrong with the current state of democracy.

You seem to have taken my post as an argument about semantics when it really wasn't; I was just expressing that I think you've taken the OP too literally when he said that we don't live in a democracy. Obviously we have elections, but his (and my) point was that the elections don't really change much because the real power usually ends up being those with the deepest pockets or those in charge of government organisations - neither of which the everyday man can elect nor control.

I do think you're right that it is theoretically possible for a truly impartial and incorruptible individual to make change; but I think that's hugely unlikely because I can't see them ever getting enough sponsorship to pay for their election campaign, nor for them to play dirty enough to win enough voters (since politicians and businesses will spin all sorts of negative PR about unfavourable candidates).

For what it's worth, I don't think "true democracy" would ever work because at some point we have to acknowledge that nobody is educated enough on every subject to make an informed opinion about it. Which means we need to rely on a smaller subset of individuals to make those informed decisions for us. The problem lies with whether we can trust those individuals or not. Sadly I don't trust our government nor the election process to generate any desirable individuals in the foreseeable future. :(

Re: Academics Against Mass Surveillance

#29

Post by rayiner » Sat, Jan 04, 2014, 12:44 AM UTC

yodsanklai wrote: post #14

I suppose pretty much everybody is against mass surveillance, academics or not. But what choice do we have? I think the problem is that we don't really live in democracies. It's not only mass surveillance, but also wars, inequalities and so on...

So I'm watching this new show "Almost Human." its about a future where technology destroys the traditional CSI techniques (e.g. DNA bombs to wipe out DNA evidence), and police are "forced to respond" with synthetic human police. So you have a cop that can go into a business and just download all the documents on their network without touching anything. At one point the synthetic cop asks his human partner "we don't need a warrant for this?" And the partner is like "I didn't think so either." The point of the joke is that the robot wants to follow the warrant requirement, because its a rule, but the human cop knows that its okay to break the rules when the bad guy could get away.

So no, not everyone opposes mass surveillance. Just watch some movies. Since the time of westerns there's been this deep seated idea that procedural protections are optional when a bad guy could get away. This is not a failure of democracy. This is a non-democratically designed procedure being eroded by democracy.

Re: Academics Against Mass Surveillance

#30

Post by someguyonhn » Sat, Jan 04, 2014, 12:44 AM UTC

laumars wrote: post #28

someguyonhn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely understand that OP isn't a fan of their current democracy. But let's be honest and not hyperbolic about what the situation really is. Again, I can't speak for every nation, but in America our democracy undeniably has its flaws and shortcoming but there is nothing I've ever heard of that is realistically stopping a movement with enough political will from making a change. But instead of disagreeing on sem…

I've already answered your points when I addressed what I thought was wrong with the current state of democracy. You seem to have taken my post as an argument about semantics when it really wasn't; I was just expressing that I think you've taken the OP too literally when he said that we don't live in a democracy. Obviously we have elections, but his (and my) point was that the elections don't really change much becau…

You've definitely addressed the first question I had. I'm sorry but I still can't find in your original post where you addressed the "If enough people were to work together to make that change a reality, is there anything that could realistically stop that change from happening?" question. Which is probably my fault for not explaining what I meant correctly. Maybe a better way to put it would have been, "how specifically would an ideal government work in your mind... and why is that impossible?"

From what you've written I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying that your ideal form of government is one run by individuals without corruption who can remain entirely impartial. But those people don't exist, therefore it's just not possible.

I would probably be inclined to agree that nobody is above all corruption etc. (especially not the tens of thousands it would take to fill every public position in the country) so in that regard I would probably agree with you.

My point, and I hope you can agree is that, sure we aren't going to find perfect people to run the country, because more likely than not, nobody including ourselves is completely perfect. But we can look at the types of corruption and other problems in government like campaign finance laws and find solutions. And here's the most important part, because we live in a democracy, nothing can stop us. For example we as a country might say, "okay, so all of this corruption you politicians are so fond of but isn't technically illegal, it's all illegal now. And if you participate in it you'll lose your seat and go to prison." Which for some types of corruption and campaign finance laws that already exist happens pretty frequently [1] [2]

Then we might say, "campaigns are all publicly funded from now on."

But no matter what we say or do, or how many tries it takes, because all of our votes count, and we can all go vote, we can keep on trying to make our Union a better one.

[1] - Daily show clip about former Illinois governor Rob Blagojevich being convicted of corruption charges. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-28-2011/conhair--...

[2] Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and his wife were convicted of crimes related to their campaign fund misuse. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/14/jesse...