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

Can We Avoid a Surveillance State Dystopia?

antipope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: Can We Avoid a Surveillance State Dystopia?

#71

Post by trekky1700 »

milsorgen wrote: post #23
trekky1700 wrote: post #8

I think super accurate mass surveillance is inevitable. It goes with expanding technological capabilities, both government and civilian. I think the real question needs to be focused at how it's applied, whether it's used solely for good or evil. Fretting over whether or how it's coming is simply illogical, focusing efforts on making sure it's used properly is the only forward thinking, reality accepting solution.

>Fretting over whether or how it's coming is simply illogical, focusing efforts on making sure it's used properly is the only forward thinking, reality accepting solution. I couldn't disagree more strongly. If we have an issue I think it would be prudent to examine the entire issue especially the degree and kind of it's coming. Your willing to make vast assumptions on something that affects the very fabric of our soc…

The technology is coming, whether anyone here likes it or not. Whether it's nanotech, web prying or any other things we haven't even dreamed up yet. This is inevitable, you can't ban research and development into it.

The people who are using it for wrong will use it no matter what, the law has no meaning to them. Whether you outright ban it, or ban parts of it, individuals will ignore the bans and try to exploit it for wrong. This is also inevitable.

So, the important question to ask is what is the most effective way to establish and enforce a reasonable law that allows society to experience the benefits while acting against the detriments and those that would exploit them (for purposes of blackmail, industrial espionage, etc).

What else would you propose be done? Because almost all of what I've heard so far has been complaining, which history shows is the least effective way of actually getting anything done.

Re: Can We Avoid a Surveillance State Dystopia?

#72

Post by stretchwithme »

anigbrowl wrote: post #33
stretchwithme wrote: post #24

We can avoid it only if we wake up to the real problem. We don't get to pick who represents our interests. We can only vote for preselected choices. This concentrates power in the hands of a few. And these are more immune to voter desires and more subject to other forms of manipulation. Either you exercise your power. Or its up for grabs. We need proportional representation, at least in the House of Representatives.

The city where I live has PR and I grew up in a country where it is the norm. I like it too, but it's not a panacea, you still get abuse, corruption, and political horse trading of all kinds.

Yes, its not a panacea. If the people are clueless, even the best decision making system in the world will still yield bad decisions.

Regarding horse trading, I'm not opposed to trading favors. If group 1 really wants X and don't really care about Y, while another really wants Y but is willing to give up X, why shouldn't they trade?

Where I object to tradeoffs is where Goldman Sachs and former GS CEO Paulson trade favors, while those financing the goodies have no representation or even awareness of what's going on.

Re: Can We Avoid a Surveillance State Dystopia?

#73

Post by mercurial »

trekky1700 wrote: post #70
paul_f wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that guns are ubiquitous in the US means that an oppressive regime cannot use their monopoly on guns against the people. I'll take that side of the bargain any day.

I've never quite understood this argument. I hardly think a Colt and a Wingmaster are going to help stop trained soldiers, drones, jets, tanks etc. It is ridiculous and ignorant of reality.

It's all the more absurd when you realize there were plenty of guns in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

I'll also note that a high number of guns per inhabitants is not always correlated with a large number of firearms crimes (see Finland or Switzerland). On the other hand, you have enough examples of lunatics killing a large number of people with modern firearms that I feel a lot safer in a place with tight gun laws than I would feel elsewhere.

Re: Can We Avoid a Surveillance State Dystopia?

#74

Post by SkynetSystems »

dizzystar wrote: post #63

This article misses the main thrust of mass surveillance, in my opinion, and touches on something I've heard few people ever express. Someone that lived in my building believed in some aspects of conspiracy theories. For example, he believed that Facebook was backed by the CIA. Why? According to him, if you thought about it, all of that information that they had to spend months digging for was now given to them for f…

>Someone that lived in my building believed in some aspects of conspiracy theories. For example, he believed that Facebook was backed by the CIA.

Facebook really was backed by the CIA though (through one of its investment arms)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIGdWsxHJlM

Re: Can We Avoid a Surveillance State Dystopia?

#75

Post by alexqgb »

trekky1700 wrote: post #68
alexqgb wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...you can bet the private sector would fill the market gap." Not if doing so was a felony. Sometimes, safety IS prevention (see toxic waste / dumping of).

There's lots of felonies the private sector commit anyway. Industrial espionage is already a major market in the world.

Uh, sure. And maybe we should legalize murder on the grounds that not every killer is in prison.

Try again.

Re: Can We Avoid a Surveillance State Dystopia?

#76

Post by [deleted] »

alexqgb wrote: post #49
bduerst wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an economic inevitability. Even if lawmakers passed rules preventing the government from doing it, you can bet the private sector would fill the market gap. The value of the data is quickly outstripping the cost of obtaining it. Better to focus on safety than on prevention.

"...you can bet the private sector would fill the market gap." Not if doing so was a felony. Sometimes, safety IS prevention (see toxic waste / dumping of).

[deleted]

Re: Can We Avoid a Surveillance State Dystopia?

#77

Post by bduerst »

alexqgb wrote: post #75
trekky1700 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's lots of felonies the private sector commit anyway. Industrial espionage is already a major market in the world.

Uh, sure. And maybe we should legalize murder on the grounds that not every killer is in prison. Try again.

Don't be so juvenile. Should we ban all axes from the private sector because someone could use it as a murder weapon?

What about torrenting? How about we ban vehicles because they can be used as getaway cars for bank robberies?

Obviously the economic of inevitability of marijuana was stopped by the drug war.

>Better to focus on safety than on prevention.

Re: Can We Avoid a Surveillance State Dystopia?

#78

Post by bduerst »

alexqgb wrote: post #49
bduerst wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an economic inevitability. Even if lawmakers passed rules preventing the government from doing it, you can bet the private sector would fill the market gap. The value of the data is quickly outstripping the cost of obtaining it. Better to focus on safety than on prevention.

"...you can bet the private sector would fill the market gap." Not if doing so was a felony. Sometimes, safety IS prevention (see toxic waste / dumping of).

The market always finds a way.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/02/when-mexican-surveilla...

Re: Can We Avoid a Surveillance State Dystopia?

#79

Post by alexqgb »

bduerst wrote: post #77
alexqgb wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, sure. And maybe we should legalize murder on the grounds that not every killer is in prison. Try again.

Don't be so juvenile. Should we ban all axes from the private sector because someone could use it as a murder weapon? What about torrenting? How about we ban vehicles because they can be used as getaway cars for bank robberies? Obviously the economic of inevitability of marijuana was stopped by the drug war. >Better to focus on safety than on prevention.

I was referring to things that are illegal (murder, kidnapping, assault, theft etc.),because they severely harm the life, limb, or property of others. I was pointing out that just because our laws against these crimes do not stop every instance, there is no reason to abolish the law itself.

You're talking about things which have a wide variety of perfectly legitimate uses which we (quite properly) allow in spite of the fact that they can, on occasion, be used to harm. This is obviously and substantially different.

Indeed, when you think about it, these very different things are nevertheless complementary. We allow potentially dangerous things to exist because we're (reasonably) well-assured that any truly harmful applications can be dealt with using the laws we reserve for handling grievous harms.

Regarding the "example" you brought up, the difference between robbery and pot is that pot is actually quite popular and the war against it is being waged with profound incompetence and for reasons that are increasingly suspect. Robbery, on the other hand, is - and remains - widely unwelcome in nearly any setting, even among thieves.

I'll do you the favor of assuming you're actually intelligent enough to grasp all this and that you're simply trolling. God help you if you're stupid enough for these distinctions to be truly baffling.

Re: Can We Avoid a Surveillance State Dystopia?

#80

Post by bduerst »

alexqgb wrote: post #79
bduerst wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be so juvenile. Should we ban all axes from the private sector because someone could use it as a murder weapon? What about torrenting? How about we ban vehicles because they can be used as getaway cars for bank robberies? Obviously the economic of inevitability of marijuana was stopped by the drug war. >Better to focus on safety than on prevention.

I was referring to things that are illegal (murder, kidnapping, assault, theft etc.),because they severely harm the life, limb, or property of others. I was pointing out that just because our laws against these crimes do not stop every instance, there is no reason to abolish the law itself. You're talking about things which have a wide variety of perfectly legitimate uses which we (quite properly) allow in spite of t…

You were being juvenile by grouping murder with meta data. How does meta data "severely harm the life, limb, or property of others"?

It's an appeal to emotion on your part, and judging by how you're now lashing out like a child, you still have quite a ways to go before you mature in this conversation.

Post reply on HN