Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study
washingtonpost.com
Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study
1–10 of 204 posts
Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study
#2The inquiry alone is frightening, although much less so than the implications of a surveillance state. Watching Trumbo and learning more about how the US dealt out the "Red Scare" is crushing to my soul. You want to assume people are inherently good actors, but that's not always the case.
Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study
#3Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study
#4Freedom is the right to be wrong. If I am free only to agree with the popular consensus, I'm not free.
If I can't have a quiet chat with friends in public making clear I'm a gay, atheist, muslim, vegan, witch, then I'm not free. If I can't have a private chat with any other member(s) of the populace, I'm not free.
Someone will always think I'm living my life wrong.
Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study
#5Sort of the inverse conclusion of "Privacy Protects Bothersome People" by Martin Fowler
Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study
#6The inquiry alone is frightening, although much less so than the implications of a surveillance state. Watching Trumbo and learning more about how the US dealt out the "Red Scare" is crushing to my soul. You want to assume people are inherently good actors, but that's not always the case.
> You want to assume people are inherently good actors, but that's not always the case.
Most people are... But reality is subjective, and the people you call "bad actors" in this case surely thought themselves "good actors." The problem happens when, in your good-actor zeal for righteousness (capturing bad-actors), you inconvenience a large number of good actors in order to more completely capture a small number of bad ones... and thus become a new bad actor.
(I believe this would be called "high recall, low precision" if you know stats or have done any machine learning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_and_recall and the goal is to maximize both, not just one- also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_score and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthews_correlation_coefficie... )
An example of another (IMHO) "high recall, low precision" practice is AML/KYC laws, which find a very small percentage of bad actors at the cost of inconveniencing a large number of good ones (as well as missing some bad actors).
Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study
#7Freedom is the right to be wrong. If I am free only to agree with the popular consensus, I'm not free. If I can't have a quiet chat with friends in public making clear I'm a gay, atheist, muslim, vegan, witch, then I'm not free. If I can't have a private chat with any other member(s) of the populace, I'm not free. Someone will always think I'm living my life wrong.
It's also the right to be right.
The majority can be wrong in their opinion after all, like being bigots and racists.
Freedom of expression shield us from the 'wrong' opinions being surpassed, in the hope that they provide corrective feedback more often than not to the population at large.
At least, that's the hope.
People provide racist and divisive commentary to the population at large, no matter how unjustified. No doubt it will change some people opinion.
People also continue to provide anti-vaccine messages, scaring parents and causing public healthcare crisis.
Paradoxically, the lack of political speech is the mark of authoritarians and tyrants in our political life.
Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study
#8The inquiry alone is frightening, although much less so than the implications of a surveillance state. Watching Trumbo and learning more about how the US dealt out the "Red Scare" is crushing to my soul. You want to assume people are inherently good actors, but that's not always the case.
> You want to assume people are inherently good actors, but that's not always the case. Most people are... But reality is subjective, and the people you call "bad actors" in this case surely thought themselves "good actors." The problem happens when, in your good-actor zeal for righteousness (capturing bad-actors), you inconvenience a large number of good actors in order to more completely capture a small number of b…
For reference: AML = anti-money laundering, KYC = know your customer.
Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study
#9Mass surveillance was created to work against minorities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/canada-en... https://overland.org.au/2014/07/surveillance-of-activists-is... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr...
Mass surveillance is meant to work against anybody and everybody
Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study
#10Mass surveillance was created to work against minorities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/canada-en... https://overland.org.au/2014/07/surveillance-of-activists-is... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr...
Mass surveillance is meant to work against anybody and everybody
Everyone except those in power.