Surveillance and totalitarian control is a downward spiral of misery and suffering for everyone, even those in power.

It reminds me of some quotes from the Tao Te Ching -

Restriction breeds the disorder it's meant to prevent (ch. 57) The more prohibitions there are in the world, the poorer the people become. The more sharp weapons, the more the state falls into confusion. The more laws and edicts are posted, the more thieves and bandits there are.

The world isn't a thing to be managed (ch. 29) The world is a sacred vessel; it cannot be manipulated. Whoever acts on it ruins it; whoever grips it loses it.

Great essay. The Patriot Act may have been the obvious turning point but the FBI had public data collection programs even earlier. The goal was keyword watching of all network traffic. The desire for more collection is baked into government. It is hubris that leads powerful people to think if they only had more control they could stop all ills. The deceit of power makes people believe it doesn't matter what the outcome is if the goal is noble. That is why the founding fathers put restrictions on government power. The people that run it will always fall for the same traps of power because they are just like everybody else.

So yes, it is high time to discuss how our rights apply in a digital age and put some reasonable restrictions on the power available to government.

It's a great write up thankyou. I propose we build and distribute easy to use services designed to run on our own devices, in our own homes, to take full advantage of 1st and 4th amendments, then distribute these services widely with billboards so that people have alternatives and can take advantage of these protections.

> One of the many legacies of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 is the government-wide shift from targeted surveillance—such as individual wiretaps or pen register/trap and trace orders—to mass surveillance techniques—such as tapping into the internet backbone or mass collection of telephone or internet metadata.

In other words, we gave the terrorists the victory by accepting being terrorized at the country level from a single act and destroying a lot of our freedom. Yeah us.

It isn't going to stop until it becomes a national security issue. If your can spy on your citizens , your enemies can potentially gain access to the same surveillance and hit high profile targets.

We live in war times and will soon see it happening

Proposal: limit access of these camera networks to local jurisdiction. Just like rip-stop fabric and cell walls, boundaries are required for stability, and making it where federal agencies have eyes everywhere is far too dangerous.

Orwell is claimed to have written his books directed at the other side of the Curtain, but in fact, he was merely predicting the effect of power at the hands of the few self-elected (due to randomness -> wealth --> power).

"All animals are equal, some animals more equal than others."

“Temporary” surveillance powers are never temporary.

I think we have to face the fact that we cannot unring this bell. There will be holding actions against things like Flock but in the end they will fail, and at best we will have a loosening of the laws that Flock is being used to enforce and more draconian enforcement of the laws that remain.

Like many on this site I'm in violent agreement with Schneier and have been ever since "security theater" entered the lexicon. But this is a hopeless fight.

NSPM-7 is about to make mass surveillance magnitudes more oppressive and ever-present.

"Surveillance is the business model of the internet; companies like Google and Facebook constantly spy on their users’ behavior."

A few oversized websites acting as intermediaries is not "the internet"

The internet is a medium. Internet subscribers pay for access to the medium

The www is one use of the medium

These mass surveillance intermediaries operating websites are not even the entire www

But they aim to intermediate access to the rest of it

Any subscriber can use the medium and they don't have to conduct surveillance

For example

They can sell widgets

They can buy widgets

Commerce

They can also use the medium _noncommercially_

The "business model of the internet" is subscriptions. We pay for access to the medium

The (most successful) business model of the www (so far) might be advertising. That could change

But the www is not the internet. The internet is a medium, not what travels over it. It's not advertising, it's not content

"There will be times when the struggle seems impossible. I know this already. Alone, unsure, dwarfed by the scale of the enemy. Remember this. Freedom is a pure idea. It occurs spontaneously and without instruction. Random acts of insurrection are occurring constantly throughout the galaxy. There are whole armies, battalions that have no idea that they've already enlisted in the cause. Remember that the frontier of the Rebellion is everywhere. And even the smallest act of insurrection pushes our lines forward. And then remember this. The Imperial need for control is so desperate because it is so unnatural. Tyranny requires constant effort. It breaks, it leaks. Authority is brittle. Oppression is the mask of fear. Remember that. And know this, the day will come when all these skirmishes and battles, these moments of defiance will have flooded the banks of the Empire's authority and then there will be one too many. One single thing will break the siege. Remember this. Try." -- Karis Nemek

> One of the many legacies of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11

I see this more as an excuse used by a small corrupt elite wanting to enslave the people. The problem is that you do not have a real democracy in the USA. The current orange clown brigade shows this best (corrupt to the core), but it is not really much better with other roleplaying administrations.

Sooner or later people will realise this too, even the not too terribly bright.

At this stage I'd settle for echelon era surveillance and consider it a win...

Ad tech/tiktok has proven its possible to deduce what people are think at scale from subtle signals, now sifting info at scale is possible thanks to LLMs and a large portion of everyone's online history is likely to become vulnerable to store now decrypt later attacks. Get rid of cash, force identity verification for every online service, sprinkle some flock cameras on top and you've got a complete surveillance state. Oh and of course you need some goons to scare people into compliance & later in some self-censorship for good measure. We could call the group "Frozen water".

...and we're basically already there on all of it except perhaps the "decrypt later" on https (and even that has rumours).

Genuinely don't think this is stoppable anymore.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-election... Here's a fun little interview. They had a program that apparently worked, for much cheaper than Michael Hayden's program (I think Trailblazer). Got shelved apparently due to "not expensive enough". 9/11 happens and Binney contends his ThinThread program could have stopped it. You don't want more dragnet surveillance; even beyond the abuses, it leads to it being harder to catch things

Enough? They're just getting started...

I suspect that Mass Surveillance is here for good, and the real project is to regain control of who gains the power and benefits. There are dozens if not 100s of ways that mass surveillance can improve human life. There are also as many where it can be abused to create suffering. I think the real issue is we're trending to the latter. In order to safely continue down this path we (USA) need:

1. EU style governmental pushes to defend digital rights. Data needs to be our own property that we can lend, but can never give up our right to revocation.

2. Stricter controls, and stricter still penalities, need to exist against misuse and abuse. Many of the stories of abuse of data are most stark in their lack of repercussions, some of this is police unions, some of this is "deep state" people who scratch eachother's backs and grant eachother free accesses and immunity. Some of this is a voting issue as in we need to make it known to our candidates that it matters to us, and then push real political power in their hands.

Just to help the imagination of all here's where mass surveilance could plausibly add good to society, all stemming from legitimate use:

1. Criminals like porch pirates can be caught using a neetwork of Ring cameras

2. A lost pet/child can be identified and found by drone surveillance

3. Usage data of roads can be updated in realtime

4. Trends and Sentiment could be used to guide the government intra-elections improving the way government serves us

5. Police officers can avoid risky situations using drones as eyes instead of putting their own bodies in harms way

25 ? She must be new here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite...

> It says that the government “will prioritize the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender and anarchist” and “will use all the tools constitutionally available to us to map them at home, identify their membership, map their ties to international organizations like Antifa.”

So, Democratic candidates who are looking like they will win a seat this midterm cycle are going to get arrested for "domestic terrorism".

I think the problem is twofold:

One, the move to digital lives made digital surveillance necessary. It wasn't enough to check attendance at the local mosque/far right rally. Then, the counter-move to encrypted communication meant law enforcement now had to rely on metadata.

Second: A wanton disregard of the treasure that is digital data. Most people just don't seem to care. LG is snooping on you? I bet they won't see even a 10% drop in sales next year. When the citizenry as consumer blasts their data everywhere, it's hard to argue as parliamentarian that those same people want it protected. Now people use Apple Watches and Amazon Alexa in their own bedrooms! People say they want their data safe guarded, but their actions suggest otherwise.

Even if you trust all current actors, the tapes of forever.

The extremely detailed "Metadata" they have on you will still exist in your children's time.

No Comrade Premier, it has only just begun.

Mate I am afraid the world governments are just starting.

I’d venture it was enough the first day.

mass surveillance is like nuclear weapons.

it will never go away.

Wasn't carnivore in the 1990s?

undefined

No it is not, and it will get worse. No matter who is in power, power stays. And power by definition is the capacity to control and plunder without restrictions

All these years reading about liberty and philosophy has taught me that the only way out is to make money and disappear, be an eagle, watch the lions eat the sheeple from the top of a mountain, because the sheeple don't want to be freed and worse yet, they will point at you as if you're an outlier, a misfit, a problem that must be fixed by force, their 'democratic' force

So fly high, find your peak and watch from there, we only have 100 years to live as we please, not to spend it fighting for those who don't want to be saved

Do like Nero, let the world burn and enjoy watching, from afar...

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but it's not enough. The threats are real and active.

undefined

undefined

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

I find it ironic that in the US, there's this social movement against Flock cameras - which have shown real results in tracking down criminals - while everyone walks around all the time with a personal tracking device in the form of a smart phone. That's wayyyy more invasive than cameras along roads.