
How Smartphones Betray Democracy - ENOTTY
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/21/opinion/location-data-democracy-protests.html
======
lifeisstillgood
But no.

This is not about _phones_. The same argument can (and has been) made about
non-uniformed police officers, photography of crowds, video of demonstrations,
wiretaps, postal inspection etc.

Yes, democracy can be threatened by the actions of governments and big
business. Can be, has been.

The solution is nothing to do with phones, or cameras.

It is about good laws, enforced vigorously.

And that requires us to vote, to become engaged and perhaps enraged.

If anything is breaking democracy perhaps it is the realisation by government
that they can get away with things that previously were unthinkable - that
breaking the basic rules of democracy does not lead to destruction.

And the only solution is our vote. But enough of us need to be engaged and
outraged.

The fault dear brutus is not in our stars, but in our selves.

~~~
tsimionescu
Voting is such a weak control system, that it is obviously not enough. Regular
elections pack together so many decision points into so few options that it's
barely worth participating.

If we really want to influence politics, we need to get rid of this idea that
voting is all that democracy means, and try to get people more organized, try
to get many more people to participate directly in politics, get them to talk
to their representatives regularly, get them to organize and pool resources
together for important causes and so on.

If you can convince 2 people to vote your way in an election, you've had a
more meaningful impact on the election than if you voted yourself. If you can
convince an elected representative to change their stance on some issue,
you've had probably a hundred or a thousand times more impact on policy than
your vote alone has.

Until we recognize these things, the people who already do (mostly, but not
exclusively, lobbyists and industry groups; and some religious organizations)
will continue to effectively control policy.

Would anyone ever imagine that, if say Mark Zuckerberg wanted a particular
policy, he would do nothing until the next elections, and then would go to the
polling station and vote for the candidate who seems to promise that policy?

~~~
Merrill
There is a whole existing structure to influence government decisions and
policies.

First, there is are the Democratic and Republican party organizations which
range from precinct workers up to the national committees. Typically, the only
way to get elected to political office is to join and work your way up in the
organization of whichever party is dominant in your area. Occasionally
talented people join the non dominant party and win office, but it is rare.

Second are the numerous groups dedicated to advancing this or that policy.
They have members, collect money, organize, and influence elected officials at
the local, state and federal level.

Third are the various NGOs that work to influence policies in Washington.
These include lobbying groups, think tanks, etc.

Fourth, money talks. If you aren't contributing to the political organizations
and causes you believe in, you have very little influence in a democracy.

~~~
maehwasu
This is (unintentionally?) a fairly strong argument against the desirability
of democracy, at least as she is practiced in the US.

This feels like a Unix poweruser telling grandma why she doesn’t need Dropbox.

~~~
vsskanth
If you don't mind, could you elaborate on your opinion further ?

IMO power users in democracy (lobbyists, influencers and special interest
groups) will always have more leverage unless the population is educated and
informed enough to be skeptical to not associate with an identity or ideology.

The recurrence of such groups throughout history seems to indicate that this
hasn't become part of our collective knowledge yet and I doubt if we will ever
learn. Maybe the sense of collective identity is part of human nature.

------
reilly3000
Snowden shared a chilling video today of smartphone surveillance at play in
China. Its a real wake up call- what happens when there is no privacy from the
state. Please share.
[https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1208469511051075585](https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1208469511051075585)

~~~
acqq
Interestingly, a few tweets later in the same thread is this tweet:

"meanwhile in the usa 🇺🇸 you get sent to a restrain chair for walking your dog
without a leash."

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFG4KKwtEZo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFG4KKwtEZo)

They also used taser on her as she was already on the chair: "Did you see
this? (tazzzap) (she cries from pain) It will happen again, so sit down and
stop resisting."

At least there's a difference: there's no record of her being interrogated
later while bound to the chair.

Or, maybe a bit more relevant, surveillance in action in the U.S. of A (2012):

[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093796/Emily-
Bunti...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093796/Emily-Bunting-
Leigh-Van-Bryan-UK-tourists-arrested-destroy-America-Twitter-jokes.html)

"British pair arrested in U.S. on terror charges over Twitter jokes"

It’s not just what “could” happen.

~~~
hamhand
Let's not compare systematic and institutionalized measures to news-worthy odd
cases.

~~~
freeflight
Claiming these issues are not systematic [0] and institutionalized [1], is
willfully ignoring a very apparent problem.

This isn't even reserved to US police, the whole system is flawed to the root
due to being based on retribution and vengeance, instead of actual
rehabilitation, which feeds exactly the kind of straight-up sadism showcased
so often by US police and the US justice system.

Case in point: Tazzing a restrained woman is justified with her having been
"argumentative" [2].

Just follow the orders, be obedient, lick some boots, and then this will
supposedly never happen to you, is a very common reply to these "news-worthy
odd cases".

But these "news-worthy odd cases" are merely the tip of an iceberg that is the
US justice system boasting the highest incarceration rate and the largest
prisoner population on the planet. Many of them working in for-profit forced
labor prisons [3] or being imprisoned under circumstances that some would rate
as torture [4].

It's all extremely authoritarian [5], deeply embedded into the country and
culture, but regularly overshadowed by the chants of "Land of the free!"
distracting from the crass actual reality.

[0] [https://time.com/4878195/civil-asset-forfeiture-jeff-
session...](https://time.com/4878195/civil-asset-forfeiture-jeff-sessions/)

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-
po...](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-
not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)

[2] [https://youtu.be/TFG4KKwtEZo](https://youtu.be/TFG4KKwtEZo)

[3] [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/17/us-
pri...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/17/us-private-
prisons-forced-labour-detainees-modern-slavery)

[4] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rights-un-usa-torture-
idU...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rights-un-usa-torture-
idUSKCN0WA2B8)

[5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone)

~~~
orbifold
Just to be clear, if you were in China and made these kinds of comments about
Chinese police online, more likely then not you would end up in a much worse
situation, if you didn't use appropriate counter measures.

~~~
dragonwriter
China having worse systematic problems than the US inn this area doesn't
change the fact that the US problems are systematic and (from the perspective
of value systems around individual rights commonly espoused in America)
serious.

------
buboard
Duh this should be common knowledge by now and it s only getting worse. Yes
you should be freaked out about living in a world without privacy, but no,
democracy is not in danger, freedom is in danger. In fact, democratic people
voted for this shit and they keep voting for more regulation/spying because
"think of the children/terrorists". Authoritarian control has gotten hold of
both democracies and non-democracies and people are fine with it. So, maybe
blame the majority along with the phones.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> Authoritarian control has gotten hold of both democracies and non-
> democracies and people are fine with it.

And how is democracy doing in places where authoritation control has gotten
out of hand? After all, you are claiming that democracy is not in danger. So,
have people who noticed that they weren't that keen on authoritarianism after
all regularly voted the authoritarians out of office successfully, then?

~~~
buboard
> how is democracy doing in places where authoritation control has gotten out
> of hand?

Not well, but not too bad either. Everyone is happy because of this:

[https://thinkbynumbers.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/number...](https://thinkbynumbers.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/number-of-democracies-over-time.png)

Surveillance democracy is a thing, as is surveillance
communism/putinism/erdoganism. The difference is that democracies have found a
way to manufacture the consent of the majority, while in autocracies it's
easier to pin the blame to one person.

> have people who noticed that they weren't that keen on authoritarianism
> after all regularly voted the authoritarians out of office successfully,
> then?

There are relatively few people who aren't keen on surveillance. most people
are on board with UK level surveillance and most americans still think badly
of Snowden. Don't expect it to be voted out soon

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> Surveillance democracy is a thing, as is surveillance
> communism/putinism/erdoganism. The difference is that democracies have found
> a way to manufacture the consent of the majority, while in autocracies it's
> easier to pin the blame to one person.

Well, is it really, though? I mean, no doubt there is a thing that people call
"surveillance democracy", and I would agree that it's actually a
distinguishable thing.

But for one, just because something is called "democracy", doesn't make it a
democracy, so the question would be: What makes a democracy a democracy, and
would a "surveillance democracy" fit those criteria?

But also: Is a "surveillance democracy" even a place where authoritarian
control has gotten out of hand yet? Maybe as long as you could still vote the
authoritarians out of office, it's not out of hand yet? But then, what if
there is actually no real way to achieve this, for whatever reason, and those
places are destined for a situation where it is generally accepted that the
authoritarians can not be voted out of office, even when people might
ultimately change their mind about that whole authoritarianism thing? Maybe
then it is out of hand after all? But then, is democracy actually fine if it
is unavoidably destined for a place where it is impossible for a majority to
elect a new government?

Your analysis so far seems not too far from a line of thought that would
conclude that the GDR was a democracy (they had elections, and they even
called themselves democratic!)--not sure whether you would agree with that,
but the GDR sure was and is not considered a democracy by many.

> most people are on board with UK level surveillance

But are they really? My impression is rather that people simply have no
fucking clue what surveillance does or what the risks are. So, while it might
well be true that most people don't think of surveillance as a problem right
now, that doesn't answer the question of whether people are actually OK with
it, as in what their opinion would be once they might be directly confronted
with the consequences.

And that was my point: There sure are and have been plenty of places where
people are not happy with authoritarianism anymore, and those do not tend to
be the places where people just vote the authoritarianism out.
Authoritarianism is not compatible with democracy, by its definition: It is
kindof fine just as long as there is still enough democracy left to
potentially remove the authoritarians, so people don't realize the danger they
are in, but it becomes unbearable exatly at the point where that power does
not exist anymore, because that is also the point at which the authoritarians
don't have to care about public opinion much anymore.

~~~
buboard
> something is called "democracy", doesn't make it a democracy,

Right. We used to call them "liberal democracies" in the west, at some point
we dropped the adjective. Obviously democracies like russia, GDR, even Turkey
are not liberal, but that bar is pretty low for the west.

> Is a "surveillance democracy" even a place where authoritarian control has
> gotten out of hand yet? > Maybe as long as you could still vote the
> authoritarians out of office, it's not out of hand yet?

No it hasn't. Yet again, the concentration of power is more visible and
pervasive than ever (eg. surveillance, border controls, police brutality,
incarceration, monetary controls). It's fair to say that both left and right
agree with large scale, everpresent state surveillance. We are content with
doing relative comparisons between western democracies and illiberal
authoritarian governments, but that is wrong, we should instead be measuring
democracies against objective measures of liberty.

> But are they really? My impression is rather that people simply have no
> fucking clue what surveillance does or what the risks are.

Yes, i think they are at this point. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is the
dominant ideology. The world's most expensive, desireable cities are also the
most surveilled. This might be taken as a sign of democracies sliding into
illiberalism, as has happened many times in the past.

> Authoritarianism is not compatible with democracy, by its definition

Ostensibly, democracies help to avoid fascism and complete concentration of
power , but democracy itself is not enough to guarantee freedom. Democracies
have voted in the world's worst fascists. There is a case to be made about the
abandonment of Enlightenment ideas of reason, liberty, fraternity in place of
Democracy (which comes parceled with populism and was not even an
Enlightenment ideal).

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> Yes, i think they are at this point. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is
> the dominant ideology. The world's most expensive, desireable cities are
> also the most surveilled. This might be taken as a sign of democracies
> sliding into illiberalism, as has happened many times in the past.

How is that a response to my suspicion that people don't understand the risks
of authoritarianism? You are just repeating that people do not object to
living under surveillance, which is exactly what I said, while you are not
responding at all to me pointing out that that may well be because they don't
understand what is happening, rather than because they understand what is
coming and are fine with it.

> Ostensibly, democracies help to avoid fascism and complete concentration of
> power , but democracy itself is not enough to guarantee freedom. Democracies
> have voted in the world's worst fascists.

How is that a response to authoritarianism not being compatible with
democracy? It's like if I said that fire is not compatible with structural
integritry, and you are countering that many a structurally sound building has
burned down. Yeah, they have, and I very much doubt many of them were
structurally sound afterwards.

~~~
buboard
> rather than because they understand what is coming and are fine with it.

Sorry if it wasn't clear, i do believe people know the consequences of
surveillance and are OK with it. An Authoritarian state does not let its
citizens know they are living in an authoritarian state. It oppresses or
annihilates minorities to create a golden cage for the rest. Thankfully,
liberal democracies are free enough so audiences in the west are informed of
the consequences of surveilance (humiliating border controls, incarceration,
police brutality), and they are largely OK with it. I don't see evidence to
the contrary.

> How is that a response to authoritarianism not being compatible with
> democracy?

Authoritarianism has gradations and is not incompatible with democracy.
Democracy may protect from extreme authoritarianism but it doesn't guarantee
liberalism.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> Thankfully, liberal democracies are free enough so audiences in the west are
> informed of the consequences of surveilance (humiliating border controls,
> incarceration, police brutality), and they are largely OK with it. I don't
> see evidence to the contrary.

So, you think that the general public understands what it is like to live in a
police state, how corruption wastes resources that they otherwise could
benefit from, what negative consequences they themselves can expect further
down the road?

If you ask me, most people are not even really aware of the things you list.
Most people believe those things are a small necessary evil that you need to
ensure safety, or individual mistakes that happen, and and it's not something
they would ever experience themselves, because they believe that the state is
fair and friendly and would only ever do such things to people who really did
bad things, which they themselves obviously aren't, as any officer would
immediately recognize. People have no fucking clue how power structures work,
how their data is actually being used, how bad corruption can get, how inhuman
governments can act against them. They have no fucking clue right up to the
moment where they are the victim and they are totally surprised what is
happening to them.

> Authoritarianism has gradations and is not incompatible with democracy.
> Democracy may protect from extreme authoritarianism but it doesn't guarantee
> liberalism.

How isn't that the exact same "but structurally sound buildings have burned
down!" response as before? Nobody is claiming that democracy guarantees
liberalism, rather this is all about the fact that you can not have democracy
without liberalism. Democracies are perfectly capable of ending liberalism,
and have done so many times, but with it they necessarily end democracy.
Either people can make free decision in their own best interest, or they have
to follow what the authority dictates. A democracy in which authoritarianism
rules is only a democracy in name, but not in function, just as the GDR was.
If the dictator tells you who you have to vote for, that is not a democracy,
no matter how much you get to vote.

~~~
buboard
> Most people believe those things are a small necessary evil that you need to
> ensure safety,

I believe the same too, but not that people are clueless. People are quite
aware (imperfectly , but still pretty well) of what can go wrong, and they 've
decided that losing some liberties is a small price to pay. It's been too many
years of revelations and media campaigns. I think at this point we just have
to admit that most people don't mind, not that they don't _know_. That's what
leads many people to say that true freedom is not compatible with democracy.

> A democracy in which authoritarianism rules is only a democracy in name, but
> not in function, just as the GDR was.

Right, but where do you draw the line. Did the germans in 1933 think they have
a democracy? Do Turks or Russians today think they have a democracy? It's easy
to tell post-facto, or from the outside, not so easy when it's happening in
real time. Do the UK or US think they have a liberal democracy ? absolutely.
Is that 100% true? less clear

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> People are quite aware (imperfectly , but still pretty well) of what can go
> wrong, and they 've decided that losing some liberties is a small price to
> pay.

In other words: They do not understand that they are losing all liberties?

> It's been too many years of revelations and media campaigns. I think at this
> point we just have to admit that most people don't mind, not that they don't
> know.

I very much disagree. Do you have an idea what media people consume? What
absolute bullshit they are being fed? Do you really think that people on that
basis have an accurate understanding of where all of this will lead?

> Right, but where do you draw the line.

You don't, there is no need to, it's not a binary matter. You might for
pragmatic reasons in order to have terms to use for effective communication,
but there is no actual line between "dictatorship" and "democracy", between
"libertarianism" and "totalitarianism", it's a scale with many steps in
between the two extremes. The point is that just because something might be
considered a democracy under some pragmatic definition, doesn't mean it's
therefore equivalent to everything else that you might label a democracy.

> Did the germans in 1933 think they have a democracy? Do Turks or Russians
> today think they have a democracy?

I think that's somewhat the wrong question to ask, in that it assumes "the
Germans", "the Turks", or "the Russians" to be homogeneous groups. There most
definitely were and are lots of people in all of those societies who would not
consider their political system a functional democracy.

> It's easy to tell post-facto, or from the outside, not so easy when it's
> happening in real time.

Well, but is that actually true? If you understand power structures somewhat,
it's not really that hard to see, is it? It seems to me this is much more a
matter of competence than of your location in time or space. While it may be
hard to get the full picture of what is going on, it's not really that hard to
see whether you are free to say whatever you want, to inform yourself about
whatever you want, to vote securely, i.e., whether the structural
prerequesites for a democracy are there. It's just that a lot of people are
not competent at recognizing what authoritarianism looks like and are more
than willing to accept any authoritarian apologetics they are presented with.

> Do the UK or US think they have a liberal democracy ? absolutely. Is that
> 100% true? less clear

But do they? As above: I am pretty sure a significant proportion of people
don't think that, at least not without reservations. And a large section of
the public wouldn't even know what you mean by "liberal democracy" as opposed
to just "democracy", so you can not really meaningfully say that they think
they live in a liberal democracy. They would understand your question to mean
"can you vote?", which they would, correctly so based on their understanding
of the question, answer with "yes".

I think it might be helpful to draw an analogy with religion: Many religious
people have a very warped understanding of reality and in particular of how to
understand reality. They simply lack the competence to understand the failures
in their reasoning. They think they do understand the world in terms of their
preferred fictional story, but they don't realize it's all fictional. So,
based on their rather confused understanding of the world, they then demand
that slavery should be upheld, or that gay people should be oppressed, or that
women must not be allowed to control their own bodies, or whatever the case
may be, because they think that those are the right things to do. But then,
there is a not insignificant group of people who overcome their religion, who
come to understand how reality actually works and how it can actually be
understood. And with that understanding usually comes a rejection of their
previous political stance, because they now understand the actual consequences
of their former ideas. These are not people who are actually fundamentally OK
with the damage they were doing before, they simply were lacking an
understanding of how their actions were damaging, because based on their
previous fictional world view, they were doing the right thing to prevent bad
things from happening.

You have to consider that people might just be incompetent at this democracy
thing, rather than that they all have an understanding that reflects all the
things that they could know if they were paying attention to the right sources
that you might be paying attention to.

------
mirimir
It's not just phones. And you don't need GPS to get GPS-level location
accuracy. All that you need is WiFi capability.

Because WiFi devices scan for APs. And there are databases of GPS-located APs.
Located by other GPS-enabled pawns, as it happens. So if you're using anything
Google related, or other apps that access such data, you can be tracked. Just
from WiFi. Without a cellular radio, or GPS.

~~~
throwaway743
To add to this, if an AP has monitor mode capabilities then our device's don't
even need to be connected to the AP via WiFi to be tracked. They just need to
have WiFi turned on and sending out probes.

~~~
mirimir
Yes, but that's just about being tracked by the WiFi AP itself. But as I
understand it, being tracked by apps on your device doesn't depend on the AP
having monitor mode capability. APs get geolocated primarily by GPS-capable
smartphones. And then devices get geolocated based on proximity to such APs.
Basically, through latency-based triangulation.

------
Fjolsvith
I don't get why people confuse Democracy with Constitutional Republic. The
first is run by "mob rule" where personal rights can be swept away with the
popular sentiment. The second (which is what the United States has) is where
the Constitution protects personal rights despite popular sentiment.

~~~
marcosdumay
Wait, what?

The first is a philosophical principle that says that a government must serve
the governed people, the second is an actual form of government that tries to
implement the first.

~~~
buboard
Where do you get those definitions?

~~~
marcosdumay
How about the dictionary?

> n. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected
> representatives.

> n. A political or social unit that has such a government.

> n. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

But better, where outside of some ancient history book did you ever see
somebody use that word describing exclusively a government like the one in
ancient Greece? (Not to say that republic comes from the exact same concepts,
just in a different language.)

~~~
buboard
\- these definitions are not the same as the one you stated previously.

\- All these 3 definitions of democracy may apply to a democracy that uses
allotment instead of elections.

\- You are correct that modern usage of democracy is restricted to "election
based majority government".

\- Republic is a wholly separate, orthogonal concept. Pre-empire Rome was a
republic, not a democracy.

~~~
marcosdumay
> these definitions are not the same as the one you stated previously.

"Government by the people" vs "The common people, considered as the primary
source of political power" vs. "government must serve the governed people".
Oh, I see, I have used different words!

> All these 3 definitions of democracy may apply to a democracy that uses
> allotment instead of elections.

Where did I say it doesn't apply?

> You are correct that modern usage of democracy is restricted to "election
> based majority government".

Wait, what? I didn't say that, and it is not correct.

------
huffmsa
> _" Countries including Canada and Spain have rules to limit or prohibit
> masks at riots or unlawful gatherings"_

Oh yes, I'm sure the guys burning cars and smashing shop windows are going to
follow a no masks rule.

More broadly, democracy doesn't require anonymity. In face, it functions
better when you know exactly where everyone stands.

If you're worried about the ruling government black bagging you for your
stance, get a 2A. Start a real revolution.

The Declaration wasn't signed "concerned colonists". Those dudes put their
names on paper and mailed it to King George.

~~~
buboard
> More broadly, democracy doesn't require anonymity. In face, it functions
> better when you know exactly where everyone stands

that's just false. democracy wouldn't function at all without secret ballots

> Those dudes put their names on paper and mailed it to King George.

an act of war that has little to do with democracy

~~~
huffmsa
Can you imagine a parliament or Congress where every vote was anonymous?

Anonymous "ministers" making anonymous, unaccountable decisions?

"The Government" deciding what was right?

And it did too have everything to do with democracy. A unanimous vote from the
states representatives supported the motion to secede.

In the United States, we know the names of everyone who votes for the
president.

~~~
buboard
Apples and oranges. Thats why parliamentary immunity exists. Voters are not
and should not be accountable to anyone. Thats their only power (left)

~~~
huffmsa
They're accountable to their electorate.

~~~
buboard
Voters == the electorate

------
lbj
Im in the latest Opera and all I see is a video of a crowd. Is that a broken
experience?

~~~
HansHamster
Latest Firefox here, takes a few minutes to load and all I get is a mostly
black top half of the screen and a few seconds of 'video' stuttering along in
the bottom half.

------
boyadjian
"The freedom of some stops where that of others begins"

------
cmoscoso
Muh, tracking bad...

------
thendrill
Can we have a discussion about what democracy currently is?

Is one dollar one vote really democratic?

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
That's the way republics have worked since Rome and Carthage.

Nowadays the aristocrats just play in hard mode - best weapon is soft soap.

------
thrower123
If there's one thing you can count on the Times for, it is ragging on about
everything under the sun being a threat to democracy. They don't ever want to
place the blame a little closer to home, though.

