
/u/161719 tells us all why surveillance is not OK - davidbarker
http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1fwj66/u161719_tells_us_all_why_surveillance_is_not_ok/
======
hacknat
I like this a lot. It does a good job of dispelling the poor I've-got-nothing-
to-hide defense. Being against a surveillance state isn't about being against
the state being able to prosecute criminals, it's about being against giving
the state (a group of people) the architecture to leverage personal
information to maintain a political agenda. This sounds conspiratorial in the
US and, I think, for now, it kind of is. However liberty is chipped away in
bits and pieces, not in broad swings of an axe.

"161719" is absolutely right, it probably won't be Obama, or the next
President, or the President after that abuses the surveillance architecture
that has been put in place. However, the day will come when the chips are down
on some administration, because of some terrorist attack (domestic or foreign)
or politically volatile situation, and there will be immense political and
moral support for them to utilize our, now, nascent surveillance architecture
to stop bad things from happening that are morally gray (like a political
movement that is highly divisive). That's the nightmare scenario. Those who
take the government's surveillance abuses seriously aren't (de facto) anti-
security or anti-law-and-order they are concerned, I think, rightly so about
the path we are headed down.

~~~
eric_bullington
>"161719" is absolutely right, it probably won't be Obama, or the next
President, or the President after that abuses the surveillance architecture
that has been put in place.

You'd be surprised how fast things can go downhill under proper conditions.

In 1984, Sarajevo, which prided itself as being the most cosmopolitan and
tolerant of cities in Yugoslavia, was at the top of the world. At the time,
Yugoslavia a very advanced and prosperous country with the world's sixth
largest army and fifth largest air force (by air assets), and nearly matched
the largest economies of the Eastern Block by GDP (Poland and Czechoslovakia).
It also enjoyed significantly more political freedom than the Eastern Block,
with most citizens able to freely travel to both Western Europe and the
Eastern Block countries.

That year, Sarajevo hosted the Winter Olympics, and basked in the admiration
of the world. There was little to no talk of "ethnic tensions" or "ancient
hatreds", and all three major religions mixed freely, along with a sizable
Jewish population dating back to the 1400s. Sarajevo had by far the highest
rate of interreligious marriage of any Yugoslav city.

Six years later, Bosnia was in a state of horrific sectarian war, Sarajevo was
under siege, and a campaign of religious genocide against the local Muslim
population was well underway in the countryside around the city. War refugees
brought with them tales of violence unheard of in Europe since the Nazi years.
The brutal war lasted for another 3 bloody years, with almost 200,000 dying in
Bosnia alone from the violence.

My point is, given the right conditions, things can go downhill from "pretty
good" to "god-awful" incredibly fast.

~~~
diydsp
From my quick skimming of Yugoslavian history, the period from the end of
World War II and in particular the 1970s up to 1986 was actually frought with
economic and ethnic tensions. One of the sections of the Wikipedia page is
titled "Ethnic Tensions and Economic Crisis." [1]

People should also note that the Ukranian activities have been a long,
unfolding process - there was the Orange Revolution there just 10 years ago.
The recent events are not unanticipated.

I mention these b/c your post refutes the PP's belief that the U.S. is far
from "downhill." I do not believe the U.S. is anywhere near "proper" :)
conditions for things to go downhill. It is still wise for us to inhibit the
growth of surveillance apparatus, but the U.S. is quite different from the
war-torn former Communist republics. We have had some challenges like
recessions, the Enron scandal, etc., but we are simply too large, too diverse
and have too much momentum for damage in any part of our country to spread and
threaten the entirety of it.

I believe the majority of the spying apparatus which has been uncovered has
been for national and individual economic cheating and gaining military
initiative rather than controlling the population. Gaining access to
individuals of interest, however, is a handy fringe benefit, I imagine, and we
should certainly curtail the growth of systems which abet this activity. We
could start by not working for and not letting our friends work for, the
architects and implementers of these systems! Of course it's not a problem for
most of us in this particular sphere, because so many of us focus on
delighting and creating value for customers instead! yay!

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia)

~~~
deong
I'm not necessarily arguing with you, but the Wikipedia page was obviously
written long after the Yugoslav wars. Hindsight is always 20/20 -- after any
major event, we can go back and pick out the causes, but that doesn't mean the
causes were apparent or even extraordinary at the time. It's just an effect of
confirmation bias.

Suppose the parent was correct and the US was a decade from the same sort of
chaos. In such a 2024 world, loads of people could write about the conditions
that led up to the current conditions. The rise of the surveillance state, the
beginnings of an anti-government movement in the Tea Party, those things would
be obvious in 2024. However, if (as is more likely) 2024 America is a lot like
2014 America, no one is going to be writing those articles about how the rise
of the surveillance state led to...not much.

~~~
foobarian
I remember how the conflict started in Slovenia. It was initiated by the
Yugoslav federal army, which was Serb-dominated. To think of an analogous
sequence of events in the U.S., you'd need the U.S. army dominated by one
faction, e.g. Texas. Then say California decides to secede because they are
tired of giving money to support red states. Federal army comes in (or
actually is already in) and starts shooting at state-level national guard and
police. That's roughly what Slovenia was like.

It's a huge stretch because the U.S. doesn't really have ethnic factions like
YU used to. And its army is not really Texas-controlled, or even if it were
nobody would care. :-)

------
allochthon
I think this story is touching. But it misdiagnoses the real danger facing the
US at the present time and misapplies the lesson to be learned, which no doubt
is applicable in some parts of the world.

The real danger facing the US at the present time is not of becoming a fascist
surveillance state. It's of becoming a corporation, with a vast sea of
indentured servants, where the owners of the corporation are a small group of
people with wealth beyond one's wildest dreams. This is the dystopian scenario
that Orwell would write about if he were alive today. In this future, you will
have to be on good terms with the management of the corporation, or you will
find yourself in great difficulties. The owners will take pride in the acts of
charity and goodwill that they bestow upon you, the poor, and will expect
gratitude in return.

~~~
snitko
Corporations are many. Government is one. Corporations don't have police force
or armies because they would be paying for them out of their own pocket.
Instead, they lobby the government to use violence/regulation/wars where it is
required for profits, and then taxpayers pay for it.

So, what you really want, is remove opportunities for corporations to use free
money. Then everything they do, they'd have to pay for out of their own
pocket. And that would be a game changer.

~~~
pron
The thing is, large corporations aren't many; they aren't one either, but
they're a few. The number of powerful conglomerates in the US is comparable to
the number of states (maybe double). There's plenty of power for each, and
without a strong central government, those corporations will merge to form
fewer, more powerful ones.

This isn't hypothetical. This was the situation in the US about 100 years ago
when the robber barons ruled the country. And by the way, some of them did pay
for their own police force (the Pinkertons) to fight the unions.

------
iuguy
I'd love to share the optimism that the genie can be put back in the bottle,
but I don't.

When we talk about surveillance on western forums, we mostly refer to the work
by the five eyes community, but they're not the only community interested in
or doing this sort of thing. Russia's SORM-2, expanded for the Sochi Olympics
is a prime example, the Chinese have something similar too.

The fact is that even if western governments turn round to their intelligence
agencies and tell them to stop all of this, other countries will still fill
the gap.

If Germany tells America to stop spying on German citizens in Germany, do you
think America will stop spying on them? No, of course not. Do you think the
German intelligence community will give up benefiting from such information if
it helps them bypass any new privacy laws put in place? No, of course not.

It's here. The difference between the Stasi and the NSA when it comes to
surveillance is not intent, simply capability. Any intelligence agency that
would've had this level of capability would've pushed it as far as they can,
it's what they do and they're not going to change.

~~~
alextingle
Of course there will always be bad guys out there trying to subvert freedom. I
think it's reasonable for those of us in the "free world" to expect our
governments to help defend us from these bad actors, not use our taxes to fund
them!

~~~
aggie
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere
insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them
from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts
through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece
of his own heart?” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956

~~~
alextingle
Cute quote. Now explain how it relates to my point. Here it is again, for your
convenience: Evil _may be_ inevitable, but that doesn't mean it must be
government funded.

------
snitko
But people can still vote and I'm sure that voting and democracy will help
them elect honest leaders who have their best interest in mind, right? I mean,
it worked in 2008 with Obama, right? Right?

~~~
zzzcpan
You are being sarcastic, right?

~~~
zzzcpan
I guess some people genuinely believe that they "choose" their leaders. Ok.

~~~
snitko
I was being sarcastic, yes.

~~~
zzzcpan
Ok. I was referring to all the downvotes on that question.

------
1457389
It's funny he mentions animal rights activists...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6QbLK5aySU&t=2m47s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6QbLK5aySU&t=2m47s)

The actual document he is referring to:
[http://imgur.com/NobVcQD](http://imgur.com/NobVcQD)

------
infocollector
The problem is, its very hard to deter a government from surveillance. And its
almost impossible to even build tools that will stop governments from prying -
if they wish to do so (The problem is not crypto of course). That is why we
started building [http://bit.ly/blibonline](http://bit.ly/blibonline) \- but
then its no match to any government.

~~~
avmich
Government should really lose it's practical power on many matters.

Examples: government officials actually should be very transparent, as in
"they can't refuse they are constantly monitored by public". Legal
opportunities for various kinds of "closed doors negotiations" should be
sharply reduced, as in "closed door negotiations are only allowed in cases 1),
2) and 3)", for example, military, international talks. Many decisions
involving specific actions are required to have the name of the decider, who
is both required to be questioned by public and, if public decides, removed
from the position (mechanism of decision is another matter).

------
tinalumfoil
r/conspiracy is a joke full of hyperbole. That's a pretty large jump from
Snowden's NSA leaks to the government using threats regularly to control
people to full on civil war with all journalists dead or in jail.

~~~
1457389
1) the original post was not made on /r/conspiracy, it was crossposted there
after the original was inexplicably deleted and the user banned 2) the federal
government does use threats to coerce people to snitch on their peers 3) the
federal government has in the past and is currently prosecuting journalists in
leak investigations, with jailtime being a possible outcome. If you widen the
scope you can see that they actively suppress journalists overseas who raise
inconvenient facts about US policy.

~~~
jnbiche
Where was it posted originally?

~~~
1457389
[http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_belie...](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_believe_the_government_should_be_allowed_to/caeb3pl)

There. Whole bunch of drama, as you can read about if you enable subredit CSS.

~~~
username223
So apparently he criticized Israel -- which you can do in Israel, but not in
the US. It's not worth the drama to discuss any of that.

~~~
cema
You certainly can do it in the US. Perhaps something special about the (sub)
reddit thread?

~~~
deong
Sure, you _can_ , but it's not politically acceptable by either side of the
political spectrum.

------
thomasfromcdnjs
For anyone who owns a website, remember to sign up for
[http://thedaywefightback.org](http://thedaywefightback.org).

------
jokoon
I don't like conspiracists. I think their motive is good, but the result is
always poor and often irrelevant because it's politicized.

That story is just over-reaching.

Conspiracy is a dog biting its own tail, I'm sure many people try to use
conspiracy for political goals, just like Nazi propaganda did.

If I were a politician, there are many ways I could use conspiracy theories to
change the public opinion. I don't think it entirely make any conspiracy
theory wrong, but as always, be careful of movements of groups of people.

If you don't understand what I mean, watch Promised Land (Gus Van Sant movie
with matt damon about fracking in a small US town). It describes very well how
to use FUD in politics to efficiently change the public opinion.

~~~
foxhill
this person claims to be a victim of oppression and surveillance, and you're
comparing the recital of this story to nazi propaganda. ok.

i don't see how the story is over-reaching. people like you are the reason
systems like prism exist - "oh, things got bad in some far away country, but
this is _america_ , something like that would never happen here. _our_
politicians would never abuse the powers they are illegally giving themselves,
so we don't really have anything to worry about".

this is the world we live in now. things are going to get worse before (if)
they get better. unfortunately, i may never be able to tell you "i told you
so", because in the future there may be no platform for us to express our
discontent.

~~~
jokoon
> "oh, things got bad in some far away country, but this is america, something
> like that would never happen here. our politicians would never abuse the
> powers they are illegally giving themselves, so we don't really have
> anything to worry about".

I actually believe free speech is a strong set of checks and balances, which
once acquired, is hard to remove. It's a strong safety against abuse. It's
something people actually believe in. Do you really think evil people are
crazy enough to plot against free speech ? It's easier to just use free speech
to prove someone's claims are stupid.

Oppression occurs mostly because of economics, not because of surveillance.

Aren't you happy Snowden remembered free speech ? It's a great example of
summoning the courage to defend important concept, but there is no reason to
compare a developed country, democratically-elected government, using congress
and plenty of other of other functional institutions, with developing and
third world countries. You got to watch history too.

On top of it, I agree about how surveillance can be used to blackmail people,
but I doubt you can entirely shut dissent with just blackmail. Blackmail is
not a good thing, but you can't honestly believe, with the amount of
communications and books, that Orwell predicted the future. Orwell warned us,
just like Huxley, so it's not like it's going to happen in the US.

I just want to have a honest debate, and I will shoot any emotional attempts
to explain how this or that is good or bad, because it's not enough. This
comment is just using emotions and fear to make a point. FUD if you prefer. I
want to believe that surveillance is setting an apocalypse, but I'm just
skeptic enough to just think twice.

------
thret
This post strongly reminded me of Beatrice and Virgil.

I'd like to point out that the protagonist loses the moment he turns on his
friends. That's the turning point.

------
tootie
The mechanisms for surveillance and the political will to oppress are
orthogonal. The Gestapo didn't need XKeyscore.

------
icantthinkofone
The problem with this is he's assuming the US government is the same as his.
It's not. If the government emailed you a sexy picture with threats, how long
before you show it to the press and the police? Remember, local police are not
under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Neither is the press. Nor
are state and local government officials. It's not the same. Any comparison is
naive.

------
almosnow
this story sucks (downvote me, I don't care)

/u/161719 is not even good for writing fiction; is not even good for writing
anything at all

