
The Philosopher of Surveillance - stefantalpalaru
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/11/surveillance-philosopher-nsa/
======
GeorgeOrr
The "Socrates" of this article believes he's safer if his entire life is
monitored rather than just part. So much wrong with this.

1 - What about no surveillance until there is a reasonable suspicion confirmed
by an impartial Judge (see 4th Amendment to the Constitution for details)?

2 - Ok, he feels safer with Big Brother looking after him ... but apparently
that justifies in his mind that everyone should be watched since he prefers it
for himself. Is that narcissism or just sloppy thinking?

3 - One of the many dangers of this sort of surveillance is the bizarre notion
that we are the data collected. There is NO level of surveillance that equates
to the actual knowledge of the self (sorry Google, NSA, etc.). Think about it
for yourself - is there any data set large enough that it would capture
without misunderstanding who you are? Now remember that the rest of the 7
billion people on this planet have just as rich lives (inner and outer) as
you.

On that last point, keep in mind the so called "targeted" ads that Google
uses. Or the movie/book suggestions from sites that use them. Now imagine such
bizarre misunderstandings leading our NSA big brothers to act. Not a pretty
picture.

Larger and more haystacks aren't the solution. Realizing that humans aren't
stacks of data is.

~~~
ewzimm
Just to play Devil's Advocate, real total surveillance might not be bad. If
you were hooked into a system that actually monitored all minds in real time
and connected you directly to whatever other mind you wanted to reach out to
with no misunderstanding, you'd have a hive mind that was no longer human but
might be capable of more complicated thoughts.

It's been done plenty of times in science fiction, but now we're getting to
the point where we can actually transmit some information directly from mind
to mind. I think there's room for voluntary connectivity without being
invasive. There should always be a way to have total privacy whenever it's
desired, and that should be true for the near future without question.

But there's a chance that at some point, people won't even want it anymore. If
it happens voluntarily as people become more comfortable with each other, I'm
not sure if it will even be bad. Forced is no good of course, and using
surveillance to impose oligarchical control is terrible, but if we move
gradually, I don't think anyone can really predict how it might turn out.

~~~
noblethrasher
I know this idea has oft been explored in science fiction, but if you haven't
seen it, I recommend that you check out the series _Psycho-Pass_. It has an
interesting and intellectually hefty take on the subject.

------
facetube
"A target that has no ill will to the U.S., but which is being monitored,
needs better and more monitoring, not less. So if we’re in for a penny, we
need to be in for a pound."

This is profoundly sick.

~~~
kirsebaer
He has a childish idea that the purpose of surveilance is to detect the bad
people, the enemies.

From his first SIGINT Philosopher column: > I guess if we were a corporation,
we could make our mission statement (or "corporate philosophy") this:
"building informed decision makers -- so that targets do not suffer our
nation's wrath unless they really deserve it -- by exercising deity-like
monitoring of the target." Now that's philosophy.

------
drjesusphd
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it:

Does anyone else find it deeply suspicious that Wall Street (and investment
bankers in general) remain mum about this? We're talking about a group which
is one of the most powerful in the world, has tremendous influence over
government, and has the most to lose by invasive NSA surveillance.

~~~
javajosh
No, because I think Wall St. is fairly safe from the NSA in at least three
ways. First, they can hire the best defensive programmers (and probably do).
Second, even if they get breached, the NSA can hire the best lawyers
(including plenty of ex-NSA, ex-Justice Department folk) - so it can't be used
against them legally. Third, the NSA and Wall St. are fundamentally on the
same team, at a very deep level.

~~~
irixusr
Your third point is dead on. Otherwise, why do surveillance on private
(foreign) corporations?

------
wcummings
So how long until someone deanonymizes "Socrates"?

~~~
wcummings
Found his blog:
[http://workshopheretic.blogspot.com/](http://workshopheretic.blogspot.com/).
Easily google-able from phrases in the article.

~~~
nyolfen
[http://baltimorereview.org/index.php/fall_2014/contributor/j...](http://baltimorereview.org/index.php/fall_2014/contributor/jacob-
weber) if you'd like to put a face to it

~~~
itistoday2
Relevant section quoted below:

 _THE INTERCEPT HAS A POLICY of not publishing the names of non-public
intelligence officials unless there is a compelling reason, as with our naming
of Alfreda Bikowsky, who oversaw key aspects of the CIA’s torture program.
Withholding Socrates’ identity presents certain problems in the age of Google,
however. If I quote from his blog, or give its name, or provide other search-
enhancing morsels, like the name or location of his graduate writing program
or where he was born, I might provide the sort of data that could instantly
reveal his name with a few keystrokes._

 _So I am more or less trying to do what the NSA and a large number of
agencies and corporations do with the personal data they possess — stripping
away names and other identifying information to “anonymize” the data before
sharing it. The beauty of anonymizing data, according to the (very many)
entities that do it, is that nobody can be identified — citizens and consumers
do not have to worry that their privacy is violated when petabytes of data are
collected about what they do, where they go, what they read, where they eat
and what they buy, because their names are not attached to it. The conceit is
that our data does not betray us._

------
huac
Thought this would be about Palantir, the surveillance company with a
philosophy PhD CEO.

~~~
irixusr
Me too

