
Public Must Fight against Prism and Tempora Surveillance (2013) - fergeson
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/public-must-fight-against-prism-and-tempora-surveillance-a-907495.html
======
jmcdiesel
It will always be true.

We're not entitled to anything. Nothing. We're not entitled to life. We're not
entitled to breath. We're not entitled to a damned thing.

People feel entitled to free speech, to living itself, and there is no such
entitlement. You have to ensure, yourself, that the things you feel you should
have, you have. If you don't they will be taken away over time.

~~~
samirillian
Just to be clear, you're not intending to imply that institutions shouldn't be
held to certain implicitly moral standards, are you?

~~~
Taek
The implication is that you shouldn't expect it to be there, you can hold them
to those standards but that means actually putting work into verifying that
they are meeting the standards, and having some recourse if they are not.

~~~
nojvek
We are just selfish agents who only cooperate when it benefits us in the long
term. The world doesn't give a shit about you.

~~~
samirillian
a) We're also inherently social creatures. Saying we're all just selfish
agents implies a little too strongly that we are islands, which we famously
aren't.

b) There are few systems of thought more explicitly "self-centered" than
Hinduism, and yet they take "non-harm" as their highest ethical imperative.
And, of course, ethics for them is about decreasing misery. So they believe
that not-harming is the most self-centered thing you can do.

c) Cynicism isn't always inherently more accurate. Sometimes it's just
cynicism.

d) What precisely do you mean by "the world"? Let's take your clever
reductionism to an even more logical end: pure solipism. That is, solus ipse.
What is the world when there is only the subject? It's kind of meaningless to
say that it does or does not give a shit about "you."

e) Or, you know, we could take Aristotle's words to heart when he says "it is
necessary to stop." That is, accept at face value that external
consciousnesses exist and that they do have a fundamental capacity for caring.
Unselfishly, even, by your definition of selfishness.

f) Clearly you give a shit, since you thought it worthwhile to use such strong
language. clearly I give a shit, since I took the time to respond.

g) Finally, do realize the uniquely American cultural tone of voice that takes
selfish/greed/etc. as the only moral absolutes. People act like it's
"realism," but it simply isn't, it's obfuscation. It's "stopping" at the worst
points.

------
Taek
> Where is the outrage?

Seems to me that most people either believe that their government is the good
guy and always will be or they are comfortable enough in their lives and
current security that they don't feel motivated to make a fuss.

~~~
robert_foss
Hypernormalization:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation#Etymology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation#Etymology)

------
normalperson123
whenever i see an article like this, i am reminded that these authors are
forced to take into consideration the timing and appearance of their articles.
for instance, they would be unwise to release a scoop before or during the
super bowl. in other words, in the fight to preserve liberty in the world,
they are reduced to the same tactics as sleazy advertising and PR companies.
it is so sad that such an important, fundamental and altruistic cause is so
fragile.

------
okreallywtf
While I agree with concerns over privacy I still think that overall, our
current obsession with it will actually have detrimental long term results
because of the resulting cynicism that it is creating. Because surveillance
has continued or increased overtime regardless of which party controls the
government, it creates a false equivalency that has convinced a lot of people
that "its all the same" and that only some kind of dramatic (and likely
violent and disruptive) revolution will solve the problem, while most of us
have done little or nothing to actually change things short of complaining
about them.

How many people on these forums have contacted their representatives on this
issue? How many have considered running for office themselves? My guess is
we've all spent more time griping to each other and on online forums that are
not monitored by government (for opinions at least, they unfortunately might
be monitored for other reasons) than we have on any kind of productive effort.

Privacy is a big concern, but is it as big as nuclear proliferation? Is it as
big of an issue as climate change (no, I would say). Many of us who live in
the US currently can afford to be worried about our privacy, we're mostly
comfortable, safe, and well fed and can be concerned with our privacy despite
the fact that it doesn't impact almost any of us. On top of that, the cynicism
created by surveillance has convinced many people to waive their right to vote
because they assume, correctly in many cases, that surveillance will continue
in some form under any candidate, despite the fact that many other important
(in some cases more important) issues will be treated very differently.

I am not debating that it is an issue but the truth is, I am more concerned
for the many people in the richest nation on earth that don't even have enough
access to computers and the internet to even be worried about surveillance and
its hard to be surprised that this issue doesn't resonate with many people. We
need a public discussion on this issue and we need to debate what privacy
we're willing to give up for our safety as law enforcement has less and less
ability to monitor criminals.

The sad thing is that if governments had been up front with their citizens and
acknowledged the challenges in combating crime in an era where wiretaps and
other previously available tools were becoming obsolete people might have been
willing to accept intrusions into their privacy with acceptable civilian
oversight; instead it was done without our knowledge and consent and now I'm
afraid we'll collectively chop off our own nose to spite our face.

------
graedus
Good and relevant article, title should include (2013) though

~~~
jwilk
And should not include "Still True: ".

------
tps5
> _An appropriate real-world metaphor for the program might be something like
> this: In every room of every house and every apartment, cameras and
> microphones are installed, every letter is opened and copied, every
> telephone tapped. Everything that happens is recorded and can be accessed as
> needed._

This is why I hate the media.

I don't understand how making this analogy helps to explain the spying program
discussed in the article. Why do we need "an appropriate real-world metaphor"
in order to describe a real world spying program that actually exists? I
strongly feel that this is a misleading way to relay information, and I'm sure
it confused a lot of readers.

~~~
dijit
It's simple: not everyone is capable of understanding what it means to have
your emails and browsing habits recorded and catalogued.

They need to be shown the sheer vastness of internet spying.

------
seycombi
a good place to start
[https://www.privacytools.io/](https://www.privacytools.io/)

~~~
hackuser
There are many privacy guides on the Internet, many of very uneven quality.
How do I know I can rely on that one?

I prefer the one tptacek helped produce (if I understand him correctly):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13622684](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13622684)

------
15thEye
This program is mammoth, three years on.. what's stopped them?

