
How Much Surveillance Can Democracy Withstand? - itit
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.html
======
snowwrestler
Technological means to prevent government surveillance are a great idea, and
usually also increase personal security from crime at the same time.

However, in the long run technology is insufficient. Laws trump technology,
and culture trumps laws.

Consider a group of people with a strong track record of success protecting
their rights and privacy: gun owners. The gun lobby is so strong that they
have forced the government to use archaic technology:

[http://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-
man...](http://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns)

The most important step in fighting surveillance is getting people to believe
that surveillance is bad. I know we all think so, but we need more than just
HN for this. Congress will care about privacy when their phones ring nonstop
about it; when they lose elections over it.

~~~
crdoconnor
The NRA is actually a corporate lobby representing gun manufacturers heavily
disguised as a "rights group for concerned citizens".

Point being that there is a strong profit motive for the lobbying and lots of
ready cash behind it willing to fund campaigns for re-election.

For privacy groups there isn't the same kind of profit motive in favor of
personal privacy.

~~~
hga
This is not in the least true, especially since the gun industry, which is
_much_ bigger than the gun manufacturers, have their own very visible lobby,
the National Shooting Sports Foundation
([http://www.nssf.org/](http://www.nssf.org/)).

The NRA is politically powerful for one single reason: it has ~ 5 million paid
members, and lots of other gun owners take cues from it _and will vote on this
single issue_. It, for example, went all in to re-elect Roy Blunt in Missouri,
going so far as to drag the Executive Vice President and the head of it's
lobbying arm to Joplin, MO, to talk to 50 people who showed up at the airport
event (!!! and I've never heard of such a thing before). Plus of course the
usual mailings and other means.

And it paid off, he won by about a 3% margin, much narrower than the 14% in
2010 against a Carnahan, a much more storied Missouri political family, and
the Republicans very narrowly kept the Senate.

As for why we vote so much on the issue of guns, why the NRA has _five million
members_ , see my other posting in this subthread on motivating atrocities.

~~~
crdoconnor
A majority of its near quarter billion income comes from corporate donations -
in the form of advertising sales, donations and grants.

In addition to this, many NRA members join just so that they can join gun
clubs - not necessarily because they agree with the NRA.

~~~
hga
~75% of it's income comes from membership dues and individual contributions,
see e.g. [https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-the-National-
Ri...](https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-the-National-Rifle-
Association-NRA-come-from) which has links to the 990 forms with the hard
numbers. Here's the link to the latest available 2014 one, which evidently was
filed/made public after that analysis:
[http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/530/5301161...](http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/530/530116130/530116130_201412_990O.pdf)

 _In addition to this, many NRA members join just so that they can join gun
clubs - not necessarily because they agree with the NRA._

What do you base this claim on? Some do, but membership numbers too closely
match the current intensity of the war on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms
(RKBA) for it to be very many.

~~~
germinalphrase
The NRA is the traditional certifier of shooting events. That's maybe less
true as new shooting sports have grown in popularity, such as IPSC - but if
you want to engage in most local or national shooting competitions you must be
a member of the NRA. In recent history, many shooting ranges/clubs have
started requiring a membership in the NRA as a condition of eligibility to
join.

------
forgettableuser
It is worth remembering that The Federalist Papers were written under
pseudonym Publius. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay believed in
the importance of anonymity as a tool for public discussion. A surveillance
state can destroy this tool as well.

~~~
grzm
Well put. Are you aware of other examples of support for anonymity from that
time?

~~~
CalChris
Pseudonymity was a common practice at the time. Also, the Federalist Papers
were written _before_ the First Amendment. Indeed freedom of the press was
proposed in No. 84.

[http://alturasinstitute.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/Salad...](http://alturasinstitute.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/Saladino-Article-on-Pseudonyms.pdf)

The Articles of Confederation mention _Freedom of speech and debate in
Congress_ but that's it. Otherwise, this was left to the States.

~~~
forgettableuser
It is worth reminding that the freedom of speech was understood at the time as
one of our unalienable rights as individuals. Notice the phrasing of the First
Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging __the__ freedom of speech

The article "the" before "freedom" was deliberate. "The" freedom of speech is
an absolute given. And it is not that Congress authorizes or allows freedom of
speech. It is "Congress shall make no law".

Part of the debate on writing the Bill of Rights was not that rights needed to
be granted to the people and the states, but that it was not necessary because
it was understood that these rights already exist and come from our humanity
and cannot be denied. A document like the Bill of Rights could be misconstrued
and abused to flip the tables and make people assume their rights are granted
as a privilege of the ruling government, instead of a truth that it is
inherently in every person and they delegate their powers to the government.

~~~
CalChris
If you're saying that freedom of speech implicitly and _only_ implicitly
existed as a Right of Man before the First Amendment was ratified, that would
be mistaken. There was a _Bill of Rights_ passed in the English Parliament
after the overthrow of James II. Our _Bill of Rights_ was a descendent of
their _Bill of Rights_.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689)

As for _unalienable_ , we 'aliened' those rights by limiting _who_ they
applied to. Whenever you hear _States ' Rights_, that's just a dog whistle
translation of aliening some people's rights.

~~~
int_19h
> As for unalienable, we 'aliened' those rights by limiting who they applied
> to.

Not quite. The "who" was always citizens. The catch, rather, was limiting whom
the restrictions on limiting applied to. Under the original, pre-14th
Amendment interepretation of the Bill of Rights, it only placed restrictions
on the federal government (indeed, the First makes it explicit, with its
"Congress shall make no law").

States could still do whatever they wanted - the check there was supposed to
be the corresponding state constitution, and, indeed, most of them had some
checks, in many cases with verbiage directly derived from BoR.

As for "states rights", while it is more often a dog whistle for allowing
states to infringe on someone's right, this is not necessarily always the
case. It can also be about allowing states to protect someone's right against
an encroachment by the federal government. "Sanctuary cities" are a canonical
example of how some states exercise their states' rights (in this case, the
right to not cooperate with the federal government) to protect someone.

~~~
CalChris
Thanks. I'd add that Sanctuary Cities are _expressly_ disobedient. They're
saying we won't enforce these Federal laws here and they're not relying on a
mis-reading of the 10th to do that.

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

States Rights and, worse, Sovereign Sheriffs are wrapping their malarkey in
constitutional nonsense.

~~~
int_19h
My opinion on the 10th is that, while "sovereign citizens" and other similar
movements distort it to the point of meaninglessness, the standing mainstream
judicial interpretation (that it basically means nothing at all) is also a
heavy distortion of the original intent, and is harmful to the stability of
our federal system of government.

But then, I am a states' rights liberal - a species so rare as to be
considered mythical by many.

------
tslug
I disagree, RMS. For the same reason you've argued that open source is better
than closed source, so is transparency better than privacy.

What democracy needs isn't privacy. Privacy has always been a false value.
Privacy is disappearing- period. No amount of gum-flapping, law-making, or
attempts to complicate our lives or burn more CPU cycles and create more
latency with more layers of security will change that.

What democracy needs is respect and tolerance. Specifically, we need: 1.
Surveillance being broadcast instead of going to monolithic corporations and
governments, 2. To learn to tolerate and respect each others' wishes as to
what is done with that surveillance.

We're living in a closed system, no different than the International Space
Station. No one on the ISS wants privacy. They want sensors covering every God
damn millimeter of the space station 24/7, and they want mission control
analyzing that data around the clock, so that if there's an issue with
atmospheric or hull integrity, they get plenty of warning.

What they want in lieu of privacy is respect from each other to be left alone
when they want alone time and to not be judged for what they do with their
down time. That's respect, which is very different from privacy.

Hawking is dead wrong about us needing to get off the planet in 1000 years.
What we need is to learn how to live in smaller closed systems, such as
underground bunkers, undersea habitats, and sealed buildings, because no
matter what planet colonists end up on, that's what they're going to have to
do. After we destroy our ecosystem here, it's what we're going to have to do
to survive this planet keeping the pollutants and excessive weather and heat
on the outside.

This is a much more profound psychological challenge than it is a technical
one, but we can't make that first step until we come to understand that
privacy is not a virtue. Privacy is asymmetric ignorance. It is a cheap hack
workaround for what really matters: tolerance and respect.

~~~
throwawayIndian
One of the foundations of democracy is "secret ballot". If it's possible to
algorithmically deduce who you're going to vote for, a tyranny can easily take
you down or try to influence* you in ways you shouldn't be.

I think you have no idea about what you're taking here. Other option being you
benefitting off of surveillance in some form (Don't want to be rude, only
addressing the concern.).

* We experienced this first hand in the 2016 elections -- which is why it always felt weird to most of us all the time.

~~~
hga
One reason to utterly and totally oppose mail-in and on-line balloting. That
non-secret ballots also allow paid and coerced voting are other traditional
reasons.

~~~
Frondo
Oregon has had vote-by-mail for years and it's been nothing but a positive
thing. Their turnout is consistently higher than the national average. There
are simply no issues around access to voting (like long lines at polling
places, people who can't get time off work, etc), because every registered
voter gets a ballot and a couple of weeks to fill it in.

The claims and fears around voter fraud have been studied, and have been found
to be entirely without basis in reality. Voter fraud and coercion simply
hasn't been an issue in a vote-by-mail state.

It's also a lot of fun to take part in voting parties, where you get to hash
out the issues with your friends and fill in your ballot as you do so.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
You are aware that there are countries that manage to run elections on sundays
and with sufficient polling places to not have any lines to speak of at all?
That might be too advanced a technology for the US, but, unbelievable as it
may sound, countries like that do indeed exist!

~~~
Frondo
Well, good for them, but why should I have to go anywhere? What's the point?

From experience, I enjoyed vote-by-mail for years, and I can tell you it's a
huge step backwards to have to go somewhere again to vote.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
First of all, I didn't say that you should, I just pointed out that your
argument didn't make a whole lot of sense.

But also, the reason why voting by mail is problematic is, as has been
mentioned, the potential for pressuring people into voting a certain way,
including buying of votes.

Now, you said that this had been studied and it had been found that it's not
really been a problem. But that's completely missing the point. You cannot
judge the security of a system against attacks simply by looking at how many
attacks were successful in the past. A voting system being reliable is most
important when shit hits the fan. That it works fine when stakes aren't
(perceived to be) all that high isn't really all that surprising, the most
easily corrupted voting systems would probably work fine, and it tells you
absolutely nothing about how it would hold up under different circumstances.

Also, mind you, objectively giving an accurate result is not the only function
that a voting system has in a democracy, equally important is that the public
trusts the system and thus the result, and trust erodes really fast under the
wrong circumstances, which is when you can consider yourself lucky if you have
a voting system where fraud is not just not happening, but where you can
demonstrate that it's not happening.

To maybe get an idea of how stuff that's not actually secured is going to be
exploited once the incentives are there: In the US, the relevant laws
generally don't specify how to divide the country into voting districts.
Because nobody thought of that as a problem when writing the law. Nowadays,
gerrymandering is a reality. It's obviously undemocratic (I suppose you would
agree?), but it's not illegal, and the incentives are there, and so it
happens. There is almost nothing that people don't do for power. Trusting that
people will be responsible when there is an opportunity to gain power is
essentially the recipe for every major disaster humanity has ever created.

~~~
Frondo
There are theoretical problems with any system of voting, everything's a
trade-off one way or the other. Vote-by-mail increases turnout, it's easier
and more convenient, and the problems you're afraid of simply don't happen in
practice.

At the end of the day, I'd much rather have the increased participation in the
democratic process than cater to the unfounded/theoretical fears of a few
folks.

~~~
dingaling
> the unfounded/theoretical fears of a few folks.

It's not at all theoretical. Postal voting is heavily restricted in Northern
Ireland due to past history of paramilitary organisations influencing voter
behaviour.

One needs to provide an attested reason for not attending the polling station:

[http://www.eoni.org.uk/Vote/Voting-by-post-or-
proxy/Voting-b...](http://www.eoni.org.uk/Vote/Voting-by-post-or-proxy/Voting-
by-post-or-proxy-FAQs#q120)

 _You must provide a reason why you cannot reasonably be expected to vote in
person at your polling place on polling day. You must provide exact dates and
locations (if applicable) or the application may be rejected on the grounds
that not enough detail about the reason has been provided._

~~~
Frondo
Oregon isn't Northern Ireland. They might have had problems with voter
coercion. Oregon hasn't. Oregon has had problems with turnout. This improves
them.

------
throw2016
A surveillance state is the beginning of totalitarianism and no amount of
euphemisms can hide that.

Its beginning to look more and more like the general discourse about democracy
and human rights was posturing to to see off the threat from Soviet Union and
once it dissipated double speak and euphemisms quickly took over. Populations
are being trained to accept surveillance as inevitable and shift even more
power to the state.

Its impossible for a democracy to exist without privacy. Its impossible for
free thought and exchange of ideas with surveillance. The chilling effect and
paranoia quickly take over and this is not rocket science given our collective
history and our understanding of power.

At the moment the press is more interested in being part of the inner circle
and there is little interest in activism from the general population so there
is zero threat to power structures from internal sources.

But these are fluid and when activism and a free press is needed to effect
accountability and change, societies that embrace surveillance will quickly
find themselves impotent and helpless.

------
idlewords
Singapore proves that a democratic surveillance state can command very broad
social support, provided that the surveillance comes with stability and
prosperity.

~~~
morgante
And China proves that virtually any policy, no matter how atrocious, can
command very broad social support, provided that it comes with stability and
prosperity.

------
rrggrr
Transparency is the key to democracy. Surveillance, politics, security... They
have to be balanced with transparency. If the founding fathers fell short it
was here. The next great democracy will ... Hopefully ... Enshrine
transparency.

------
hansjorg
Discussions about surveillance almost always descend into considerations about
personal privacy.

On the one hand you have those who don't want their porn habits on record, on
the other you have those who doesn't care.

This is missing the bigger point, which the title of the linked article
alludes to, but the article itself doesn't delve into.

For meaningful political opposition to be possible in a democracy,
organizations and individuals in those organizations must have some level of
privacy.

Considering the modern history of political organization and opposition and
its suppression in the US, it seems to me that the incumbent power structures
were already far too powerful even before the introduction of ubiquitous
surveillance.

------
clamprecht
I even hesitated before upvoting, because I know this action will be recorded.
It's the world we live in.

~~~
akerro
> hesitated before upvoting, because I know this action will be recorded

And that's why I upvoted.

------
ianai
Considering that the foundation of democracy requires a LOT of investment and
involvement at the individual level, probably a lot. When everyone's voice
matters everyone NEEDS to be well informed and active in their government.
(Also, this is why the US does not have a democracy.) One way to "achieve"
involvement is to just straight up watch everybody. Granted, that's not
exactly what's going on here. But my guess is a culture that openly debates
matters of government probably tolerates more public views of personal matters
than others. Rampant individualism probably emboldens all this.

~~~
throwawayIndian
> US does not have a democracy

Hate to say this but I agree!

At the moment I have following feelings:

The Snowden moment is only but a point in time when democracy realized it had
been subverted. The "act" of takeover happened way earlier than that when the
idea of _secret ballot_ was compromised with complete erosion of individual
privacy. Naturally modern day people will not realize the looming dangers of a
tyranny until the tyranny itself manifests into some form that affects them
individually.

Two examples in the world exist where a surveillance state has actually
succeeded: Singapore and also in some ways China. It only depends on what
_percentage of people_ feel they're prosperous and doing well; which is an odd
metric because there is, for example, a significant percentage of people in
North Korea who will be happy to attack America at first chance. Despite the
economic disaster they've been forced to live into.

> Rampant individualism probably emboldens all this.

It does complicate the matter. But even in a group it'd be very difficult --
nearly impossible -- to take down a surveillance state with sweeping coverage
and the ability to surgically dissect and disable strategies of any such a
group however large. In my opinion it is very much a feeling of going after a
"lost cause" that most people seem to have internalized -- not necessarily a
selfish stand which kind of alienates them even more.

~~~
pipio21
"for example, a significant percentage of people in North Korea who will be
happy to attack America at first chance. Despite the economic disaster they've
been forced to live into."

Not really. ALL people in North America will gladly attack America, because
hate to America(USA, America is a continent) is instilled to them since
preschool.

They don't know they are in an economic disaster, because the media tells them
other countries are in worse position. They are told that people form other
countries wear nice clothes just like actors in order to make them believe
they are rich. Most people believe the propaganda because they are surrounded
by it.

It is not very different from the US, for instance since the US backed coup d'
Etat to Ukrainian democratically elected Government, western media have told
several lies that people just bought because all the media agreed:

1\. That taking over a democratically elected Government was justified(from
the country that usually invades countries for "democracy and freedom")
because of corruption. Never mind the people that they put on place is as
corrupt or worse.

2\. Spending 6.500 million dollars to interfere in other country is totally
ok, if you are the USA. Of course if someone else tries to influence US
election it is a crime.

3\. That Putin was a monster that wanted to "expand his Empire". This is the
most ridiculous thing you could hear ever from the biggest country on Earth
that has problems just defending his country.

But most (North)Americans bought it without a thought, because of things like
"manufacturing consent".

Most people just naturally aligns with the majority. If you control the most
watched media, you could tell people what is right to believe... Until it
becomes so clear that they are being duped, that's it.

In Western countries you are free to watch or read whatever you want, but the
media that is most watched is totally controlled. They don't care about a few
guys knowing the truth because in a democracy the mass is king and you control
the mass.

------
grabcocque
Given surveillance is the democratically-expressed will of the people,
possibly quite a lot.

~~~
macawfish
is it really?

~~~
mamon
Possibly. Many people fall for the same old "I did nothing wrong, I have
nothing to hide" crap.

Also, the fear of terrorism is pretty effective way of keeping masses in check
and tricking them into giving up their freedom.

That's exactly why United States started all those wars in Middle East in the
last two decades: without Iraq and Afghanistan, and now Syria there would be
no terrorism, and no excuse to pass the "Patriotic Act" and other surveillance
laws. Of course, other factors also mattered, but this seems to be most
important of all.

~~~
BoringCode
I'm sorry, but saying without the wars there would be no terroism is just
bullshit. Even saying that they were the primary cause is misinformed.

~~~
lambertsimnel
I was under the impression that terrorist attacks dramatically increased after
the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I realise that correlation isn't causation, but I
suspect the invasion backfired.

------
koga-ninja
After reading the article, massive databases just Seem like a stupid idea.
It's like you're waiting For a tyrant to come along and misuse them.

However, there is a strong dose of paranoia in the article. To be fair, every
state has enemies, and surveillance is done for that reason as well.

Internet connected cameras, yes, very stupid idea.

------
psyc
I believe there is zero chance that the institutional world will not wire the
whole world with sensors, and use the data. If you want anonymity and privacy,
it will have to come from the hard mathematical facts of crypto, not from
institutional policy. Best hope the First Amendment is strong enough to
protect crypto.

------
based2
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil)

------
arca_vorago
_we need to reduce the level of general surveillance, but how far? Where
exactly is the maximum tolerable level of surveillance, which we must ensure
is not exceeded?_

Easy, at least in America, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land,
created to protect, _not establish_ , natural rights. Therefore it is
prescriptive in the fourth amendment on this issue.

"the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."

I would contend that we just have a bunch of people who have actively
participated in violation of their oaths of office, of which they sign an
affidavit (5 U.S.C. 3333) they will not violate while in office, the
punishment of which (18 U.S.C. 1918) is removal from office _and_ confinement
_or_ a fine.

I think we need to start taking people to court for violation of their oath,
but of course proving (5 U.S.C. 7311) “advocate[ing] the overthrow of our
constitutional form of government” is the legally difficult problem, so I have
been meaning to learn more about legal research to find precedents of this
actually being done or other legal precedents where someone has been convicted
of _advocating_ X. Of course it might be easier to prove the subsection of
being a member of an organization which advocates it.

Of course the privacy issue affects more than just the US, but as former
military I take my oath, the only oath I have ever taken (secret oaths speech
of JFK anyone?), to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign _and
domestic_ , very seriously.

I have spent years since I got out and did my Descartes reset trying to
understand the current threats to the constitution, and to be frank it's not
the terrorists I'm scared of, its the corrupt and the cowardly in the beltway
and on wallstreet that I fear are so ready to undermine our freedoms under the
obviously false banner of protecting those freedoms.

All three branches of government (and the fourth estate) are corrupted,
infiltrated, and subverted from the top down by the surveillance engine, which
also happens to double as a blackmail engine. The oligarchy towards the end of
the 90's began to understand the threat of freedom of thought on the internet
and the surveillance engine has already been put in place, and as William
Binney and Thomas Drake have said, now all it needs is the right dictator to
"turn the key", and potentially walk the cat back on stored data on
dissidents. Remember that protest you attended a few years ago? That thing
your wrote? If they are so willing to get rid of things like habeus corpus,
what makes you think removal of other things like ex post facto is so far
fetched?

That's the slippery slope of unconstitutionality, in that by allowing one
usurpation of the constitution because of a thing you agree with (on HN a good
example might be the second amendment), you then open the flood gates to allow
more and more stripping of rights.

Bottom line is this, _get a fucking warrant or it 's unconstitutional!_

edit: and no, general warrants and writs of assistance don't count as a
constitutional warrant.

