
Surveillance is not about protecting us. It's about control. - rubbingalcohol
http://blog.rubbingalcoholic.com/post/67613918393/surveillance-is-not-about-protecting-us-its-about
======
dilap
I think a lot of people are OK with mass surveillance given a basically
benign, good government (which many people tend to think our government is,
currently).

The problem is that once all of this machinery is in place, it can be used by
_any_ government that happens to come to power -- it makes it too easy for a
non-benign, dictatorial government to say in power, egregiously abusing the
ability to spy on arbitrary citizens.

~~~
pstuart
My casual surveys of friends and acquaintances is depressing. Most "don't have
anything to hide", and don't feel threatened by these developments.

~~~
epoxyhockey
I try to personalize the situation. _Government officials_ are not magical
unicorns. They are people like you and me. People, like your next door
neighbor. What if your next door neighbor could scan through your email,
credit card purchases and call transcripts without your knowledge? Now imagine
that they actually are doing so right now.

~~~
XorNot
But its not your next door neighbour. There's a whole system in place to make
sure it's not your next door neighbour, and in fact we generally accept as a
society that preventing people's social groups gathering information on each
other largely solves problems with privacy (provided we also don't allow
people to rebroadcast things as they please).

How much do you care about the credit card purchases of someone you've never
met, who lives on the other side of the country, and who you wouldn't
recognize the face off if you saw them? How much of your internet posting is
done _on the exact same assumption_?

~~~
epoxyhockey
_But its not your next door neighbour_

Well, if you live in the Washington DC area, the chance substantially
increases. ;-)

Though, if you have ever been in a position to gain a glimpse into strangers'
behavior, be it what bars/pubs they frequent, how they make income on the
side, what stocks they trade, or any number of not widely publicized tricks-
of-a-trade, I can guarantee you that you would use that knowledge for your own
gain and/or entertainment. Your use of that information is untraceable, and in
the very worst case can be plausibly denied.

~~~
XorNot
But it's not untraceable. There's a reason the LOVEINT cases at the NSA were
found: because the NSA goes looking for them in a pretty draconian way.

The technical capability to do something doesn't mean you have the legal
capability to use it or broadcast it and a good deal of your post is starting
to hint at quasi-illegal activity in the first place.

------
steven2012
This summer, I was working with a Harvard Computer Science student who also
said "I don't care, I have nothing to hide." This worried me to no end, that
extremely smart kids could be so naive like this.

I challenged him to send texts to one of his buddies, where he would simulate
planning of a terrorist attack. He was going to, but then I stopped him,
because I would have felt too guilty if he actually went through with it and
got into trouble with the law, which I honestly believe he would have.

~~~
gcb1
he being in a top university and not being too rich is already a sign that he
plays by the rules. smart, not necessarily.

but the REAL reason not much people care, is because everyone have lives!

when was the last time you went to your town hall meeting? do you even do 1h
of research before voting? or do you even vote? ...shit have to go really down
until people even have any opinion.

~~~
smsm42
Oh, lots of people have opinions. You don't need to do any research or bother
yourself with facts or thinking to have an opinion. In fact, it's much easier
to have one if you don't.

------
andyl
_Surveillance is not about protecting us. It’s about control._

Bingo. Mass surveillance is a tool to protect the oligarchs from its citizens.
The terrorist threat is theatrical misdirection.

------
suprgeek
How about this....

Every Senator or Congressman that votes to continue this Metadata BS program
release all of THEIR Metadata. If you have nothing to hide why not release all
of the following:

Every Phone number they called in the past 5 years with a date and time-stamp
attached from their Home, Office and Cell numbers.

Every email-recipient they ever sent e-mail to in the past 5 years from all
their addresses - personal address, Official address etc

Every website visited from their Home IP, Smart phone, Office and desk
computer.

IF even ONE of the 535 US esteemed legislators in both houses agrees to
this...lets say that Swine would be airborne in record numbers.

~~~
ChrisAntaki
> this Metadata BS program

It's not just metadata, they collect full audio & text content as well.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A)

~~~
rubbingalcohol
Another one of my conspiracy posts: former FBI counterrorism agent Tim
Clemente saying the "all digital communications are recorded and stored" and
"no digital communication is secure" (he was trying to convince everyone that
the government had the Boston Bombing investigation under control)

[http://blog.rubbingalcoholic.com/post/52913031241/its-not-
ju...](http://blog.rubbingalcoholic.com/post/52913031241/its-not-just-
metadata-the-nsa-is-getting-everything) (watch the video)

------
bkirwi
In case anyone else missed it on the first pass: the article mentions that the
FBI "went so far as to come up with assassination plans on Occupy Wall Street
leaders," but the linked source[0] describes the FBI _uncovering_ an
assassination plot, not making one themselves.

[0] [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/30/1220039/-FBI-
Kept-Q...](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/30/1220039/-FBI-Kept-Quiet-
About-OWS-Assasination-Plot-FOIA-Obtained-Docs-Show#)

~~~
crdoconnor
I think OWS was the real reason for the ramp up in "total information
awareness" surveillance.

I don't think most people realized how effective it was at bringing out
collective activism and anger, and how much danger that put the establishment
in. They were clearly looking at Egypt and back to OWS and thinking "that shit
can NOT be allowed to happen here".

So, how to stop the next one? Mass surveillance - pick out the seedlings of
discontent and crush them before they grow big enough to become threatening
again.

I'm convinced is also the reason why they considered assassination. They were
getting a little desperate.

~~~
DanBC
> I think OWS was the real reason for the ramp up in "total information
> awareness" surveillance.

Mass surveillance was in place for many years before OWS existed.

~~~
crdoconnor
>"Ramp up"

~~~
DanBC
There was no ramping up of mass surveillance because of OWS.

------
robertfw
I have increased the amount of chatter I put out, trying to raise awareness
with friends and family, but I feel myself evaluating each and every post -
what flags is this raising? How might this be used against me in the future? I
am travelling to the US from Canada for Thanksgiving, and that fact alone
gives me pause when I say things critical of the political system.

I warm my chilled self by holding onto the thought that recognizing our self-
censorship is the first step to fighting against it.

~~~
Nerdfest
I do the same thing, and as a Canadian, I wonder about exactly the same thing.
I was boycotting travelling to the US but need to travel through there on my
way somewhere. I probably shouldn't be concerned as I'm a complete nobody, but
I am. I would guess lots of others are as well. It can't be good for tourism.

I'm a little shocked there isn't more outrage in the 'Land of the Free'.
Things have degraded to the point that I would think there would be a story on
major TV news sites every night.

~~~
grecy
> _I 'm a little shocked there isn't more outrage in the 'Land of the Free'.
> Things have degraded to the point that I would think there would be a story
> on major TV news sites every night._

So long as the people get their professional sport, VMAs with scantily clad
women and can buy alcohol and cigarettes very cheaply, their needs are being
met and they are not interested in the big picture.

~~~
orthecreedence
Don't forget smartphones, Facebook, and Farmville. Seriously, talk about
opiates.

------
thatinstant
Of course the surveillance is about control... It seems so obvious to me that
I don't even give it much thought, but I think there are far too many
variables affecting the current state of affairs, regarding the NSA,
surveillance, etc. It wasn't just one event, one government administration,
one legislative change or one technological advancement that got us into this
mess. Several factors have converged to create the current police state, but I
ask: Why are people suddenly so upset about finding out that the NSA has found
an efficient means to surveil the populous when so many organizations have
been doing this for years?

Nobody was getting upset when Google was reading your emails; Facebook was
reading your private messages; Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile were tracking your
calls and geo-locations... All for the sake of more efficiently marketing to
you. Advertisement is just another form of control. They don't tell you or
force you to do or not do something, they just efficiently convince people to
part with their money and make those people think that it was their own idea
to do so all along.

All these concerns come down to whether we collectively think these practices
are right or wrong, and it is becoming more difficult to make these judgements
without a bias and it's difficult to continually evaluate whether your bias
has been externally affected by these business practices.

The reason why nothing is truly being done about this massive theft of privacy
is because people are complacent with the idea. We can't truly get upset that
our governments are taking away our privacy when we have been giving it away
to private corporations and religious organizations for so long.

~~~
orthecreedence
Completely agree. It's hard to care about privacy when we get so much in
return for surrendering it. Things don't cost money anymore, instead they cost
our private lives. This is a bargain we've been making for a long time, and
people are subconsciously aware of it. I think this plays a huge role into why
people don't care about the NSA in general...every fucking other organization
is spying on them too, what's one more??

I'm convinced the way to combat it is to provide services people use that are
convenient and respect privacy. Not via easily-broken promises (Privacy
Policy!!) but by enforcing privacy in the client. If cloud services only store
encrypted data, you get the convenience _and_ the privacy without compromise.

Once more companies make this shift, I think you'll see people realizing they
don't mind spending a few bucks (hell they spend it on new apps all the time)
to not have a million anal probes jammed into their private lives 24/7.

------
papa_bear
This part is a little weird to me:

"Let’s be extremely generous and say that, on average, 3,000 Americans die
every year from terror attacks [...]

The government has yet to prove one credible example of a legitimate terror
plot that was prevented thanks to mass surveillance. If they want to insist
that spying makes us safer, this would be good information to know."

Is that not evidence that to some degree, the surveillance works to keep
terrorism down? One of the biggest deterrents to committing a crime is the
certainty of getting caught. I realize that people have blogged about how to
circumvent a lot of the security making it seem pointless, but I assume even
the appearance of security would make it seem like less of an appealing idea
to a would-be terrorist.

EDIT: I should say "interesting" rather than "weird." This post is assuming
the psychology of a terrorist is similar to a white collar or petty criminal,
which obviously isn't always the case. But maybe it's not too much of a
stretch to say it doesn't stop senseless violence or serial killers from
committing similar acts of terror.

~~~
Lagged2Death
_Is that not evidence that to some degree, the surveillance works to keep
terrorism down?_

Look, all this talk about surveillance is a red herring.

Since 9/11, I've been diligently praying to Zoltar the Space God every day,
begging him to put a stop to Islamic terrorism on American soil.

And as you point out, it's been working great. The lack of attacks is evidence
that to some degree, Zoltar is powerful and benevolent.

~~~
tedunangst
But how do you know the terrorists aren't praying to Zoltar "Oh Mighty Space
God Zoltar, please allow Lagged2Death to become complacent in his security"?
:)

------
DanBC
Isn't it more banal and just people using budgets and extending their
influence within the community that decides the funding? Bad metrics create
weird outcomes, etc.

Pick any government agency at random. You'll find weird spending, baffling
ideas, inefficiencies, power struggles with other agencies, etc. That agency
will try to define their role in a way that maximises the money they need to
do that job and that claims authority for that particular area.

I imagine the NSA feels fine about what they do. They probably have a bunch of
techniques that they've rejected as being too intrusive or too constitution-
violating. Something about "Overton Window" fits here - you hear about
Guantanomo and you think "Hey, we're not torturing people like they do there,
so we're better".

Add weak oversight, and a favourable exploitable atmosphere about a bogeyman
("THE COMMUNISTS!" "TERRORISTS!" "DRUGS!") and it's easy to see how an agency
ends up going too far.

Going too far if you regulate children's play areas or the size of holes in
fishnets doesn't mean much. Obviously, going too far when you're NSA ends up
with a really bad situation.

------
bnolsen
it's also called a police state which is totally against the US constitution.

~~~
mintplant
Oh really? Please show me in the Constitution where the words "police state"
are mentioned.

"Unconstitutional" has become a lazy way to dress up a claim that something is
bad. I'm not saying that what's going on with surveillance in the U.S. is a
good thing, but you're not helping your cause here.

(For that matter, there's nothing about a "right to overthrow [a] corrupt
government" in the Constitution either. nullsocket may be thinking of the
Declaration of Independence, and its basis in the social contract theory of
Locke's _Second Treatise on Government_.)

~~~
nullsocket
You are correct sir, my mistake.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers
in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness."

~~~
kordless
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not
be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath
shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed."

~~~
Zigurd
The Declaration of Independence lists the reasons. How many apply to our
situation today?

------
xacaxulu
Remember the birthday hats on surveillance cameras?
[http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/4/4490058/front404-orwells-
bi...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/4/4490058/front404-orwells-birthday-
cctv-cameras-with-party-hats)

------
ThomPete
Case in point. There are things I don't dare post on Facebook because I am
afraid it will affect my Visa situation.

~~~
orthecreedence
Welcome. And don't step in the freedom.

------
vermontdevil
I think it's more about money. Wherever there's an opportunity to do the
following: 1) make money and 2) keep control of the flow of money, there are
people who would do it at the expense of others.

I see this in Congress and a lot of government leaders not just within NSA.

Look at Treasury, DEA, etc for examples.

------
jakeogh
Cui bono?

