
Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study - Libertatea
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/28/mass-surveillance-silences-minority-opinions-according-to-study/
======
akerro
Mass surveillance was created to work against minorities:

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

[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/canada-
en...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/canada-
environmental-activism-threat)

[https://overland.org.au/2014/07/surveillance-of-activists-
is...](https://overland.org.au/2014/07/surveillance-of-activists-is-about-to-
get-much-much-worse/)

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-
dr...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr-martin-
luther-king-jr-and-dangers-unchecked-surveillance)

~~~
USANEEDSHELP
Mass surveillance is meant to work against anybody and everybody

~~~
guelo
That makes no sense. Why would mass surveillance be used against people that
support the regime?

~~~
EliRivers
To make sure they support it, and to make sure they _keep_ supporting it.
Compliance today does not buy you a free pass tomorrow.

------
ChuckMcM
This suggests we should implement mass surveillance of law enforcement
personnel. If, as many people assert, the bad behavior of law enforcement is
the actions of a minority, then mass surveillance of law enforcement should
provide a chilling effect on that minority and result in fewer examples of
these abuses.

Somehow I don't think that argument would win the day though.

~~~
joshkpeterson
You're literally describing body cams, which people are activists are actively
working towards making ubiquitous.

~~~
ta_donk_gt
Not really, though, right? The body cams video would almost certainly be
treated the same as dashcam video, would it not?

Generally, dashcam video is extremely difficult to get released if it
incriminates or disagrees with the reporting of the police in any way.

That's not really surveillance by any meaningful definition.

~~~
ChuckMcM
That seems to be the case, for example the number of "broken microphones" in
the Chicago PD[1].

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2016/01/29/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2016/01/29/80-percent-of-chicago-pd-dash-cam-videos-are-missing-
audio-due-to-officer-error-or-intentional-destruction/)

------
im_down_w_otp
Interesting. I would expect it to also foster radicalism. By creating an
environment where only the most-vocal, least-risk-averse adherents to a
particular way of thinking are willing to risk making their ideas known.

If you make an environment where only those who are willing to face death,
imprisonment, or harassment for their ideas are the ones doing the talking,
then you make the only voice being heard be one of extreme conviction and
cause.

~~~
13thLetter
Yep, you can see that happening right now in various tech fields. The scope of
opinions that one can publicly hold without risking doxxing and mob harassment
has been narrowed tremendously, with the result that while many have been
bullied into resentful silence the ones still willing to talk have been
thoroughly radicalized.

~~~
tomjen3
And when only the radicals talk, those who have been forced into silence (or
feel they are forced into silence) ends up being radicalized too. I think a
lot of Trumps support comes from that fact (along with the genuine
frustrations of blue collar workers) and also because he can be counted on not
to apologize.

------
lowglow
The inquiry alone is frightening, although much less so than the implications
of a surveillance state. Watching Trumbo and learning more about how the US
dealt out the "Red Scare" is crushing to my soul. You want to assume people
are inherently good actors, but that's not always the case.

~~~
pmarreck
> You want to assume people are inherently good actors, but that's not always
> the case.

Most people are... But reality is subjective, and the people you call "bad
actors" in this case surely thought themselves "good actors." The problem
happens when, in your good-actor zeal for righteousness (capturing bad-
actors), you inconvenience a large number of good actors in order to more
completely capture a small number of bad ones... and thus become a new bad
actor.

(I believe this would be called "high recall, low precision" if you know stats
or have done any machine learning
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_and_recall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_and_recall)
and the goal is to maximize both, not just one- also see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_score](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_score)
and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthews_correlation_coefficie...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthews_correlation_coefficient)
)

An example of another (IMHO) "high recall, low precision" practice is AML/KYC
laws, which find a very small percentage of bad actors at the cost of
inconveniencing a large number of good ones (as well as missing some bad
actors).

~~~
wlesieutre
For reference: AML = anti-money laundering, KYC = know your customer.

------
pmarreck
Sort of the inverse conclusion of "Privacy Protects Bothersome People" by
Martin Fowler

[http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-
privacy.html](http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html)

~~~
the_af
Thanks, that's a pretty insightful article.

It has some good examples, for example the one about a journalist exposing
corruption in high places but who has a secret (like drug abuse in the
example). She could be attacked for this secret in order to discredit her
exposé on a totally unrelated matter. I think everyone has secrets of some
kind, but even if you are not a journalist, you want journalists like this to
exist and be free to conduct their investigations. This is why the argument
that "you shouldn't be afraid if you have nothing to hide" is bogus.

------
jcr
Surveillance by a nation-state is troubling problem, but surveillance by the
populace is an equally troubling problem.

Related reading:

" _The Real Reason We Need to Stop Trying to Protect Everyone 's Feelings_"

[http://thoughtcatalog.com/ryan-holiday/2015/11/the-real-
reas...](http://thoughtcatalog.com/ryan-holiday/2015/11/the-real-reason-we-
need-to-stop-trying-to-protect-everyones-feelings/)

" _The Coddling of the American Mind_ "

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-
codd...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-
the-american-mind/399356/)

" _Rage Profiteers: How Bloggers Harness Our Anger for Their Own Gain_ "

[http://observer.com/2014/10/rage-profiteers-how-blogs-
harnes...](http://observer.com/2014/10/rage-profiteers-how-blogs-harness-our-
anger-for-their-own-gain/)

------
CapitalistCartr
Freedom is the right to be wrong. If I am free only to agree with the popular
consensus, I'm not free.

If I can't have a quiet chat with friends in public making clear I'm a gay,
atheist, muslim, vegan, witch, then I'm not free. If I can't have a private
chat with any other member(s) of the populace, I'm not free.

Someone will always think I'm living my life wrong.

~~~
kiba
It's also the right to be right.

The majority can be wrong in their opinion after all, like being bigots and
racists.

Freedom of expression shield us from the 'wrong' opinions being surpassed, in
the hope that they provide corrective feedback more often than not to the
population at large.

At least, that's the hope.

People provide racist and divisive commentary to the population at large, no
matter how unjustified. No doubt it will change some people opinion.

People also continue to provide anti-vaccine messages, scaring parents and
causing public healthcare crisis.

Paradoxically, the lack of political speech is the mark of authoritarians and
tyrants in our political life.

------
geographomics
Most of the commentary here so far is really quite tangential to the actual
research done. Everyone commenting on this article should make sure they've
read the study first, with particular attention to the 'Limitations' section
on page 11:
[http://m.jmq.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/02/25/1077699016...](http://m.jmq.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/02/25/1077699016630255.full.pdf?ijkey=1jxrYu4cQPtA6&keytype=ref&siteid=spjmq)

One other feature of the study that limits its wider applicability is that it
is entirely US-centric. It would be interesting to read follow-up work on
samples taken from other cultures and countries.

------
bediger4000
How about leaving down and up vote, but including a button for "disagree",
which doesn't affect karma. I would use "disagree" instead of downvoting quite
often. Leave the downvote button with its karma loss. That lets people
downvote trolls/spams/irrationality, but lets the person being disagreed with
that something's wrong. A "disagree" button may also help people to write a
reply with the reason for disagreeing, rather than just downvoting and moving
on, which in my experience happens a lot.

------
Zigurd
The surveillance state makes our system more brittle by entrenching a status
quo that is creating accelerating income and wealth inequality, and destroying
institutions that enable upward social and income mobility. We're headed for a
rupture, and the response appears to be more armor, weapons, and security
personnel.

------
cryoshon
>“The fact that the 'nothing to hide' individuals experience a significant
chilling effect speaks to how online privacy is much bigger than the mere
lawfulness of one's actions. It's about a fundamental human right to have
control over one's self-presentation and image, in private, and now, in search
histories and metadata,” she said.

Even the bootlickers censor their more controversial opinions, leading to a
thought monoculture in which there is no dissent of any kind. This should be
evidence that mass surveillance and any government which supports it needs to
go, pronto.

------
whybroke
I certainly self censor and even now am posting semi anonymously obviously.

But those in favor of mass surveillance could answer the study by claiming
that if the surveillance is kept secret then 1. it won't stifle minority
opinions and 2. it will work better

By saying this they could not only answer the study's concerns but could now
advocate zealously punishing whistle blowers.

------
AnkhMorporkian
I only had time to briefly skim the study, but I don't think there was any
follow-up done. Although it might immediately affect minority opinions to be
reminded of that, I would be much more interested to see if the group reminded
of surveillance still kept their opinions to themselves a day, a week, a month
later.

------
known
Distributive justice
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia#Dis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia#Distributive_justice)

------
pessimizer
This is the proof that people who say that they have nothing to hide to defend
surveillance are lying more often than not. It's basically the same as gay
legislators vocally supporting anti-gay legislation.

------
known
Will NOT work against
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_minority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_minority)

------
nxzero
Reminds me of the Hawthorne Effect:

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

------
dkopi
Mass surveillance is a really ineffective way to silence minority opinions.
Personally I prefer down-votes from people with more karma to get the job
done.

------
justsaysmthng
HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that
I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions
are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter
because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are
surfacing.

But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think"
which leads me to go into this spiral of silence.

I often find myself self-censoring or abandoning the comment halfway, because
I know it will get down voted and it's just a waste of time.

And I'm not talking about trolling or being aggressive or flaming..

Some opinions are just not accepted here on HN and the comment will get down
voted fast regardless of how politely or respectfully you try to put it.

This is my 3rd HN account - I've abandoned the others (with lots of karma on
them) specifically as a protest for (what I thought were) valid opinions being
down voted and dismissed.

For example, mentioning ideas that some tech might be bad or harmful - that
people are addicted to devices, that tech is causing widespread pollution -
and the likes - are quickly buried, even though in my view these are subjects
which we must openly discuss, since they widely affect us all.

Which brings me to the thought: If one of the most intelligent and open minded
online communities can exhibit censorship or can determine users to self-
censor, then what can be said about other communities/platforms ?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I'd encourage you to stop 'self-censoring'. What matters a few karma points,
if you have something important to say? You'll find that often an initial
knee-jerk downvoting can turn around half a day later, as more considerate
users join the conversation.

~~~
InclinedPlane
I comment a lot less on HN than I used to, and a lot of that I think has to do
with the change in the community, the tone, something like that. For me I
don't care about internet points, but upvotes and downvotes affect how visible
your comments end up being in a thread. It seems as though there's a lot less
substantive discussion on HN than there used to be. The front page moves
faster and people aren't interested in having discussions. It's not a matter
of going through the effort of making a post and then being disappointed in
being downvoted, or not being upvoted. It's a matter of writing something and
then having it ignored, which makes you wonder why you even bothered in the
first place. Are you just shouting into the void?

~~~
MawNicker
Please comment more. It may just be that I like your username but I've read
many excellent comments and noticed they were yours. This is totally selfish
of me but I'd rather have you yelling into the void sometimes so long as that
keeps happening.

------
cowardlydragon
Not a lot of comments here I see...

