Hacker News Reader

Comment by nkkollaw | Hacker News Reader

What is the real reason behind surveillance?

The government(s)'s excuse is terrorism, but terrorism in Europe doesn't kill a big enough amount of people to justify these drastic measures. I would argue also that no one has proven that it's efficient at preventing terrorist attacks.

There must be a reason, I don't get it. Is it just because governments can, so they do it? It is to create the basis for some initiative that is planned for the future when technology improves..?

View on HN

There's a simple, political answer. If you're the MP for, say, Manchester after the Ariana Grande bombing, you're (probably) not going to survive politically after trying to make philosophical points about privacy to angry, grieving parents (on live, national TV), explaining why you voted against the surveillance bill.

It's an example of an issue with concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.

Yes but what does surveillance have to do with bombings. Have they ever stopped 1 single bombing because they were filming regular people going by their business..?

Maybe, maybe not. They wouldn't tell you either way

I think it's probably a vote-winner. From within our tech bubble it's easy to see why this is stupid, but the majority of the UK might look at a newspaper headline such as "May cracks down on terrorism on UK soil" and think Hey, she's actually doing something about all these scary terrorist events I hear about.

I would imagine if newspapers phrased it as "May enacts legislation which will allow the government to spy on what porn you look at" rather than the meek-mannered garbage they actually print, the opinion of the average person in the UK would be quite different.

So if you disagree with them they can deal with you one way or another? I've always thought that was the real reason: to dissuade dissidence.

But is it true, though..?

I've always thought this as well. They can more effectively control the population and also get "dirt" on anyone they want. There's pretty much no one on this planet who hasn't said or done something they aren't proud of, don't want public, don't want their spouse to know, is mildly illegal (but which could then be vigorously prosecuted once they are a target), etc. etc.

I think it's for the Donald Trump scenario - if an "outsider" tries to enter the political arena to gain power they can crush that person using all the available tools in their arsenal. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, he was able to combat that because he was already rich and famous. No regular human being could rise to power without the approval of the existing political elite. Mass surveillance is just one tool they use to maintain that power.

You basically outline why that's an unsatisfying answer. It didn't prevent Trump from entering the political arena. The "Access Hollywood" tape surfaced a month before the election, why not during the primaries, when he was more vulnerable? Does anyone really believe that someone with purportedly the full power of the US intelligence community couldn't find more on-the-record dirt on him, or his senior staff? What about the stuff in the Russian dossier (the golden shower stuff)? Again, appeared days before the election, too late to do proper damage, and if that's the best the US intelligence community can do, they're mind-bogglingly inept.

Assuming the conspiracy theory that the US IC "effectively control the population" is true, the only rational explanation is that they wanted Trump as president, not the opposite.

> I would argue also that no one has proven that it's efficient at preventing terrorist attacks.

What if arrests in terrorist investigations are kept under wraps though? If the public would hear of thwarted terrorist attacks on a regular basis, either they'd feel more and more unsafe - that is, the terrorists win - or the terrorists find out about other cells and find ways to circumvent detection.

So arrests but no trials? Or are the trials secret too?

Neither. Successful anti-terrorism is about nipping this stuff in the bud before the potential perpetrators get close to having specific plans. You can easily think of tactics that would disrupt recruiting, financing and supply chains quietly, all the way down to simply having a "friendly" chat with someone (and/or their mother).

The extend to which this happens and to what degree surveillance helps with this is difficult to ascertain, of course.

Humint is always more effective than sigint at these efforts. Far too much noise in the former case.

Terrorists would quickly know about other cell failures if no attacks ever succeed, so they would already be changing their game. Constantly thwarting attacks would also increase confidence in the effectiveness of these measures, not decrease them. If there was evidence to speak of, we would have seen it by now. The arguments in favour of surveillance are smoke and mirrors.

If we were catching terrorists on the regular with programs enabled by these sorts of laws you can bet your ass they'd be trotting out each and every one of them in front of the press while singing praise to the dragnet programs that made it possible.

Since that seems to be a popular excuse to start wars and otherwise-unacceptable laws, I doubt they're doing that.

Fear is pretty good for politicians.

The surveillance engine in the five eyes primarily, was always really intended primarily as a tool for control, rather than security (see: Bill Binney's testimony). Don't forget the major data storage facilities that were created, they also want to be able to "walk the cat back" so once a dissident rears their head they can retroactively get dirt on them.

Secondarily, it's about major contract kickbacks for the good ol boys.

The most shameful part of it all is how the majority of the populace just subserviently and silently acquiesced, except to criticize those of us trying to warn everyone. (via the classic bullshit arguments we had to put up with, such as if you have nothing to hide, etc).

If it weren't for Snowden people would still be calling many of us "conspiracy theorists".

They would still if we vocalized the other things...

> They would still if we vocalized the other things...

What are those..?

It is possible that surveillance really is useful in preventing terrorism. And it would seem cheaper and easier to do than human intelligence.

Power and control over enemies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com