Saying the public doesn't care about surveillance is oft-repeated reductionism, even around HN, and I think we could level-up ever so slightly by widely admitting that average people are just as complex as you, and have lots of interesting cares, when the context is right.
I'm not arguing they are simpletons who just don't understand tech, but it's quite clear that most people don't care enough to do anything about it. take me as an example. in the abstract, I dislike being the subject of surveillance. but in practice, I don't care enough to sacrifice the convenience of the google ecosystem. I certainly don't care enough to replace my android phone with an iphone, even though I could afford it.
How would this possibly work?
Happy to tell you, or anyone who is curious, about it! Email in my profile.
For a couple hundred dollars I can install a computer-vision enabled camera that tracks and logs the face of everyone that passes, the clothes you are wearing and each car that passes. Security systems like Verkada already do this, and it is perfectly legal for companies to install these overlooking busy streets and public areas.
This tech will only get cheaper, smaller, and harder to notice. It's ridiculous to think that mass surveillance will be beaten.
A bill for "my phone is not allowed to eavesdrop" would have wide public support, and would open up the conversation on all the ways that surveillance takes place that does not include listening to conversations.
More than that I'd wager they'd be more likely to support it. As we've seen in the past just advertise it as a way to nab the most heinous form of criminals (terrorists, child predators, etc.) and enough people will be ok with it. Hell, even here, a site you'd expect to be strongly anti-surveileance, I've seen comments that basically equated to "I'm ok with [mass surveillance tech] because it's going to help stop [bad guy group]".
The tech employees of these corporations are aware and enjoy the profits. When do we start holding them accountable.
I believe this will be status quo until it becomes increasingly obvious that "terrorists" are gradually coming to include normal political opponents and that these tools are being used by oligarchical forces to suppress democracy itself. It hasn't happened yet, but we're getting close.
Over here in the US, we seem to be accidentally building something that is somewhat similar, but far more haphazard and inconsistent: online outrage mobs. I'd wager more people are self-censoring due to these than anything the US government has put into place.
People have changed what they search for since the Snowden whistleblowing.
I think the takeaway is that we need to find a better way to speak to the average American about surveillance. Speak in plain terms that matter to them. Or maybe they will just never care?
It has? I must have missed it. It's regularly scorned on HN, but I haven't seen much mainstream concern about it at all. Certainly not the level of concern that it deserves.
the patriot act generates a round of discussion whenever it's up for renewal, but I don't get the impression that there's emphatic popular opposition. IIRC, it actually failed to be renewed this year, but only because trump feared it might be used against him in an investigation.
net neutrality isn't quite the same situation. it's actually important to the big internet companies so it gets some strong support.
> I think the takeaway is that we need to find a better way to speak to the average American about surveillance. Speak in plain terms that matter to them. Or maybe they will just never care?
I honestly don't know what this would look like. imo, a large part of why police brutality gets so much attention is because there are concrete examples of police killing people who didn't do anything to deserve it. if you ask around, you'll probably find at least a couple people you actually know have had bad experiences with the police. what's the equivalent of this for surveillance? seeing toaster ads after you buy a toaster on amazon just doesn't bother people the same way.
He knows you when you're sleeping,
He knows when you're awake,
He knows when you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake.
Is it then a surprise that folks don't care about surveillance's consequences? Maybe Christopher Hitchens was on to something real with "Religion poisons everything".Those two things are not unrelated.