Comment by munin | Hacker News Reader

Comment by munin | Hacker News Reader

there's something that frustrates me about arguments like this.

I think that technology is inescapably taking us towards a future where anyone and everyone can record everything that any individual does, perpetually, and at arbitrary scale. In many ways we are already there, especially in certain domains (gmail, facebook, cell phones, creep shots, etc). It sounds pessimistic to say "this is inevitable" and I'm sure many people (myself included!) want that to be wrong, but given the technology we produce and the limited degree of control we have over its use, I don't see any alternative.

So the present and future allow for democratized mass surveillance, never mind what your government can do. What is our societal response? Make this illegal? I doubt the effectiveness of that, both against the common man / criminal and also against the government. If you are already terrified that the government will break any of its own laws to watch you (and perhaps this terror is justified), then how would the government passing laws limiting its own abilities allay any of your fears? I don't see how it would.

I'm then annoyed because we seem to be standing on the deck of the Titanic wishing virulently that water wasn't wet. This is the future, and it's coming, and the government will have these records, and private companies will have these records, and countless individuals will have these records. What are we meaningfully going to do? Pass laws? Are we simply going to will back the clock to when this wasn't possible? Or should we instead start to talk about what this future, recorded, society will look like?

I welcome an effective "call to action" response to turn back the tide of mass surveillance...

A question. Can a mass surveillance system be designed in a such way, so it doesn't take away privacy or reduce civil liberties?

If the answer is no, then it is simple. It should be illegal to spend tax money on such mass surveillance systems.

Yes it can, as it has been done before with the police system. You have a group of people watching society and reporting any criminal activity. It just so happens that the response system is already built in. Police don't go into private homes or search belongings without due process.

It should be quite easy to design a system in that way. Cameras and other surveillance tools can only be placed in public places; this will protect civil liberties while still enabling the government to better distribute justice. In effect, they will place a policeman on every street corner.

I'm not so sure. To play a devil's advocate, even cameras in public places, if combined with some data mining can invade privacy pretty badly. Say, resulting in continuous tracking.

> If the answer is no, then it is simple. It should be illegal to spend tax money on such mass surveillance systems.

Yes, but will this stop the government from creating such systems? Will it stop private companies from making such systems? Will it stop private citizens from making such systems? Won't these have the same chilling and deleterious effects that this document outlines as bad, if not worse?

Maybe the solution should involve some sort of mass surveillance of the government itself, by the citizens.

I've argued that this is an outcome of a democratic "everyone watches everyone" society.

however, some problems. someone has to have some monopoly on force? So the government has to have some information that is secret, for example, information about suspects in a criminal investigation. although it's possible that in a fully recorded society that need would go away! a police investigation would simply consist of reviewing the evidence recorded and acting, and a suspect couldn't run because everything is monitored and recorded.

this sounds pretty terrible! and I think it would be, unless, the institutions of a democratic and just society were preserved. given that any crime would come attached with "the whole truth" recorded, trials might be easier? cardinal richelieu is purported to have said "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.", but I'm not sure if 15th-century French monarchy is the same government as a modern-day democracy (say what you will about Manning et al) ...

Monitoring at this scale would require tremendous resources that the Federal government has plenty of but individuals are unable (or unwilling) to invest. The article makes the argument for accumulation of information as a means to obtain power; in the case of individuals collectively accumulating information on the government, who holds the power? If the derived power is fragmented then no one would be motivated to take action.

I'm working on something that I hope will turn back the tide somewhat: http://parley.co

I hope you can reveal more details of how you are going to accomplish what you've set out to do in the site.

In general, technically minded people who care about privacy like to see these kinds of solutions in open source form or there will be heavy resistance to trust it.

Yup, more information will be up soon and all of our code will eventually be open sourced. There are no secrets to what we're doing at all, it's just a question of putting it all together in digestible form (and in the meantime--or any time at all--my email is in my profile and I'd be happy to hear from you).

The really sticky parts of Parley (ie. crypto) are already open source, made and reviewed by far greater minds than ours. We're mostly trying to solve the network problem that has impeded adoption of end-to-end email/IM encryption in the past by building a system that is ridiculously simple for anyone to use.

You definitely want to read David Brin's: "The transparent society" : )

Reply on news.ycombinator.com