Surveillance State

[NikolaiI]

If you're worried, go analog. Unplug, in other words. Sometimes I think, wouldn't it be nice if the extent of my involvement with the government were - I have my citizenship papers somewhere on a shelf at home? Then I realize, gladly, it is.

I agree with Charles in the sense that paranoia is not justified. I'm not worried because 1) I don't think it is as bad as Darcy does and 2) there are effective counter-measures such as going offline. There will also be other ways to circumvent surveillance - and, as Paul said, it is now a two way street.

[The Atheist]

Whether your government is specifically watching you or not depends upon whether you attract their attention. But it doesn't have to be your own government.

That someone may be interested in what you are doing, for good or bad, is a condition of living within human society.

The problem comes when people attract the attention of surveillance agencies for completely innocent reasons.

The group I'm using as an example is BDSM practitioners, because they use many of the same techniques terrorists and criminal clandestine groups use: covert meetings, code words, diverse people coming together who no visibly logical connection.

Given that we now know the massive surveillance operation has been ongoing for a couple of years, and that in spite of warnings about the Tsarnaev brothers they were still able to set off their bombs, the alleged point of the surveillance becomes somewhat moot.

I don't think so. It is more likely that we are spied on electronically by business wanting to maximise their sales. Business is the digital big brother.
Don't you think governments have enough on tracking and picking up potential terrorists, monitoring the borders etc.

Clearly, the governments don't think so, because they are intercepting all emails and logging all phone calls. In USA, anyway.

The trouble is that intelligence agencies have foregone keyword searches for algorithms that highlight behaviour which fits into a mould that someone designed.

The other thing about surveillance that Orwell did not predict is that common citizens can easily record a state's actions and publicise it easily on the internet. That's why China has tried to control the internet so much. Surveillance is now two way street. That'show the arab spring was able to spread effectively through social networks.

This isn't entirely correct, because China has shown that it can suppress information and discussion in a very Orwellian fashion.

Also, much of the reason the Arab Spring was allowed to happen was because the particular dictators hadn't kept up with the effects of technology and had not held control of the internet in the way China, North Korea and Iran have.

The thin end of the wedge is already in place with Google now not allowing certain search terms to come up as suggestions, giving results only on exact matches. Another good guide is Bradley Manning - without his heroic actions, the world would still be in the dark about something that had hundreds of witnesses and had been kept quiet.

I think there's a danger in presuming the internet is a complete answer for sharing information.

[Silas Thorne]

Yes, Atheist, I would tend to agree with you on most of your points. And you certainly would be a good judge of which regimes come across as more 'Orwellian'.
There's also the problem of people in the civil service selling, or passing on your information, to private companies or even criminals.
But if people are not aware of the security risks associated with particular technologies and social networks, you are freely sharing really personal information with pretty much anyone. It doesn't need to be the state.Hell, even leaving an phone message that you will be away for two weeks grants someone a good timeline to burgle your house in.
To deal with algorithm searching, there are steps individuals can take in their own states or countries that might help. Of course this wont deal with a dedicated investigation or a good hacker that's out to get you though.

[Delta40]

I worked for a govt agency which participated in surveillance. Great fun but I rather think the general public is prone to paranoia

[Darcy88]

I'm not paranoid about those presently in positions of power abusing such tools right now. What I see happening, what I know will happen, is when things get bad all around they will utilize them to neutralize dissent.

[cacian]

I worked for a govt agency which participated in surveillance. Great fun but I rather think the general public is prone to paranoia

well I think you would find the only ones that are paranoid are those who surveille and not the other way around. I nearly took up a post with MI5 and I can tell you paranoia was their drive.

[kasie]

MI5 can hardly be called paranoid: their job is '....protecting the UK citizens and interests, at home and overseas, against threats to national security'. (That's taken from their open website.) The department is answerable to the Home Secretary. You can call them spies, spooks, Grey Men, or whatever you like but the unfortunate fact is that their activities are still necessary if we are to continue to enjoy any measure of peace and security, not to mention the freedom to discuss their existence on open forums like this.

[cacian]

MI5 can hardly be called paranoid: their job is '....protecting the UK citizens and interests, at home and overseas, against threats to national security'. (That's taken from their open website.) The department is answerable to the Home Secretary. You can call them spies, spooks, Grey Men, or whatever you like but the unfortunate fact is that their activities are still necessary if we are to continue to enjoy any measure of peace and security, not to mention the freedom to discuss their existence on open forums like this.

that is very true but there is that element of tense over the top surveillance feeling about them even between themselves is what I am trying to say. I got the feeling that they also watch each other very closely too. I had an MI6 interview and I could hardly move or go anywhere in the building without being followed. I had one person follow me to the smoking room while I took to my cigarette to smoke it. I was hardly going to do anything I was there for the interview.
have you worked or had anything to do with them?
about discussing them that is the reality of things. you cannot stop people talking about them. they are a job description and people attend them. after that conversations open up to who they are and what they do.

[Emil Miller]

Having worked in BBC propaganda during WWII, Orwell was aware of the extent of government control of the general population and used it as the basis for 1984; the difference being that everyone in the novel knew they were being watched. However, setting aside any specific government, those engaged in covert activity of any kind are bound to attract the attention of the controlling authority. The only kind of society to exist without surveillance in the UK would have Christopher Robin in Downing Street and Little Lord Fauntleroy in the House of Lords.

[ralfyman]

Reminds me of Foucault's books and the idea that surveillance takes place in the work place, school, etc.

[Paulclem]

This isn't entirely correct, because China has shown that it can suppress information and discussion in a very Orwellian fashion.

Also, much of the reason the Arab Spring was allowed to happen was because the particular dictators hadn't kept up with the effects of technology and had not held control of the internet in the way China, North Korea and Iran have.

I think there's a danger in presuming the internet is a complete answer for sharing information.

Yes I wasn't clear. China realised, and perhaps has more reason to clamp down on internet freedoms whereas this isn't as pronounced in other countries. I also had in mind how footage of a demo in London, where an innocent newspaper seller was caught up in the crowds and ended up being pushed over and dying of a heart attack, contradicted police accounts of the incident. The simple mass of information that a crowd can generate and distribute in different ways is a good thing.

[Silas Thorne]

The simple mass of information that a crowd can generate and distribute in different ways is a good thing.

Not always. It can lead to mob violence, terrorist attacks or the gate-crashing of parties, but also to flash-mobs of dance and music, free-sharing of love bytes, media, and wonder. The terrible wonderful world.

[hypatia_]

9115_677526982272987_1613796340_n.jpg

interesting image

[cafolini]

Not always. It can lead to mob violence, terrorist attacks or the gate-crashing of parties, but also to flash-mobs of dance and music, free-sharing of love bytes, media, and wonder. The terrible wonderful world.

It has always been a good policy to maintain the door open to information as well as disinformation. Paulclem is correct. There is always plenty of time to figure out what's what one way or the other. Isolation yields ignorance.

[Darcy88]

Anyone who supports the surveillance state simply lacks imagination and a historical sense. Such people see a clear blue sky above them and cannot imagine a storm materializing on the morrow. Like sheep who accept the fence their overlord farmer built because it keeps out the wolves.