I'm afraid we have to step back and realize that "surveillance" has been, is now, and will be, a fact of life. So long as anyone can walk down the street and look around, that is our world. Google does that with driven automobiles and cameras, to compile comprehensive street-level photo maps that anyone can access. There is more civilian access to that surveillance data than any government can afford to spend time on. Even overhead, with private pilots or satellites. So long as no one trespasses, or violates one's rights, there is no problem. It is not a matter of government power---unless the government violates your rights, in which case it is the violation that is the power, not the surveillance. We each of us have the ability to install comprehensive surveillance cameras around our house...including a view of the neighbors across the street, or across our back yard. Do they have a right to complain? As they do of us. Do we have a right to complain?
My view is that people need to return themselves to the fact that we live in society...not on the internet. In the real world, we are not "anons," we are real people, with real faces, and real names---or we are probably criminals, who hide, and lurk, and have aliases. "Surveillance" is just a fancy way of saying "being looked at." But being looked at is inescapable if one wants to live a free life. Being heard is inescapable if one wants to exercise free speech. One is free to be a hermit...but being a hermit is to abandon society (though one may want to continue enjoying the benefits of an economy). It is not a healthy way to live. (Admittedly, some people have disabilities that reduce them to being hermits. But they are to be pitied on account of that, not held up as models.)
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.
Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know. - John F Kennedy.
I think u/killerspacerobot is talking about "surveillance" as everything can people can publicly watch or access, which is unavoidable as technology grows.
But the crucial difference is that what we were originally talking about was surveillance of private information - like secret wiretapping, devices sending info back home, government eavesdropping on tech like private home cameras, phones etc.
Thats still very much a concern and has to be stopped completely and with transparency.
I live in a world where police can arrest you for saying hurty words and it's impossible to get rid of any unwarranted surveillance systems? Yeah sure. You guys are staring down the barrel of a gun not held by me, but by George Washington, the founders, and basically every single American and allied soldier that ever fought anywhere ever. Just a messenger. Once you go we're all finished.
I'm afraid we have to step back and realize that "surveillance" has been, is now, and will be, a fact of life. So long as anyone can walk down the street and look around, that is our world. Google does that with driven automobiles and cameras, to compile comprehensive street-level photo maps that anyone can access. There is more civilian access to that surveillance data than any government can afford to spend time on. Even overhead, with private pilots or satellites. So long as no one trespasses, or violates one's rights, there is no problem. It is not a matter of government power---unless the government violates your rights, in which case it is the violation that is the power, not the surveillance. We each of us have the ability to install comprehensive surveillance cameras around our house...including a view of the neighbors across the street, or across our back yard. Do they have a right to complain? As they do of us. Do we have a right to complain?
My view is that people need to return themselves to the fact that we live in society...not on the internet. In the real world, we are not "anons," we are real people, with real faces, and real names---or we are probably criminals, who hide, and lurk, and have aliases. "Surveillance" is just a fancy way of saying "being looked at." But being looked at is inescapable if one wants to live a free life. Being heard is inescapable if one wants to exercise free speech. One is free to be a hermit...but being a hermit is to abandon society (though one may want to continue enjoying the benefits of an economy). It is not a healthy way to live. (Admittedly, some people have disabilities that reduce them to being hermits. But they are to be pitied on account of that, not held up as models.)
Tagging u/33ss
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.
Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know. - John F Kennedy.
Hey I'm just trying to warn the monitors. You guys don't decide that's the problem. Thanks.
I think u/killerspacerobot is talking about "surveillance" as everything can people can publicly watch or access, which is unavoidable as technology grows.
But the crucial difference is that what we were originally talking about was surveillance of private information - like secret wiretapping, devices sending info back home, government eavesdropping on tech like private home cameras, phones etc.
Thats still very much a concern and has to be stopped completely and with transparency.
Good distinction. The kinds of things you are mentioning I would categorize as violations of the 4th Amendment.
I live in a world where police can arrest you for saying hurty words and it's impossible to get rid of any unwarranted surveillance systems? Yeah sure. You guys are staring down the barrel of a gun not held by me, but by George Washington, the founders, and basically every single American and allied soldier that ever fought anywhere ever. Just a messenger. Once you go we're all finished.