Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/opinion/surveillance-a-threat-to-democracy.html?_r=0

by hawkharris • 13 years ago

183 70 13 years ago

ccarter84• 13 years ago

Glad the NYT Editorial board has stepped up and been so blunt.

"But Americans should not be fooled by political leaders putting forward a false choice. The issue is not whether the government should vigorously pursue terrorists. The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by less-intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights. Far too little has been said on this question by the White House or Congress in their defense of the N.S.A.’s dragnet. "

gohrt• 13 years ago

"The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by less-intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights. "

No, NYT, the question is how which security goals can be achieved without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights.

There is no security goal that justifies destroying freedom, as freedom is the motivation for our security goals.

mpyne4• 13 years ago

Go ask the villagers in the unadministered lands of Afghanistan and Pakistan how their freedom from government is working out for them.

It's easy to say that security is completely unimportant when it's not your daughter being beaten and raped for being seen outside without a veil.

clarkmoody3• 13 years ago

It would be nice if people realized that the United States was built upon the premise that the individual is sovereign, not the states. Your rights come from God, not government. Many think they have all the freedom they need, since they can drive (most places) with no papers and download whatever apps they want on their phones.

The government is heading down a very dangerous path and has been for a long time. Members of both major parties are too blame, for they have allowed government to grow to a scale that is far too large to leave room for the individual to be truly free.

malkia4• 13 years ago

I'm an atheist, there is no God for me.

burntsushi2• 13 years ago

There's no God for me either, but isn't that a pedantic point? I think it could just as easily read as

Your rights come from our nature, not government.

jiggy2011• 13 years ago

I think he meant more of a metaphorical god in the "We hold these truths to be self-evident" sense.

betterunix4• 13 years ago

It is just a figure of speech, don't be pedantic about this.

clarkmoody3• 13 years ago

So you agree with all of the other words of my comment? :-)

jivatmanx2• 13 years ago

When people use the "Nothing to hide", or "The government does not care about your cat videos, this is the equivalent of: I'm not using my liberty, so I don't care about it.

The government may not be interested in you specifically, but they are interested in the more influential figures who share those same opinions. The HBGary leak revealed the targeting of Glenn Greenwald, and surely you're aware of MLK. What if he had had some minor personal failing, and the FBI had used it against him to derail his movement?

mpyne4• 13 years ago

MLK did have "minor personal failings", IIRC.

gnaritas12• 13 years ago

Your rights come from God, not government.

No, my rights come what the people are willing to fight for and establish with government. Absent government, there are no rights, there is only what I'm willing to claim my rights are and what I can defend. There is no God and nature doesn't create rights.

betterunix4• 13 years ago

You have rights regardless of the government. Absent government, you have the right to do whatever you want, as does everyone else. The proper purpose of the government is to protect your rights from other people; this is done by carefully and judiciously placing restrictions on everyone's rights via the law. Legal codes should be as minimalist as possible, to ensure people can exercise their rights as broadly as possible.

Of course, the question of whether rights exist in the absence of government or if rights are created by the law is as old as the hills, so we may have to just disagree on this one.

clarkmoody3• 13 years ago

From the point of the premise of America, they do :-)

analyst74• 13 years ago

No, surveillance is not a threat to democracy, people not caring about democracy is what threatens democracy.

Democracy has never been a right, it's always been a privilege that people demanded, and guess what, when people stop demanding it, power will naturally collude.

noelherrick• 13 years ago

I agree with your point that apathy is a threat to democracy, but there are multiple threats to an open and fair system, and a surveillance state is one of them.

akiselev2• 13 years ago

I would argue that most (if not all other) internal threats to a democracy are a subset of the vigilance and apathy problem.

If the surveillance state existed before the democracy and continued on without the consent of the governed, then it wasn't a democracy to begin with. If the citizens allowed a surveillance state to take root or their vigilance slipped, then continued vigilance would keep the surveillance state in check. However, I'm making the assumption here that for the surveillance state to take enough power to make it unstoppable (without violent revolution), it would have to grow to the point where its secrecy is no longer maintainable, and the aforementioned vigilance would take over and bring in the rains.

Now that I've written that, it all seems like semantics...

alexqgb3• 13 years ago

Additionally "surveillance" is far too general a concept to be considered harmful or helpful in and of itself. The determining factor lies in the system that surrounds it.

In other words, a "democratic surveillance state" isn't an oxymoron. Nor it it necessarily a bad thing. However, it differs sharply from an authoritarian surveillance state, which is invariably horrible.

Writing for the Washington Post, Mike Konczal elaborates on this distinction in the best surveillance-related piece I've read post-PRISM.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/08/i...

alexqgb3• 13 years ago

Pretty sure that whoever down-voted this didn't actually read the link. Here's the key passage:

"As Aaron Bady has argued in MIT’s Technology Review, the language and concepts for privacy evolved in a world where “walls” were still the dominant metaphor. Peeking through a wall was sufficient to prove you violated someone’s privacy. But technology has opened up a brand new world where walls no longer exist, or things exist in so many places that the idea of walls makes no sense. Without them we need new concepts.

As is often the case, the battle between authoritarianism and democracy can do a lot of the mental work. One of the great things about democracy is its ability to check private and government power, as well as creating institutional structure promoting accountability and transparency. And I fear it is the only way out of the situation our country faces."

The point is that the definition of surveillance itself is changing along with the concept of privacy, leading to shifts in previously-stable balances of power. To a very large extent, these changes - which have both positive and negative aspects - are byproducts of a larger technological shift which has already brought far to many advantages to reverse.

In other words, we need to develop new social norms and structures to ensure the safety of what could otherwise be very dangerous system. We don't have to do this from scratch, but the familiar frames of reference do need updating. And that starts with recognizing that "surveillance" by itself, is neither good nor bad (depending on who is watching who, under what circumstances, and why), but that it can easily be either depending on the context.

Pherdnut• 13 years ago

I'm still not seeing how that makes warrantless secret surveillance with gag orders and secret courts reporting to special committees not a threat to democracy.

veidr• 13 years ago

OP means they aren't in and of themselves a problem if the citizens do their job and hold their democratic government accountable and force it to abide by their collective decisions.

I don't agree, though; I think secret surveillance is in and of itself anti-democratic. However, OP is correct too, in the sense that once it is revealed that secret, illegal surveillance is going on, if the subjects of a functioning democracy don't care or take any action, that is probably even more corrosive to a democratic state (since presumably there will eventually always be people like Norden^W Snowden, and nothing stays secret forever).

akiselev2• 13 years ago

In my opinion, in a real democracy the citizens are not passive voters but a vigilant, armed (at least in the US) populace that holds their representatives accountable and vocally prevents unchecked accumulations of power or other undemocratic tactics (i.e. the electoral college turning into a two-party system). In my utopian view of what a democracy should be, a revelation like this would result in a very significant portion of the people speaking out and actively working to squash the surveillance system, putting the system to work instead of threatening it. Of course, such a society wouldn't let the surveillance situation progress so far and if you view democracy as a voting populace, not an informed one, my argument isn't convincing :)

Qantourisc• 13 years ago

Surveillance alone no, but it puts you 1 step away from an oppressive government before it is.

marshray2• 13 years ago

You can't have a democracy without citizens who are able to think freely.

You can't think freely when you are aware that an invisible entity is constantly watching every phone call you make and every web page you surf to. Knowing you're under surveillance changes your behavior.

It's a recipe for insanity, not democracy.

gwgarry• 13 years ago

What we have is this:

"Inverted totalitarianism is all politics all of the time but a politics largely untempered by the political. Party squabbles are occasionally on public display, and there is a frantic and continuous politics among factions of the party, interest groups, competing corporate powers, and rival media concerns. And there is, of course, the culminating moment of national elections when the attention of the nation is required to make a choice of personalities rather than a choice between alternatives. What is absent is the political, the commitment to finding where the common good lies amidst the welter of well-financed, highly organized, single-minded interests rabidly seeking governmental favors and overwhelming the practices of representative government and public administration by a sea of cash."

What we need is this:

The Theory of Communicative Action has three interrelated concerns: (1) to develop a concept of rationality that is no longer tied to, and limited by, the subjectivistic and individualistic premises of modern philosophy and social theory; (2) to construct a two-level concept of society that integrates the lifeworld and systems paradigms; and, finally, (3) to sketch out, against this background, a critical theory of modernity which analyzes and accounts for its pathologies in a way that suggests a redirection rather than an abandonment of the project of enlightenment.

malkia4• 13 years ago

If surveilance threathens your choice, then it's a threat to the democracy, but then US has never been a real democracy, but a representative one. As such it's congresmen and senators that might be threatened by it since the do our real voting for us.

alexqgb3• 13 years ago

Uh, thanks, but intelligent, educated people who are attentive to civic life (e.g. a significant portion of the HN readership) don't need to have the difference between a pure democracy and a representative one spelled out in detail each and every time the word "democracy" comes up in conversation.

slg• 13 years ago

I think it is important in this instance because that is the real heart of the problem. The US government is increasingly making decisions that go against public opinion. Something like PRISM would have a much higher chance of getting through Congress than being approved by national referendum. It seems like at some point the US government has gone from ruling on behalf of the people to simply ruling the people.

malkia4• 13 years ago

I agree with you, but I've recently (few years ago) learned about the difference. I was born in Bulgaria, and I thought we were democratic back then when communism was "all good" :) (lol, how wrong was I).

gnaritas12• 13 years ago

but then US has never been a real democracy, but a representative one.

A representative democracy is a real democracy; it's just not a direct democracy. Please stop this nonsense of thinking that only direct democracies count as democracies.

alan_cx2• 13 years ago

I think only direct democracy is a real democracy. No need for "direct", just "democracy" will do. The fact that so call democratic countries need a modifier before the word "democracy" tells you that it is not real, as such.

A representative democracy is really a practical alternative to a real democracy which would have been hard to implement. That doesn't make it real though. Its just the practical best one can do, probably. That abstraction layer of representatives, who get a free reign, gets in the way, rendering it no longer a real democracy.

unclebucknasty• 13 years ago

The issue is not whether the government should vigorously pursue terrorists. The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by less-intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights...

There is another issue that hasn't been discussed enough, and this quote from the article simultaneously refers to the need to discuss "balance" between security and freedom, while also unquestioningly keeping alive the idea that there is a grave threat and hence need for outsized security.

So, the question is also, what is the true scale and number of these so-called "terrorism threats"? And, how do you measure the required balance without a true assessment of the actual threat (vs. assuming it)?

After 9/11 we went into this permanent "War on Terror" war-footing, wherein this notion of an overwhelming threat of terrorism was simply assumed (ex. by this article).

But, when, if ever, do we question whether that posture still makes sense (or ever did, for that matter)?

comefrom102• 13 years ago

There's a very interesting video about 9/11 that every American really, really, really should watch put out by a group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

"9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg

tokenadult• 13 years ago

I recommend that you read better sources:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/

Udo• 13 years ago

On that note, if the US had a 9/11 event every month, that would still be less dead people than we lose to suicides, which was at 1.6% the number 10 cause of all deaths in 2010. Of course, every death is one too many, but imagine we put the same amount of money into mental health research and treatment that we are currently pumping into the by-definition-unwinnable "war on terror".

Less people die by terror than by any remotely significant event category. I imagine the last few years will go down in the history books as a good example why the primary product of terror is fear and hysteria, and direct damage caused is purely incidental. Of course the indirect damage terrorized societies do to themselves is stupendously expansive.

mpyne4• 13 years ago

If people honestly cared about the overall risk to them every nation would be powered by nuclear with perhaps a smattering of renewable generation in areas where it clearly made sense.

Fice• 13 years ago

Why do people who knowingly trust their data and communications to a few corporations expect any privacy in the first place? Why do people who, as it now appears, care so much about surveillance use Skype and Facebook? It is not the government, but careless consumers who are killing democracy.

gcv• 13 years ago

Surprised and pleased to see the NYT editorial board take this stance, considering it has traditionally supported the Obama administration.

According to a poll cited in today's WSJ and LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-republicans-democ...), Democrats tend to support NSA surveillance, whereas Republicans tend to oppose it — a complete reversal of the situation under the Bush 43 administration. In other words, a majority of voters likes surveillance, as long as it is being conducted by their preferred political party.

kareemm• 13 years ago

The country needs more media organizations who are willing to take non-partisan stances like this.

tzs• 13 years ago

You talk about liking surveillance in your final sentence, but about supporting surveillance earlier. There is a significant different between supporting something and liking something. I support visiting the dental hygienist twice a year, for instance, but I don't like visiting the dental hygienist.

Assuming we are talking about supporting, rather than liking, then it is quite rational to support surveillance when done by your own party. I choose politicians to support based on my belief that they largely share my values and goals and are smart enough and educated enough to act in ways that help further the advancement of those values and goals.

However, I recognize that politicians who succeed in getting elected gain access to information that is not available to me. That information will occasionally make the correct action in some cases appear to be against my values when judged by someone with the information I have, but actually in accord with my values given the extra information the politician has.

To put it simply, you are more likely to trust the politicians you support than the politicians you do not support, and so you are more likely to give politicians you support the benefit of the doubt if they occasionally do things that appear to go against your shared values.

alan_cx2• 13 years ago

I would suggest its a threat to society, even humanity it's self.

Social interaction only works because we have the ability to keep secrets. We hide our true feelings and intents to enable the great machine to work. If those views became known to all, you'd be in trouble. Worse still, what if you really knew every one else's views. Even worse than that, say a few people knew your real views, then used them to manipulate you.

Our ability to keep things private is vital.

I hope that some people think I'm talking about interpersonal relationships, and that other people think I'm talking about international diplomatic relations. If government expects to be able to keep secrets and privacy, it had better understand my need for it too. If it doesn't want its privacy abused, then it had better not abuse mine. We both need and value it.

malandrew• 13 years ago

I'm curious if you can even attach a quantitative value to information omission and lying through experiment. I suspect that there is some sort of nash equilibrium achieved that creates more overall welfare in a system with information omission and lying than an identical system minus the information omission and lying. I'm curious what quantity of omission/lying (assuming it's measurable) produces the greatest overall welfare even if some individual actors may fare more poorly in said system.

redwood• 13 years ago

Surveillance is reflexive. It has no doubt already changed, irreversibly, how we all communicate. We hesitate more, we collaborate less. This is the immediate, intrinsic downside---an economic impact, even---that isn't being discussed. This loss alone makes the surveillance state a net sink on our society. Let alone the threat to democracy ,the potential abuse of power.

We need to show Obama and the other leaders that standing up against irrational fear of inevitable crime IS a tenable political position

kingkong• 13 years ago

Very relevant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jxaune1z3k

Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

Related Stories