Academics Against Mass Surveillance

http://www.academicsagainstsurveillance.net/

by jobstijl • 13 years ago

122 36 13 years ago

JoeAltmaier2• 13 years ago

While I agree in principle, opposing surveillance is like pissing into the wind. Privacy is becoming extinct. Soon devices and technologies will be impossible to regulate - specks of dust that record sound and location; recorders that stick to clothing, hair, skin; phones and tablets that come pre-infected in their OS and hardware.

We can oppose it, and maybe stave off for a few years, but inevitably we are all going under the microscope. Better to design new social mechanisms to protect against misuse of the data, than try and prevent its collection.

f_salmon2• 13 years ago

Better to design new social mechanisms to protect against misuse of the data, than try and prevent its collection.

The only way to achieve this, is to eliminate EVERY kind of asymmetry in society (which we should have achieved a long time ago, since we all always pretend that every life has the exact same value). If you keep any kind of asymmetry within society and accept mass surveillance, democracy is dead because mass surveillance will of course be abused to increase and further protect power monopolies.

This means, every kind of power would have to be distributed equally over every citizen. And that also means that everybody would have to receive the same amount of money per hour of work (all education being paid for by everybody, meaning entirely financed via taxes).

While that would be the perfect model and the most sane one, I doubt we are culturally mature enough to get there fast enough.

twoodfin• 13 years ago

which we should have achieved a long time ago, since we all always pretend that every life has the exact same value

I don't think we've ever pretended this. We've "pretended" that all men are created equal, but what anyone does from there has a great impact on how society will value them. And why not? Two guys created equal: One spends his life on his parents' couch, the other becomes Bill Gates or Michael Jordan. Which one should we value more?

sroerick• 13 years ago

Yes, this point cannot be made enough.

Technology will probably eliminate privacy. But the same organizations who belabor this point also claim they need total secrecy to operate.

The sword cuts both ways. And it should cut their way first.

salient• 13 years ago

Of course we can oppose surveillance. We can build anti-surveillance systems, and then we can demand companies to support them. Companies like Google could even use data mining in a way that doesn't infringe on user privacy. But their thinking will be "why change the status quo?".

That's why it's so important to fight for such changes, and not get trampled by the corporations and governments wishes for complete knowledge of a user/citizen. If Google doesn't like it, too bad. We'll just have to start supporting privacy-focused companies, and let Google die. That's capitalism, no? Adapt or become a dinosaur and die.

JoeAltmaier2• 13 years ago

For internet surveillance, sure. For a while. But when the internet is a network of wireless devices, not all of which you own or even know exist, it becomes a swim against a waterfall.

plg2• 13 years ago

Is anyone else thinking that this is like signing up for a no-spam list? In other words, an invitation for spam?

herbig2• 13 years ago

Or an NSA watch list

pdkl952• 13 years ago

As several of the recent 30c3 talks mentioned, the concept of "being a target" doesn't really apply when the goal is ubiquitous surveillance.

plg2• 13 years ago

I'm not so sure about that. Isn't there an argument that goes like this: if there is indeed ubiquitous, mass surveillance, in other words if "everyone is a target", then doesn't that just move the problem back to a sort of baseline, where authorities still need to identify targets? (or sub-targets, if you like)

In any case I'm glad to see so many people signing this petition. It would be great if it had more populist support.

amirouche• 13 years ago

must read: http://cultureandempire.com/‎

f_salmon2• 13 years ago

Shouldn't the US list be much, much longer taking into account the size of the various countries?

pdkl952• 13 years ago

Yes, it should be.

Instead, we see an example of chilling-effect created by surveillance.

MofR• 13 years ago

OR - Most academic never heard of 'acedemicsagainstmasssurvalence' and know form bitter experience that signing a petition from some unknown group could end up with them claiming to speak on your behalf in the future.

finnw• 13 years ago

Another way to look at it: Of the 9 most populous countries in the world, the US is the only one with any names on that list. So it could be worse.

Edit: Technically wrong: There is one name under "Hong Kong."

dobbsbob• 13 years ago

I don't agree with petitions. Not only do they get ignored but here they use it against you in politics later when public opinion changes, plus it's a list for marketers. Instead harass your local representative mercilessly with letters and espcially angry phone calls those get noticed eventually.

yodsanklai3• 13 years ago

I suppose pretty much everybody is against mass surveillance, academics or not. But what choice do we have? I think the problem is that we don't really live in democracies. It's not only mass surveillance, but also wars, inequalities and so on...

herbig2• 13 years ago

I don't know, I've been surprised by just how many of the people I know either don't know anything at all about this, or simply don't care.

BrownBuffalo• 13 years ago

This also plays out in the turn-out of voters on election day - its just a disconnect in community. Not saying its bad -or- good, but its reflective of how diluted our outlets are and the lack of trust we all have in everything and it becomes a culture of indifference.

pavanred• 13 years ago

Not to forget the people who still bank on the reasoning - Why should I care, I have nothing to hide.

I am sure everyone of these people will object to a routine daily search of their house to make sure that they are not responsible for the occasional neighbourhood burglary.

lectrick• 13 years ago

Any country in charge of its own currency can always fund a war without a vote by simply printing more of it for itself (debasing the currency of course via "invisible tax"), which is why I support cryptocurrencies.

Any person who is OK with mass surveillance has clearly never seen the movie The Lives of Others ("Das Leben der Anderen," yes it's German with English subtitles, deal with it) http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_lives_of_others/ because to watch that movie is to watch the fall of a country which was destroyed by "too much introspection," as it were.

asgard1024• 13 years ago

"Any country in charge of its own currency can always fund a war without a vote by simply printing more of it for itself"

Really? How? Who will fight in this war? Their own population, for the worthless currency? And where do the weapons (and gasoline to power these) come from? Or are they going to spray the enemy with bonds and futures?

someguyonhn3• 13 years ago

We don't really live in democracies? So the fact that a President of the United States was elected who appointed two liberal leaning Supreme Court justices that were confirmed by a freely and fairly elected Senate and now serve their terms without fear of being removed for making an unpopular decision, making Roe v. Wade less likely to be overturned, and the recent Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 cases to be adjudicated the way they were didn't happen? If that's not democracy I'd love to hear what you think is.

Saying we don't live in a democracy is a popular thing to say (obviously, seeing as this is the top comment) but it's just wrong. Senator McCain and then-Senator Obama had two very separate plans for things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and healthcare reform if they were elected. The fact that the country and the world is the way it is today, for better or worse, is because people went out and voted in a free and fair election, and then did it again and again and again in primaries and general elections for local, state, and federal offices in the US.

The Constitution of the United States says that, had the sitting President of the United States or myself been alive during the start of our country, we would be 3/5ths of a human being... yet he runs the place, and I had the right to have campaigned and voted for him twice had I been inclined. That's democracy in action. The fact that he, myself, the two previously mentioned Supreme Court justices, and anyone else got to exercise our right to vote, knowing if we were intimidated or denied for any reason the judicial system would support our right, is democracy in action. The fact that I can get on HN, reddit, a blog, or walk outside and type/say pretty much whatever vile things I want about the leaders of my country and any other country, is democracy in action.

Obviously Americans are lucky to live in a time and place where we have the ability to perfect our Union.

Please don't disrespect the work of countless often forgotten women, men, and children from around the globe who have sacrificed, willingly or otherwise, very significant parts of, and all too often their entire lives for democracy, by acting like their actions didn't help contribute to others being able to live in (or one day live in) democracies.

laumars2• 13 years ago

I think the OP's point is that it's a pseudo-democracy. We might vote in a president or political party, but we have no real power over the decisions made.

Just to run in the elections you need heavy corporate sponsorship, which means any major candidate is already tainted with the potential of a conflict of interest. Then you have corporate lobbyists who have the ability to push their agendas in ways that the Joe Public and everyday voter never could.

And even if you could say without a doubt that no corruptions, secret deals with mates nor any conflict of interests existed in any of those in congress (etc), you still have the issue with regards to how much power some some government agencies have and how their not run by elected officials.

Sometimes it feels like all we're voting on is our favourite puppet and whoever gets voted in will just continue on the same regime that his predecessor left. Sometimes it feels like our votes are completely meaningless as if the government suspects something to be unpopular, then they'll just go ahead and do it anyway; but more covertly.

rayiner2• 13 years ago

So I'm watching this new show "Almost Human." its about a future where technology destroys the traditional CSI techniques (e.g. DNA bombs to wipe out DNA evidence), and police are "forced to respond" with synthetic human police. So you have a cop that can go into a business and just download all the documents on their network without touching anything. At one point the synthetic cop asks his human partner "we don't need a warrant for this?" And the partner is like "I didn't think so either." The point of the joke is that the robot wants to follow the warrant requirement, because its a rule, but the human cop knows that its okay to break the rules when the bad guy could get away.

So no, not everyone opposes mass surveillance. Just watch some movies. Since the time of westerns there's been this deep seated idea that procedural protections are optional when a bad guy could get away. This is not a failure of democracy. This is a non-democratically designed procedure being eroded by democracy.

javajosh• 13 years ago

Anyone who throws their hands up in the air (and I'm talking to you yodsanklai and JoeAltmaier, dobbsbob...and basically 80% of the people on this thread) but YOU are a big part of the problem. It doesn't matter even if the petition is totally ineffectual to change things on it's own: it's value is in it's very existence, and it signals a strong position against something that is very, very wrong with our society at the moment. No movement ever started fully formed like Aphrodite from the head of Zues - they all must start somewhere.

So please, if you agree with the desired outcome, why would you naysay ANY attempt to change things, no matter how "naive" or "ineffectual" or "pointless"? Is it not better to have good people speaking truth to power, even if they are not listened to?

All I ask is that you consider this question before criticizing someone else's attempt to advocate for positions that you yourselves agree with.

rikacomet• 13 years ago

none from India?

Academics Against Mass Surveillance

Related Stories