this reads more like a hope than an actual argument. AFAIK, the protests in hong kong are more about sovereignty than government surveillance (though I would be happy to be corrected). I don't get the impression that the average american cares very much about surveillance, whether it's by corporations or the government. they might make some offhand remarks about how they don't like it, but you don't see anything like the BLM or occupy protests. it's too abstract. I don't really see any mainstream politicians even discussing mass surveillance by the government. at most, they might make some empty threats toward google/facebook/twitter.
In my city, we are working on an ordinance to put oversight of surveillance technology into the hands of a community commission. Definitely hundreds, but possibly thousands, of people have called in, emailed in, or otherwise commented in support of our efforts.
Saying the public doesn't care about surveillance is oft-repeated reductionism, even around HN, and I think we could level-up ever so slightly by widely admitting that average people are just as complex as you, and have lots of interesting cares, when the context is right.
> Saying the public doesn't care about surveillance is oft-repeated reductionism, even around HN, and I think we could level-up ever so slightly by widely admitting that average people are just as complex as you, and have lots of interesting cares, when the context is right.
I'm not arguing they are simpletons who just don't understand tech, but it's quite clear that most people don't care enough to do anything about it. take me as an example. in the abstract, I dislike being the subject of surveillance. but in practice, I don't care enough to sacrifice the convenience of the google ecosystem. I certainly don't care enough to replace my android phone with an iphone, even though I could afford it.
You could have said the same thing about food back in the early 20th century. I dislike adulterated food just as much as anybody but in practice I don't care enough grow my own food even though I could afford it.
Even if the public cares and is able to restrict government surveillance, how will we stop private surveillance?
For a couple hundred dollars I can install a computer-vision enabled camera that tracks and logs the face of everyone that passes, the clothes you are wearing and each car that passes. Security systems like Verkada already do this, and it is perfectly legal for companies to install these overlooking busy streets and public areas.
This tech will only get cheaper, smaller, and harder to notice. It's ridiculous to think that mass surveillance will be beaten.
I have had multiple conversations with family and friends, both technical and non, where they express the concern about their phone or Facebook listening to conversations. They may not use the work "surveillance", but people are definitely concerned.
A bill for "my phone is not allowed to eavesdrop" would have wide public support, and would open up the conversation on all the ways that surveillance takes place that does not include listening to conversations.
> I don't get the impression that the average american cares very much about surveillance, whether it's by corporations or the government.
More than that I'd wager they'd be more likely to support it. As we've seen in the past just advertise it as a way to nab the most heinous form of criminals (terrorists, child predators, etc.) and enough people will be ok with it. Hell, even here, a site you'd expect to be strongly anti-surveileance, I've seen comments that basically equated to "I'm ok with [mass surveillance tech] because it's going to help stop [bad guy group]".
I believe the average citizens have duly noted that they are potentially under surveillance, and are thus self-censoring to some extent. They may view it as uncomfortable and a bit chilling, but by and large a small price to pay for the possibility to catch terrorists, preferably before the act.
I believe this will be status quo until it becomes increasingly obvious that "terrorists" are gradually coming to include normal political opponents and that these tools are being used by oligarchical forces to suppress democracy itself. It hasn't happened yet, but we're getting close.
It's interesting because people (quite rightly) speak fearfully of the Chinese social credit system.
Over here in the US, we seem to be accidentally building something that is somewhat similar, but far more haphazard and inconsistent: online outrage mobs. I'd wager more people are self-censoring due to these than anything the US government has put into place.
The Patriot Act has been a big deal politically multiple times. Net Neutrality was discussed by mainstream politicians.
I think the takeaway is that we need to find a better way to speak to the average American about surveillance. Speak in plain terms that matter to them. Or maybe they will just never care?
> The Patriot Act has been a big deal politically multiple times. Net Neutrality was discussed by mainstream politicians.
the patriot act generates a round of discussion whenever it's up for renewal, but I don't get the impression that there's emphatic popular opposition. IIRC, it actually failed to be renewed this year, but only because trump feared it might be used against him in an investigation.
net neutrality isn't quite the same situation. it's actually important to the big internet companies so it gets some strong support.
> I think the takeaway is that we need to find a better way to speak to the average American about surveillance. Speak in plain terms that matter to them. Or maybe they will just never care?
I honestly don't know what this would look like. imo, a large part of why police brutality gets so much attention is because there are concrete examples of police killing people who didn't do anything to deserve it. if you ask around, you'll probably find at least a couple people you actually know have had bad experiences with the police. what's the equivalent of this for surveillance? seeing toaster ads after you buy a toaster on amazon just doesn't bother people the same way.
> The Patriot Act has been a big deal politically multiple times.
It has? I must have missed it. It's regularly scorned on HN, but I haven't seen much mainstream concern about it at all. Certainly not the level of concern that it deserves.
He knows you when you're sleeping,
He knows when you're awake,
He knows when you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake.
Is it then a surprise that folks don't care about surveillance's consequences? Maybe Christopher Hitchens was on to something real with "Religion poisons everything".
Yeah, if the CCP had evolved into the liberal democracy people were hoping they would (in the lead up to 1997, e.g.), then Hong Kongers would not mind so much.
