There's plenty of ocurrences of unlawful high tech surveillance and political persecution all over the third world too. More often than not even more problematic situations.
I definitely agree surveillance is happening and I don't mean to do a whataboutism, but why such emphasis on Western internet? Are you implying this does not happen elsewhere? If we take a counterpoint to West, India and China both have significant surveillance of their citizen and they account for the other third of the world population.
I don't understand where these sweeping statements are coming from. I grew up in a third-world country too, and transitioned myself from belonging to a lower middle class family, into an upper middle class life. I don't have an iota of acceptance for any form of surveillance being put in place without it being approved through proper channels of well put process in place (i.e. democracy, representatives of people debating and agreeing upon it)
It is worse in India because we have a large amount of surveillance abuse (even before the internet) and very little litigation/laws to make up for it.
It can be much worse than what you mentioned. At some point this surveillance technology will trickle into the hands of every government and they will take advantage of it. What's the chance that none of the warlords in countries in conflict will use this for their advantage? And that could easily be used for mass murder.
It's strange for the same issues with China there is 'outrage', and then for the exact same things here we see hand waving and 'technical' solutions.
What technical solution is going to protect the human being from the indignity of security personnel presuming the right to going through your personal papers and thoughts? And this is already in effect in US airports with no pushback.
It is this denial by many about what is happening at home and the absence of mainstream protests and push back that has allowed the the rise of surveillance capitalism, the NSA, secret courts, secret orders, secret processes and brazen surveillance demands by governments.
The worse it becomes the more the need to posture and distract by seeking to hold others accountable for the very things you are neck deep in.
Fortunately we have a real-world example to demonstrate the effect of technology on surveillance: China. Let's see if they ever manage to become a democracy.
On this topic I've noticed something quaint on HN: people making excuses for China's "special" situation or even arguing against democracy itself.
As opposed to the USA's coal driven mass-surveillance? All developed countries are performing mass surveilance of their citizens, some are more visible (and restrictive) than others.
Exactly. That said, any setback of surveillance in the West trickles down to less options available to dictators everywhere. The technology is developed first and foremost to the "home front" of developed nations, as they are the biggest market by far. Thus even local efforts of activists have potentially global impact.
Well western governments are experts in keeping their population docile and politically disinterested. So I'm not surprised a growing percentage of their population is fine with being monitored and spied on. The majority of the population might not really need protection from the state, but the few that do, dissidents, political activists definitely do.
By establishing a culture, where people are happy to share their data with the government anyone who isn't will automatically be a suspect. For example people who use TOR are put on a list. I don't know what live you lived, but some of my friends were under police surveillance (some police officer lived as a student for several years before his cover was blown by an acquaintance) because the government thought they had to keep taps on far left student organisations. Considering how much effort they went through to do that, I'm sure they monitor much more benign activity electronically.
And what you don't understand is how it got so bad in your country? Pervasive, always-on, and presumed surveillance that cannot be opted out of is not a healthy environment for anyone.
The technology and infrastructure to do surveillance of this scale is already in place/available in the western world (see cameras at every corner in London, Amazon Rekogition?).
So is this already happening in the west? And what can we do to stop technology like this to be put in place, considering a lot of elected officials don’t seem to consider this as inherently ‘bad’ for society.
"Living in a country where political opponents are murdered, not just spied upon. Or else they are prosecuted for crimes they couldn't have possibly committed."
Your unstated presumption is that this doesn't happen here, and I think that's a presumption that up for debate. Not only that, but the surveillance engine is generally the precursor to any such more overt totalitarianism (as warned of by Thomas Drake, speaking of prosecuted for crimes not actually committed by the way).
It's not so much about spying on western infrastructure, but about using such technology for genocide, racial profiling (for example restricting certain ethnic groups movements) and the whole police state infrastructure to keep population "under control".
It seems like this is a return to the normal. Before the internet, repressive regimes had an easier time censoring mass media, monitoring telecommunications and stop organizing efforts.
The major problem isn't so much the surveillance technology, but the intent and power of those governments. The solution must be political, rather than technological, if only because politics can eventually tackle any technology.
There are places which might not respect civil liberties but which do not surveil (by the state) the population: third world. Is there a place where both are true?
I don't think there is a place where there is 100% of both (respect for civil liberties and do not do any surveillance) and also not sure a place free of surveillance would by any better in practice, except in theory (to confuse a Yogiism). As many things, it's a balance which needs to be struck and it remains to be seen where that will be or if it's pendulum-like.
We need to take these foreign stories as serious cautionary tales. For anybody who has been in doubt so far, this is what all this surveillance tech looks like as soon as the government decides it wants to gain power with it
I think it's important to note here that new technologies that have the potential for oppression can be used not only by authoritarian governments but by liberal-democratic ones as well (see: CIA programs, Snowden leaks, etc) and private companies.
reply