pull down to refresh

560 sats \ 4 replies \ @blocktock 12 Oct 2023 \ on: When does the state's surveillance end? tech
I don't believe it is political. I believe it is about accuracy in the data.

Data is super valuable

They will continue to surveil whilst they have the tools and capacity to do so. They are not going to give it up, when data is more valuable in the future than any commodity.

Logical Reasoning

I believe it ends, when they can't trust their own data for any logical reasoning, because the data has been so conveniently de-anonymized or encrypted as a digital blob. And because more individuals or small businesses are making their own hardware & software, due to nanotechnology. Which the majority of people in their communities day to day are using. It needs to be meaningless for them to surveil any longer. And so I would gauge that the threshold is higher at say 40%.

People know

I would also guestimate 10% of the world already knows that surveillance is an issue. That it is injust and indiscriminate. But the vast majority of those people think it is 'always going to be that way' and that there's nothing to do about it.

Easy to Govern right now

To get to this position, Governments have only had to put the boot on the neck of so many large corporates. To legislate, regulate and build standards that enable their influence to continue & even grow. To let them grow and succeed.
Most people in the Western world are all onboard with the climate debate and willing to build the walls to their own shoe box. To track their own energy expenditure with smart metres, to read their own carbon usage on train or plane tickets, to pay without cash or to be watched by 5,827 hideous city cameras pointing in their face, or sticking Ring doorbells & cams not only on their front-door but their fences and garages, and even inside their homes etc.
It's been happening for over a decade now and we have likely only just got started. Big Governments have buy-in. So I don't believe this ends anytime soon.

What's Next

I think we'll see other cracks in the system appear on the world stage first. Surveillance will not be one of them. The exception or wildcard to this would be if the entire suite of Facebook databases is dumped on the black market tomorrow. Then you may see some level of political change. But I suspect people eat it. And this is not in Government interests as they would then have no riches to exploit. If data is indeed the new oil, it should continue to be drained until those reserves run out.

My money is on us living in our sovereign bubble for a few decades yet...

write
preview
76 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b OP 12 Oct 2023
I believe it ends, when they can't trust their own data for any logical reasoning, because the data has been so conveniently de-anonymized or encrypted as a digital blob.
I share this as the primary escape route for general surveillance too. They will always seek surveillance powers because the nature of a state is to seek power (not always for mischieve but nonetheless). We can politically prevent this or that form of surveillance but only temporarily. The only permanent solution is to make surveillance more effort than it’s worth.
reply
15 sats \ 0 replies \ @blocktock 12 Oct 2023
The only permanent solution is to make surveillance more effort than it’s worth.
Well put. Much more succinct than my "chapter". Curious as a follow-up, how you would define harm in your original post?
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury 12 Oct 2023
An uncomfortable (probably) counter to this is that beliefs about what's reasonable change. Your grandpa would probably have been outraged at the idea that people would listen to his private conversations, and yet now my greatest joy would be if I didn't have to listen to people's private fucking conversations at every moment in every public space.
What feels oppressive is very much a question of culture and that's always moving.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 12 Oct 2023
That's a really interesting point. What we'd like to keep private does change. It doesn't seem to change dramatically very often but it's not static either.
reply