Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

How much surveillance is okay?

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
 [ 22 posts ] 
How much surveillance is okay?
Author Message
GrimlockUser avatarPosts: 205Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:49 pm

Post How much surveillance is okay?

The Swedish internet company Tele2 is refusing to save user IP information.

Which of course is pissing of the IFPI, who managed to make a law in Sweden saying that with a court order the internet companies can be forced to hand over their customers IP information's.
However when the companies delete them there is nothing to hand over.
The IFPI has said as a response to this action taken by Tele2: It's incredible, that a company that claims to be a serious telephone operator/internet company would assist in crime, which is the consequence of the internet company deleting the data.

To this accusation Tele2 is replying that it is many a customers' explicit wish, that we delete the data's, and if that means, that we will get even more customers, then we are all the happier for it

First of all I would say WAY TO GO Tele2 almost makes me wish I was living in Sweden instead of Denmark.

But back on tropic the question remains if all this surveillance is okay? Ever since 9/11 there seems to have come more surveillance than before.
It started as a precaution in order to catch future terror actions but now it seems even such a thing as downloading warrants surveillance.

So I ask you, where does the line go, when is surveillance TOO MUCH SURVAILANCE?

Granted we could properly eliminate a lot of crime even prevent abusive boyfriends betting up their girls friends to death or something like that if we surveyed the homes of individuals.
Shop lifters could be easier caught if each person had a chip surgically implanted in their skull, so that even their slightest movement could be monitored.

We would live in an almost crime free society if we did all that and we have the technology to realize most of it HOWEVER.

Would our individual freedoms be an okay price to pay for total security or is the price to high so how much is too much surveillance?
Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:25 am
COMMUNIST FLISKUser avatarPosts: 257Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:07 pmLocation: Birmingham , UK

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

two points:

1) if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear

2) survailance in public is completely fine, because the PUBLIC can see you in public anyway, however i think that privite survailence (homes that is) shouldnt be allowed, because its in the PRIVACY of your own home, if you go out in PUBLIC then expect to be seen by the public, and survailence can be counted as other members of the public in that respect.
ImageImage
Image
Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:47 pm
WWW
ImprobableJoeUser avatarPosts: 6195Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:24 pm

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

COMMUNIST FLISK wrote:two points:

1) if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear
Bullshit. If you're falsely targeted, your life can be completely destroyed, and being vindicated later doesn't give you your life back.
Come visit my blog! There will be punch and pie!
Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm
ebbixxUser avatarPosts: 227Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:33 amLocation: Nüå Jøïzæð

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

ImprobableJoe wrote:COMMUNIST FLISK: "two points:

1) if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear"

Bullshit. If you're falsely targeted, your life can be completely destroyed, and being vindicated later doesn't give you your life back.


Thanks for reading my mind. Go back to the Seventies and read some of the FBI files that were made public, the files on ordinary citizens, civil rights leaders, labor organizers and peace activists.

What disturbs me at least as much as the surveillance itself are the ill-informed and bizarre conclusion stated by those doing the surveillance. Some of it is funny but much of it is tragic. And a surveillance culture also tends to serve another purpose, making most people take the reasonable step to never do anything that *might* be construed as "subversive", at least in any context where they might be under the supposedly watchful eye of "authorities."

OTOH, the pervasive culture of sharing "everything" on some social networking sites, does kind of work against that trend... by appearing to do everything in the open one could argue that you give the secret policemen too much to take in and analyze. Not sure I buy that for a minute, but it is another way of looking at it that some people seem to be acting on.
Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:25 pm
WWW
rtwPosts: 2Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 pm

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

Perhaps I am complicating the issue but in my opinion the question is a bit vague. To my mind how much is too much depends on whether or not the persons conducting this surveillance had to go through a judge or any other process outside themselves to obtain a warrant. Again perhaps I am playing semantics, but living in the states the question is of a fair degree of importance at the moment.

That being said, without a properly obtained warrant, no government or any other entity has the right to surveillance on any of your private conversation or acts. Obviously things done in plain sight of the public are an exception, ie a police officer observing suspicious behavior, and even on that occasion of suspicious persons in public no officer has a right to dive into their pockets on suspicion alone.

Grimlock wrote:Would our individual freedoms be an okay price to pay for total security or is the price to high so how much is too much surveillance?

No, it is in no way an ok price to pay. Living free in this world comes with an entire boat load of associated risks, all I can say is I personally wouldnt have it any other way. Total security impossible to achieve, and by selling your personal liberties in attempt to obtain it, you will be selling away what little security you had in the first place.
COMMUNIST FLISK wrote:1) if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear

I do not mean to be offensive, but are you being serious? If so I find that statement appalling.
Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:38 pm
COMMUNIST FLISKUser avatarPosts: 257Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:07 pmLocation: Birmingham , UK

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

im walking along the street, i see a cctv camera.... im not afraid of it, nor annoyed by it, because i know im not going to do anything wrong therefore the camera means nothing to me, they later arrest me and i go: "check the footage" they check it, find i did nothing and release me

thats what i meant (i was talking only about cctv cameras/speed cameras/cameras inside atms etc etc)

(Edit) same thing for phone tapping and internet monitoring, if i know im a law abiding citizen, i have nothing to fear and to be quite honest it reeeeeeeeeeally wouldn't bother me(/edit)

(edit 2) if you get caught doing something illegal by the above methods, i would have no sympathy for you, rather than blame the survailence, blame yourselves for breaking the law(/edit 2)
ImageImage
Image
Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:03 pm
WWW
GoodKatUser avatarPosts: 776Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:07 pmLocation: Hell (South Carolina)

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

Flisk, you aren't taking into consideration things that aren't illegal, but you still don't want people seeing.
My discussions are a search for truth, and for that search to be honest, all parties involved must be open to the prospect of being wrong.
What is there to gain in guessing about that which cannot be known?
Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:29 pm
COMMUNIST FLISKUser avatarPosts: 257Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:07 pmLocation: Birmingham , UK

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

when your out and about, people can see you, any other cameras i count as other people
ImageImage
Image
Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:37 pm
WWW
JosanUser avatarPosts: 426Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:56 pm

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

I agree on the cctv/speed camera/security camera

However, I think phone tapping and internet monitoring is more invasive and shouldn't be allowed unless the goverment has good reason to belive you specificaly is involved in something illegal.
Image
Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:56 pm
rtwPosts: 2Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 pm

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

COMMUNIST FLISK wrote:(Edit) same thing for phone tapping and internet monitoring, if i know im a law abiding citizen, i have nothing to fear and to be quite honest it reeeeeeeeeeally wouldn't bother me(/edit)

(edit 2) if you get caught doing something illegal by the above methods, i would have no sympathy for you, rather than blame the survailence, blame yourselves for breaking the law(/edit 2)


I have no inherent problem with cctv cameras in public places. However, in your first edit, I feel you are essentially saying that citizenry have no inherent right to privacy, something which I very much disagree with. I feel indescribably uneasy about the idea of government ( republican or democrat, liberal or conservative ), having license to listen to and watch anything they feel necessary. You are essentially giving far too much power and privilege to the government, and this is coming from someone who could quite easily be described as liberal ( I say this only to avoid being accused of being or being drawn into discussion of libertarian/small govt ideology ). I think in such a case it is important to remember that the govt is elected from the citizenry by the citizenry, and while we do provide them special powers to protect us, you have to ask yourself what right would an average citizen neighbor have to tap your phone or monitor the interior of your house?
Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:23 pm
GoodKatUser avatarPosts: 776Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:07 pmLocation: Hell (South Carolina)

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

COMMUNIST FLISK wrote:when your out and about, people can see you, any other cameras i count as other people

I'm fine with surveillance in the public square, but phone and internet are private matters.
My discussions are a search for truth, and for that search to be honest, all parties involved must be open to the prospect of being wrong.
What is there to gain in guessing about that which cannot be known?
Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:42 pm
WolfAUPosts: 564Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:56 pmLocation: Australia

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

1) if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear

The problem with this is we have all done something 'wrong', whether it be illegal, immoral, or simply embarassing. As such most of us have done enough things to warrant being subject to some kind of punishment (jail/fine etc) for trivial things like media piracy, drug consumption etc.

Also the government frequently threatens releasing private information about a person to force their cooperation (ie releasing that a man has cheated on his wife to force him to cooperate with their investigation, or information to their work etc).

Its funny that this attitude usually doesn't apply to the people who make these laws, if they were cool having their lives analysed 24/7 I might be more inclined to take them seriously.

Also Governments will always want the power to spy unrestricted on their citizens, and can use that however they want (ie arrest people for bitching about unjust laws, arguing that complaining is sign of intent). I mean if you look at what schools have done, arguing that certain behaviours indicate various types of personality disorders or behaviours they end up being harassed.

I have some objections to public surveilance for various reasons (ie it being hacked and misused), but sometimes it is justified (eg real problem areas like train stations known to attract gangs).

Anyway, for the general question I find it hard to make an informed statement, I don't really understand the specific laws throughout the West or what is possible with surviellance technology. I will say that when fairly ordinary citizens who have done nothing wrong (ie attend protests, file complaints, buy/borrow certain books people blacklist like "Mein Kampf" or "The Anarchists Cookbook") have large dossiers on them something is clearly wrong, it is profiling. It also kinda loses some meaning when people who have done actions have not broken the law, but it is public knowledge that such action will cause you to be targeted by the government, then essentially that does become illegal.

For the Tele2 example, I don't find myself taking either side on the matter. On one hand the government will be using that data to do some real good (ie track down paedophiles, hackers etc), but alot would be abuses (ie spying on people).

The age old question of 'Who watches the watcher' seems to very much apply here.
Fri May 01, 2009 9:27 am
COMMUNIST FLISKUser avatarPosts: 257Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:07 pmLocation: Birmingham , UK

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

by wrong i of course meant illegal
ImageImage
Image
Fri May 01, 2009 3:58 pm
WWW
WolfAUPosts: 564Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:56 pmLocation: Australia

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

Whats illegal is surprising open to interpretation (and changes regularly), and like I was pointing out no one goes through life without breaking any laws, if you think you haven't, odds are you just aren't familiar with some trivial laws (ie drinking alcohol in public, J-walking etc).

Also I am trying to make the point that even if you haven't done anything illegal, you still have reason to fear governments spying on you (ie using personal information to manipulate you).
Fri May 01, 2009 4:04 pm
JosanUser avatarPosts: 426Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:56 pm

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

And I just wanted to add, the whole "If you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear" is sort of a spit in the face of "innocent until proven guilty".
Image
Fri May 01, 2009 6:04 pm
COMMUNIST FLISKUser avatarPosts: 257Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:07 pmLocation: Birmingham , UK

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

that only applies when a person is being tried etc. ie a person will not be punished unless proven of a crime.

this is strictly to do with watching people
ImageImage
Image
Fri May 01, 2009 6:11 pm
WWW
JosanUser avatarPosts: 426Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:56 pm

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

COMMUNIST FLISK wrote:that only applies when a person is being tried etc. ie a person will not be punished unless proven of a crime.


I disagree, I think it applies to how those people are treated while being suspects of a crime. Even though they arn't directly punished for a crime, a lot of damage can be caused if police/law-enforcment think you are guilty and treat you as such. If you are to be monitored just becuase you "might" commit a crime, then I think you are loosing an important part of you're freedom.
Image
Fri May 01, 2009 6:22 pm
GoodKatUser avatarPosts: 776Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:07 pmLocation: Hell (South Carolina)

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

COMMUNIST FLISK wrote:by wrong i of course meant illegal

So in your first post, you meant "If you have done nothing illegal you have nothing to fear." Right?

If so, I heavily disagree. Many legal actions have negative social and financial repercussions.

What if someone likes to get off to some really nasty(but legal) pornography? What if he was running against a politician who was looking to discredit him?
My discussions are a search for truth, and for that search to be honest, all parties involved must be open to the prospect of being wrong.
What is there to gain in guessing about that which cannot be known?
Sat May 02, 2009 1:19 am
ImprobableJoeUser avatarPosts: 6195Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:24 pm

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

COMMUNIST FLISK wrote:that only applies when a person is being tried etc. ie a person will not be punished unless proven of a crime.

this is strictly to do with watching people

And you're being unnecessarily obtuse and naive. If you watch and record someone doing something embarrassing but not illegal, and it gets out, their lives are destroyed whether or not they are tried for anything. You've got to be playing devil's advocate or something, because your position is pretty stupid and reading your posts on other subjects I don't think you are nearly that stupid.
Come visit my blog! There will be punch and pie!
Sat May 02, 2009 1:26 am
SchnittertmPosts: 9Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:51 amLocation: Germany

Post Re: How much surveillance is okay?

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.


Lieutenant Worf: Sir, the Federation *does* have enemies. We must seek them out.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Oh, yes. That's how it starts. But the road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think. Something is wrong here, Mister Worf. I don't like what we have become.
Sat May 02, 2009 11:31 pm
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
 [ 22 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
cron