The US Government Today Has More Data On The Average American Than The Stasi Did On East Germans
from the surveillance-society dept
We've written plenty about how the US government has been quite aggressive in spying on Americans. It has been helped along by a court system that doesn't seem particularly concerned about the 4th Amendment and by the growing ability of private companies to have our data and to then share it with the government at will. Either way, in a radio interview, Wall Street Journal reporter Julia Angwin (who's been one of the best at covering the surveillance state in the US) made a simple observation that puts much of this into context: the US surveillance regime has more data on the average American than the Stasi ever did on East Germans. And, of course, as we've already seen, much of that data seems to be collected illegally with little oversight... and with absolutely no security benefit.To be fair, part of the reason for why this is happening is purely technical/practical. While the Stasi likely wanted more info and would have loved to have been able to tap into a digitally connected world like we have today, that just wasn't possible. The fact that we have so much data about us in connected computers makes it an entirely different world. So, from a practical level, there's a big difference.
That said, it still should be terrifying. Even if there are legitimate technical reasons for why the government has so much more data on us, it doesn't change the simple fact (true both then and now) that such data is wide open to abuse, which inevitably happens. The ability of government officials to abuse access to information about you for questionable purposes is something that we should all be worried about. Even those who sometimes have the best of intentions seem to fall prey to the temptation to use such access in ways that strip away civil liberties and basic expectations of privacy. Unfortunately, the courts seem to have very little recognition of the scope of the issue, and there's almost no incentive for Congress (and certainly the executive branch) to do anything at all to fix this.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: privacy, stasi, surveillance, us government
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
On the one hand, I really really don't like it.
On the other hand, I don't see a way to stop it that doesn't involve some kind of uprising, and I don't like the thought of that either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But that's just the laws that are ultimately decided in court, that doesn't include those such as the "anti-terrorism" laws where the executive branch is effectively allowed to interpret the law in both enforcement and judgement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However, the problem is that the executive branch has the Armed Forces to push their interpretations by 'force of arms' so.... what can we do?
Personally, I'm more worried about some asshole in government disliking what I am saying/doing/trying to make legal and imprisoning me extra-judically than I am about a terrorist trying to kill me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If that's what it takes, that's what it takes. I don't fear it.
I imagine GCHQ here in the UK has a rather large file on me considering some of the things I write online. Hello GCHQ, ya bag of shite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Uprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Using the increasing amount of data on you the law can predict when and where you will commit a crime.
CBPA = Criminal Behavior Preventative Action
Base on the above information it is now possible to predict that you will commit a crime at a certain time in the future therefore, we will arrest you now for the crime you are going to commit.
3am, a knock at the door...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thank you for posting about your disapproval of our Glorious Government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How else can you explain all of this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
whether or not it is an actual fallacy?
condemning veggies because Hitler was a veggie is a fallacy.
I think the above story isn't.
The more information is gathered about the more people, the higher the chance that that information will be abused and the worse that abuse will be.
There should be a name for this law if it isn't an existing law already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think SNAFU applies reasonably well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Godwin's Law is not a type of fallacy. It's merely an observation, that the longer a conversation thread goes, the chance of Hitlers or the Nazis being mentioned approaches 100%.
It's like saying that once your toast falls with the buttered side down, you've lost the debate because Murphy's Law was invoked.
Also, East Germany = pinko commies, not Nazis. No relation to Godwin's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Still not Godwin's, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Stasi on the other hand, were East German Police during the Cold War who were reputed to be everywhere because of the amount of information they had on everybody. Godwin's Law does not apply either to this thread, or the subject of this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is an argument made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis."
"...The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses, irrespective of whether it is appropriate or not. Precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact."
Source: Wikipedia
Sometimes the comparison can be appropriate. It just talks about overuse of those analogies.
And yeah, applying Godwin to East Germany is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean the American gov are not the Stasi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
File this under "Well, duh"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: File this under "Well, duh"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: File this under "Well, duh"
I however might be above average.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell....
I realized long ago that trying to convince ppl to look at the anomalies of 911 was a lost cause and focused my attention on laws that were being written in reaction to 911 was more productive. Well here we are. No public outcry. Just blind acceptance the the Gov is our friend and is looking out for our "safety."
It will get worse. Much worse.
Cynical? Absolutely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Private companies also have more data on Americans than the Stasi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Private companies also have more data on Americans than the Stasi
Now if we could get them to pass a law to make sure the data was accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Private companies also have more data on Americans than the Stasi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Private companies also have more data on Americans than the Stasi
There's a lot of stuff I won't do because I don't trust how the info is being used. And I'm sure there are others like me. The more private companies try to monitor us, the less we use their services, or the greater lengths we go to block their monitoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hell I don't even have my OWN name on MY PC anywhere. My father had i his Identity stolen some 6 years ago..and my credit is no where near as good as his
I have Never had ANY personal info ( about myself) on any PC I have connected to the net (I've been online for 16 years or so now)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If not, don't worry, they will begin collecting info on you once they get those drones overhead for our security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
With many posts you make online, the site (techdirt.com, etc) keep track of your IP address. Your internet provider - whose bills you pay - certainly has your name. A quick call from any federal agency, and most ISPs readily hand over "this person had this IP at this time" information.
Additionally, if they *really* want to track you, all they have to do is actually request your ISP capture packets. So, basically- yeah, if they want to know who 'Digitari' is, assuming they can't infer it from your posts, there *are* technical ways to find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Considering that the US government before any police / spy agency already has more information that was collected in the past, it's a given. It should be terrifying that you think your readers are so simply minded.
Just look at the IRS. They know where you work, when you work, how much you got paid, and pretty much every other financial issue in your life. They know if you are married, single, a parent, paying child support, etc. They know when you get fired, they know when you get hired, they have your job history for a decade or more, etc.
That is already more than was collected 70 odd years ago.
Don't even get started on drivers licenses, license plates on cars, tickets, accidents, loans, your credit score... all normal things. Our connected society means that US government or it's proxies have all of that, and they can pretty much figure you out.
All that, and you haven't touched the FBI, CIA, HS, or any other major group.
Mike, this is just pure FUD. It really is terrifying that you think your readers, after 15 years, are that simple minded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is already more than was collected 70 odd years ago.
Don't even get started on drivers licenses, license plates on cars, tickets, accidents, loans, your credit score... all normal things. Our connected society means that US government or it's proxies have all of that, and they can pretty much figure you out.
Private companies know all of that, too, and I am more concerned with what they are gathering on me than the government. I trust the government more than private enterprise. Has to do with the fact that my father was career military. Private enterprise, for example, links personal info from a broad range of places to how much you pay for certain services or whether you can even get them. The government isn't interested in linking every detail of your life to every other detail of your life to the extent that private enterprise is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well that might be a mistake, you can mistrust them equally it is allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's my point here. If you complain about government data collection and monitoring but don't complain about private enterprise data collection and monitoring, you're missing a lot of what is being collected about you. And from what I know about both entities, the amount of data being collected about you and closely followed and actually used against you is far greater by private companies than by government.
What I hear from private companies collecting data is this: "Tell the government to stay out of our way so we can collect even more data. And so citizens won't pay attention to what we are doing, we'll tell you the problem is government and not us."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...what shall we do?
Yet the Greek chorus goes on about how our apathy is leading us to destruction because we don't "do something" and I ask; what should we do? It's not like electing a new pres is going to stop data gathering. Want to vote the evil ones out of office? Well, you will be voting just about everyone out. And replacing them with mostly identical clones. Pass some new laws? Because that worked so well in the past! If the tech exists it is going to be used one way or another. And maybe it's just as well. They have tried really hard to end prostitution, sex, "teh gay", porn, booze, tobacco, guns, comic books, religion, atheism, fast cars, movies, copying movies, rock 'n' roll, and now "data mining" and all those things are still with us. Things that are easy to do and hard to prevent are not going away. Efforts to live with what we have rather than changing the world might yield a better life. Would you really want some group of people to be able to "turn off" the ability to collect data? Stop and think of the consequences. THink of the additional spying needed to catch the original spies! One day everyone will know everything about everyone. No more secrets. That includes the govt busybodies who will be just as exposed as the rest. And most of the info will be deadly dull.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Citing Godwin's law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STASI in America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
old acquaintances
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would you have a problem with this if government was doing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zionists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snitch Society
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]