Techdirt Podcast Episode 55: How Much Surveillance Is Acceptable?
from the where's-the-line dept
Welcome to the last podcast episode of 2015! For the whole year (and since long before that) Techdirt has been speaking out against surveillance and government invasion of privacy, to the point where it might seem like we give no consideration to the legitimacy of any kind of surveillance. But that's not necessarily true, so this week we're approaching things from the other side and discussing the limits of reasonable and acceptable surveillance.
Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.
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: podcast, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
NO Leigh, there is no reasonable and acceptable level of surveillance when it comes to the federal government. Why? There hasn't been a single inch - not one - given to them by the populace in which they didn't also take a mile, and then some. Always with the incrementalism, hacking away one piece at a time until they have it all. Knowing better, it is not wise to give them ANY leeway - none whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just to follow up on Leigh's point: are you advocating we do away with the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement entirely?
Do you think it should be illegal for police to follow a suspect?
Just trying to understand your answer here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing to see here but point/counter-point journalism
Fully encrypt, noscript et al your browser and trust no one.
Only idiots use social media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much slavery is acceptable?
However, what happens if that "slavery" suddenly isn't applied to convicted people, but against anybody, or even everybody?
This is a very similar situation as we have with surveillance. not only that it robs people of their freedom, but it's also one of those things that only law-enforcement used to be allowed to do, and only on probably cause with a judge signing off, but now, apparently, some people think it's a somehow ok to enslave the whole world. Pardon, put the whole world under surveillance; as if there is a difference...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it is good enough for the public then it's good enough for the politicians and police and anyone else that has exempted themselves.
They are unlikely to support such laws if they find themselves under the scrutiny of the public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its always interesting to see how consistently this particular point of view is so resoundingly ignored by all.
Almost as if "we" assume in advance that our "superiors", are indeed our superiors, and thus should be exempt from the surveillance that has become the every day norm for the rest of us, because they are above reproach and incorruptible - even though reality has proven otherwise on a daily basis for centuries.
Aye - the worship of the wealthy has indeed led us to a conundrum of vast proportions, from which there appears no possible succor, and this "modern" society is very likely to follow, precisely, in a timely fashion, the footsteps of all of its predecessors.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Total Surveillance Under the Guise of Safety
Zero surveillance is acceptable.
Only a totalitarian government frightened of it's own citizens needs to surveil them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Total Surveillance Under the Guise of Safety
So, to clarify: would you argue that police shouldn't be able to follow a suspect, even with a warrant? Or stake out a location where they anticipate a suspected drug dealer will complete a transaction?
Should federal law enforcement be able to get a warrant to access the phone records of a corporation they suspect is breaking the law? Or a warrant to monitor the financial activity of a politician they suspect is taking bribes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Total Surveillance Under the Guise of Safety
I suspect that those who claim that they deem zero surveillance to be desirable, are referring to the blanket "haystack" surveillance of those "not suspected of a crime", rather than that which is used in the pursuit of justice and usually referred to as "investigation".
It is the blanket surveillance of all communications and movements of all "non-suspect citizens", by those who are officially exempt from similar scrutiny through legal institutionalized secrecy, for purposes completely outside of the pursuit of justice, that causes many to perceive all secret spying on the public as the tool of corrupt government and thus a crime against the public that needs to end.
But you probably already knew that. :)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not rocket science
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What troubles me most is they don't seem to realize their opinions are extreme. Only in a fantasy land is "zero surveillance of any kind, end of discussion" a moderate position, much less the obvious position they pretend it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You revealed earlier your awareness of LEO monitoring social media (like this forum). Given that fact, one can't help but wonder why you're trying so hard to publicly label those who disagree with your position "extremists".
Trying to get them swatted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's rather hilarious that anyone would consider a singular article on a relatively tiny niche e-zine like TechDirt would sway public opinion so greatly so as to require "JTRIG infiltration". Oh... . . my sides.
People do not like to be spied upon. That's not an "extremist position" - it's common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The government who cried 'Terrorist!'
While I think that goes too far myself, it's not hard to understand why people would hold that stance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Above my pay grade
How ironic that freely typed speech is so easily surveiled in the digital age. We're reduced to meta arguments and sidetracked from the fact that we bicker like cavemen.
The story so far....
Public noobs until recently thought "online" was the wild west. Now they think they're savvy coz they are sold on the idea that the State has killed their individual freedom of privacy by "illegal" spying (and secretly moving Laws to make State mass surveillance "legal" - though let's be honest, such guesswork still largely untested by the courts since the details remain practically impenetrable by mere mortals).
Whatever next? Will a dumb comment on a forum fell enough would-be employees such that we might silence ourselves to keep ourselves employable, electable, dateable, respectable?
I think not. We are but talking apes. Only politicians play politics well. The rest are increasingly at their mercy. Text on a screen will always play antelope to the lions of local Legislation.
/rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]