As a side note to the article, I used to wonder why China tried so hold to keep possession of Xinjiang and Tibet. Surely the regions might be more trouble than they were worth?
I eventually found a map of China showing state borders. Xinjiang and Tibet are a massive portion of China, and also give China border access to many countries. Normal state imperatives to keep territory aside, these are comparatively important territories for China's global influence.
Taiwan, being a small island, seems counter to that pattern.
I think it's simply that the chinese gov't relies on maintaining a brand of virtually absolute control. Even publicly entertaining the idea of letting territories go would be a strong signal for weakness.
edit: maybe that's what you already implied by "Normal state imperatives"
After gaining those territories, it would be politically impossible to give them up - it could only happen on dynastic collapse! Ya, they also "protect borders", but think of Russia giving up its sparsely populated Far East or America giving up sparsely populated Alaska, it really is a no go.
It's also politically useful to have internal enemies who resist the righteous occupation. You can justify all sorts of measures if you frame them as rebels against your rightful claims. This is very standard totalitarian playbook for the past century.
Interesting parallels to the US attacks and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. We go from being liberators (in our minds) to occupiers of ungrateful nations. And we have to stick around so long as people resist, because politically people hate to "lose".
Since you used "we" and are on HN should I assume a typo?
You probably meant "how do we stop building it?" Which is a bit of an easy question, just stop building surveillance systems.
The hard part is how do we, as hackers, accept that most of our fellows will gladly do this for pay. Because it was fun to pretend they cared and be part of the subculture, but they never actually did.
nobody said it would be easy, but here are six ideas for stopping the problem.
1. don't work for companies that surveil or support surveillance and don't hire, associate, converse, or lend aid to anyone who has worked for those companies
2. don't work for companies that produce weapons that will be used against civilians and don't hire, associate, converse, or lend aid to anyone who has worked for those companies
3. don't pay taxes to a government that treats you like a prisoner, and don't hire, associate, converse, or lend aid to anyone who has worked for that government in an intelligence organization, surveillance organization, or police organization
4. organize with your neighbors and coworkers to work within the political system to prevent abuses (we have already failed this option in the USA)
5. sabotage internet infrastructure of companies and governments wherever possible
6. revolution
none of these options are palatable, and none should be jumped into rashly. but do not assume that they are not necessary.
Labor organization with the express aim of putting an end to Surveillance Capitalism.
Google and Facebook can’t withstand a sustained disruption of their workforce, which is why they spend so much time paying lip service to social issues. They have to create a constant illusion of concern for rights and justice to prevent their employees from actually demanding them.
I was just talking about this with a friend on the way home from work today. He mentioned an article[1] about how you could use makeup and weird hairstyles to confuse facial recognition AI and we joked about this becoming an actual near-future (cyberpunk!) style. I was wondering if there was some kind of device that could emit infrared light in all direction that would cause cameras only to see a bright reflection in place of your head but I don't know how actually feasible that is.
We won't. Many of the brightest and best paid of us are busily working at places like Google, building ever more powerful surveillance and analysis machinery to target ads. Of course it will be used for more than that.
One or two governments practicing these techniques only serves to inspire many more to do it covertly or overtly.
Looking at the entire world, I feel it's shameful that more time and effort is spent on building better surveillance and control systems than decentralized and privacy protecting (to the extent possible) systems. It's as if all our freedoms are slipping by, leaving either an illusion of having freedoms with no practical use or freedoms curbed by governments with no concern about the well being of people or the government's reputation.
We've known about China and North Korea for a long time. Then we came to know about Five Eyes and Fourteen Eyes. It worries me that we may have One Hundred and Fifty Eyes in the next few decades (just a rough count of all countries minus a small percentage).
Can somebody explain to me what racial profiling necessarily has to do with "what it's like to live in a surveillance state," or am I correct in my evaluation that this article is doing PR for our own surveillance state by conflating two forms of oppression?
I'm not seeing the "PR for our own surveillance state". But the fact is that surveillance regimes and racist propaganda and intimidation of othered ethnic, racial, or religious groups usually go hand in hand. Hyping invented criminality of or subversion by particular groups is key to convincing the populace that they are under threat and should give in to extremely intrusive measures.
Each feeds into the other. Political regimes use lies about (often invented) outsider groups to justify their growing power. And then true believers and overzealous apparatchiks begin harassing members of that group, often using those very tools, which leads to a growing perception that yes these people who are receiving international calls are clearly terrorists or terrorist supporters, who need to be surveilled. Etc.
It does seem that China has implemented some impressive surveillance in Xinjiang. And it does seem that Uighurs are being targeted. And the methods were developed in Tibet. But racial profiling isn't the focus of the article. It focuses on the methods.
Also, although there may be some China bashing in the background, I don't see anything about the US being better. And it doesn't take much imagination to see how such total surveillance is becoming normalized here.
this was my impression as well. "look at all these bad things we do, that the chinese also do-- oh yeah, but they also do OTHER stuff that's horrible too"
the line between a surveillance state and an oppressive political state doesn't exist, as surveillance is oppressive-- but it's not the only form of oppression. the article seems to forget that oppression has many effectors. it is too convenient of a slip.
the political oppression of the uighurs is, as the article notes, uniquely chinese-- but these things could have easily happened without any real surveillance whatsoever.
harassing minorities for arbitrary reasons doesn't need the evidence that surveillance can provide-- malice is not based on evidence to begin with.
as far as the chinese idea of han ethnic supremacy: it isn't new. in fact, it's old. the leaders' chinese vision of their country is that of a han chinese monoculture with a very particular apoliticism (they wrap passivity in many different terms). i was about to say that they aren't genocidal yet, but i dunno if that's really true; they have done quite a number on tibet, but my knowledge of the situation is very shallow.
Personally I don't see the problem with surveillance. I have a problem with people who abuse powers they may have.
I mean honestly:
- Use Android? Chances are you're being watched by Google.
- Facebook tracks literally hundreds of millions.
- Post on HN? Guess what, you can't delete your posts after a while. Advances in stylometry in addition to more and more data being on the internet will mean your identity on here will be compromised eventually.
---
However, using Android allows Google to have literally minute-by-minute traffic updates which allows our cars to move more efficiently.
Facebook's tracking of millions may aid in allowing smaller organizations to connect in a more programmatic way.
HN well, obviously is allowing you to read this now.
Things like privacy were forfeit the minute we gained the technology. If people have problems with these technologies being used in bad ways, we should punish the people using the technologies in such a bad way. The spooky "surveillance state" is a red herring imo.
Isn't it blindingly obvious that the abusers usually have power and money and can't be punished?
The googlefaces hire all sorts of behavioural scientists, paychologists, statisticians to get people more addicted to their ecosystem, spend millions on lobbying to bend the laws and generally do whatever they want.
People caring about this topic waste their time explaining for the millionth time why surveillance is bad to every innocent soul who bent their mind into a pretzel coming up with excuses for surveillance and spyware.
> Personally I don't see the problem with surveillance.
Maybe that's because you don't actually SEE the surveillance.
Surely you close the door when you try on clothes at a mall, or when you use a toilet?
You're making claims that because we interact on the web we should not expect any safety. That's fine... but what about those of us who specifically don't use Google, Facebook, etc... we are STILL surveilled, constantly. The US Gov't is STILL trying to break encryption (for everybody) in order to surveil more completely.
Privacy is forfeit by participation in these types of forums (centrally administered), but not all forums are like these.
As distributed networks continue to develop, the arguments you've used to advocate a carelessness about your post-privacy lifestyle will no longer be valid. But the state apparatus and oppressive outcomes that type of intellectual laziness enables/encourages will persist.
I don't have a problem with surveillance either as long as the laws are fair, they are deterministically enforced and the judicial system is willing to let minor mishaps slide.
I don't think we'll be able to stop the surveillance state, but we should push for the right legal and judicial culture.
[+] [-] graeme|8 years ago|reply
I eventually found a map of China showing state borders. Xinjiang and Tibet are a massive portion of China, and also give China border access to many countries. Normal state imperatives to keep territory aside, these are comparatively important territories for China's global influence.
[+] [-] Stanleyc23|8 years ago|reply
I think it's simply that the chinese gov't relies on maintaining a brand of virtually absolute control. Even publicly entertaining the idea of letting territories go would be a strong signal for weakness.
edit: maybe that's what you already implied by "Normal state imperatives"
[+] [-] seanmcdirmid|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skywhopper|8 years ago|reply
Interesting parallels to the US attacks and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. We go from being liberators (in our minds) to occupiers of ungrateful nations. And we have to stick around so long as people resist, because politically people hate to "lose".
[+] [-] shalmanese|8 years ago|reply
The TL;DR is that Xinjiang and Tibet both serve important national security purposes.
[+] [-] outside1234|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freshhawk|8 years ago|reply
You probably meant "how do we stop building it?" Which is a bit of an easy question, just stop building surveillance systems.
The hard part is how do we, as hackers, accept that most of our fellows will gladly do this for pay. Because it was fun to pretend they cared and be part of the subculture, but they never actually did.
[+] [-] cryoshon|8 years ago|reply
1. don't work for companies that surveil or support surveillance and don't hire, associate, converse, or lend aid to anyone who has worked for those companies
2. don't work for companies that produce weapons that will be used against civilians and don't hire, associate, converse, or lend aid to anyone who has worked for those companies
3. don't pay taxes to a government that treats you like a prisoner, and don't hire, associate, converse, or lend aid to anyone who has worked for that government in an intelligence organization, surveillance organization, or police organization
4. organize with your neighbors and coworkers to work within the political system to prevent abuses (we have already failed this option in the USA)
5. sabotage internet infrastructure of companies and governments wherever possible
6. revolution
none of these options are palatable, and none should be jumped into rashly. but do not assume that they are not necessary.
[+] [-] alphonsegaston|8 years ago|reply
Google and Facebook can’t withstand a sustained disruption of their workforce, which is why they spend so much time paying lip service to social issues. They have to create a constant illusion of concern for rights and justice to prevent their employees from actually demanding them.
[+] [-] flanbiscuit|8 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/makeu...
[+] [-] woodandsteel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mark_edward|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] newscracker|8 years ago|reply
Looking at the entire world, I feel it's shameful that more time and effort is spent on building better surveillance and control systems than decentralized and privacy protecting (to the extent possible) systems. It's as if all our freedoms are slipping by, leaving either an illusion of having freedoms with no practical use or freedoms curbed by governments with no concern about the well being of people or the government's reputation.
We've known about China and North Korea for a long time. Then we came to know about Five Eyes and Fourteen Eyes. It worries me that we may have One Hundred and Fifty Eyes in the next few decades (just a rough count of all countries minus a small percentage).
[+] [-] imhelpingu|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skywhopper|8 years ago|reply
Each feeds into the other. Political regimes use lies about (often invented) outsider groups to justify their growing power. And then true believers and overzealous apparatchiks begin harassing members of that group, often using those very tools, which leads to a growing perception that yes these people who are receiving international calls are clearly terrorists or terrorist supporters, who need to be surveilled. Etc.
[+] [-] mirimir|8 years ago|reply
Also, although there may be some China bashing in the background, I don't see anything about the US being better. And it doesn't take much imagination to see how such total surveillance is becoming normalized here.
[+] [-] cryoshon|8 years ago|reply
the line between a surveillance state and an oppressive political state doesn't exist, as surveillance is oppressive-- but it's not the only form of oppression. the article seems to forget that oppression has many effectors. it is too convenient of a slip.
the political oppression of the uighurs is, as the article notes, uniquely chinese-- but these things could have easily happened without any real surveillance whatsoever.
harassing minorities for arbitrary reasons doesn't need the evidence that surveillance can provide-- malice is not based on evidence to begin with.
as far as the chinese idea of han ethnic supremacy: it isn't new. in fact, it's old. the leaders' chinese vision of their country is that of a han chinese monoculture with a very particular apoliticism (they wrap passivity in many different terms). i was about to say that they aren't genocidal yet, but i dunno if that's really true; they have done quite a number on tibet, but my knowledge of the situation is very shallow.
[+] [-] _m8fo|8 years ago|reply
I mean honestly:
- Use Android? Chances are you're being watched by Google.
- Facebook tracks literally hundreds of millions.
- Post on HN? Guess what, you can't delete your posts after a while. Advances in stylometry in addition to more and more data being on the internet will mean your identity on here will be compromised eventually.
---
However, using Android allows Google to have literally minute-by-minute traffic updates which allows our cars to move more efficiently.
Facebook's tracking of millions may aid in allowing smaller organizations to connect in a more programmatic way.
HN well, obviously is allowing you to read this now.
Things like privacy were forfeit the minute we gained the technology. If people have problems with these technologies being used in bad ways, we should punish the people using the technologies in such a bad way. The spooky "surveillance state" is a red herring imo.
[+] [-] blub|8 years ago|reply
The googlefaces hire all sorts of behavioural scientists, paychologists, statisticians to get people more addicted to their ecosystem, spend millions on lobbying to bend the laws and generally do whatever they want.
People caring about this topic waste their time explaining for the millionth time why surveillance is bad to every innocent soul who bent their mind into a pretzel coming up with excuses for surveillance and spyware.
[+] [-] mr_spothawk|8 years ago|reply
Maybe that's because you don't actually SEE the surveillance.
Surely you close the door when you try on clothes at a mall, or when you use a toilet?
You're making claims that because we interact on the web we should not expect any safety. That's fine... but what about those of us who specifically don't use Google, Facebook, etc... we are STILL surveilled, constantly. The US Gov't is STILL trying to break encryption (for everybody) in order to surveil more completely.
Privacy is forfeit by participation in these types of forums (centrally administered), but not all forums are like these.
As distributed networks continue to develop, the arguments you've used to advocate a carelessness about your post-privacy lifestyle will no longer be valid. But the state apparatus and oppressive outcomes that type of intellectual laziness enables/encourages will persist.
[+] [-] konschubert|8 years ago|reply
I don't think we'll be able to stop the surveillance state, but we should push for the right legal and judicial culture.
[+] [-] nugi|8 years ago|reply
Sorry, not down with your logic one bit.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]