The Problem With How We Think Of Surveillance

blastboy writes "Here's a great essay on Snowden, technology and the problem with how we think of surveillance. From the article: 'Why do we give them our data? For the same reason that prompted the protesters to pull out their phones amid a swirl of tear gas: digital channels are one of the easiest ways we have to talk to one another, and sometimes the only way. There are few things more powerful and rewarding than communicating with another person. It’s not a coincidence that the harshest legal punishment short of the death penalty in modern states is solitary confinement. Humans are social animals; social interaction is at our core. Yet the more we connect to each other online, the more our actions become visible to governments and corporations. It feels like a loss of independence. But as I stood in Gezi Park, I saw how digital communication had become a form of organization. I saw it enable dissent, discord, and protest.'"

Comments

Huh?

[msauve]

"Why do we give them our data?"

Wrong question, because it incorrectly assumes that something is willingly "given." More properly, "Why do they take our privacy?"

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you give them your data. Well, maybe not you personally, but in general, we do. We insert Facebook in the middle of all our communications, when there's no bloody reason to, and everything people do on FB was done without FB for a few decades online before that.

We put all our photos up on social network sites, instead of just sharing them with our friends, we share them with data mining companies.

Fill in your own example - there are thousands upon thousands. But yes, we give them our data. We GAVE those companies the power to data-mine us to hell. We MADE those companies succeed financially.

Captcha: consent. We gave them our consent, and routed all our communications through them. They took advantage of it, but what did we expect?

Re:Huh?

[jbmartin6]

Where does "our" data end end "theirs" begin? The question has no clear answer. If I do something in public, do I own everyone else's knowledge of what I did? Is it a violation of my privacy if someone sees me in the street and tells a friend about it?

Re:Huh?

[ATMAvatar]

I care little that some stranger I've never seen before happens to notice that I leave a bar. I do care when I realize that someone is following me everywhere I go.

Re:Huh?

[Opportunist]

There are two different "we"s in some languages (IIRC Finnish being one of them). An inclusive one and an exclusive one, i.e. including or excluding the one you're talking to.

I sincerely hope you meant the excluding one. For I don't feel like I am part of that "we" you talk about. For the very reason you mention I neither have a FB account nor did I ever consent to my picture being smeared across any pages.

The problem I have with the whole shit is that even if I decide not to give away my data, you may rest assured that there will be some idiot who will, by accident or chance, because I happen to be part of his "we", despite my best efforts. I try to steer clear of people who feel the urge to tell everyone what texture the latest dump they took had, but you don't always find out before it's too late.

Now, governments around the world take away our freedom for the pretense to "protect" us. From drugs to terrorism, they're never short on reasons to tell us that we can't do something because it's their job to protect us.

Oddly, it doesn't seem to be their job to protect us from exploitation by data miners. Why could this possibly be...

Not all humans are social animals.

[hamster_nz]

I'm sure a fair percentage of Slashdot readers would like nothing more than a nice quite room, limted exercise and regular meals. The only thing missing is a laptop, and good wifi github access. ... and please firewall off Facebook and Twitter - pretty please.

Re:Not all humans are social animals.

[hamster_nz]

I'm stuck at work... I'ld rather be home coding :-)

Comment on this story...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we virtually sign EULA's and don't read them? Don't people know that they are the law of the land and basically you give concent to them to use YOUR data in a manner that is outlined within said document. Obviously it's written in legaleese and not ment to be read by anybody except lawyers. If you don't want them to have your data, don't give it to them. The service is FREE for a reason, and YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THEY ARE SELLING.

Problem with Medium

[oldhack]

The problem with Medium is that they are a buncha pompous jackholes.

Privacy Myths

[JimSadler]

In order to be private no item may be mentioned or made visible to any other human being. When we communicate or do business with others we throw away privacy in hope of some sort of gain or comfort. People just don't understand that notion. It is like the girl at the beach in a string bikini who gets angry because the wrong guy sees her body. She obviously gave everyone the right to look at her by simply being in public in a bikini. A convict is punished by simply being in prison. That is to say that he is away from normal, free, society. No judge or law has implied that any additional sorrow be heaped upon the convict. Things like isolation, sensory deprivation, and denial of access to media or forced labor are not part of his punishments. those additional miseries are heaped upon convicts under the excuse of budgets or security. Depraved notions by jailers that include such logic as denial of books or newspapers to convicts under the excuse that set afire the paper becomes a weapon are absurd. Just like strip searching a man held in total isolation every thirty minutes around the clock is nothing more than brutal torture by keepers who are more depraved than the convicts they guard. Then after instilling the worst rage and anger they possibly can in the convict they let him out of prison to wreck mayhem and havoc on the innocents. We live in a psychotic society.

blame facebook

[globaljustin]

IMHO, you're giving facebook.com and others a pass.

They have the **factors of production**...facebook wasn't ONLY some kids in a dorm room. They were from rich families who could support them for years before they made any profit directly. They had family connections to high level attorneys. They had the protection of our laws paid by all of our taxes.

You can't be consistent and just cross your arms and say, "Hey, its their system, you agreed to it...if you dont like it dont use it"....that's only half an argument. It's a complaint masked as an argument. Anyone who says this is thinking like a slave.

It's inconsistent because its not a free market. Any facebook.com competitor faces ***SEVERE*** barriers to entry that are by facebook.com's design.

There is an artificial scarcity of competition with facebook.com.

How "They" think of surveillance is the problem...

[MobSwatter]

More information on you? More ways for greed within ranks of power to prey upon you. Simple as that...

websites are not **public space**

[globaljustin]

It is like the girl at the beach in a string bikini who gets angry because the wrong guy sees her body. She obviously gave everyone the right to look at her by simply being in public in a bikini.

wrong analogy by a mile

facebook.com is not publicly owned like the beach!!!!

facebook.com is a **private business** located on 1s & 0s on privately owned servers and they sure as hell can be regulated by law

your whole 'privacy myth' idea is a total cop out....you're thinking like a passive consumer in a dictatorship....fucking stop it!

**we** run this country...**we** elect its leaders...**we** can demand commerce be regulated how **we** see fit, including basic protections for how **private companies** use our data!