On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 09:22:47AM +0530, SS wrote: > None of this is new. George Orwell predicted it. It happened in Stalin's > Russia, and China has been well into this for decades.
The current capability is completely new. Many misunderstand Vernor Vinge to be a science fiction author. Reality proves them wrong. We're on a one-way fast-track ticket to Emergents-land, return from which will be impossible. > Power and control have always meant control over what people say. The > anger and indignation in my view comes from the idea that some "free" > societies were somehow immune to this. > > To my mind the only way to counter this is by subversion from within the > system, not by fighting the system. The system looks out for those who > fight it. The system needs to be inundated with people who are doing no > wrong. A world of sheeple who do not worry about surveillance makes it > easier to look out for those who are avoiding surveillance. In my view > the thing to do is to accept surveillance, embrace it, and set up the > mechanism for subterfuge. Only that route can allow creative ways of If you embrace the system then there cannot be any subterfuge. So, let's rather not. > spooking the system to emerge. > > If I were a criminal, this is exactly what I would do. Surveillance is > designed to discourage criminals (specifically terrorists) from using No, that is absolutely incorrect. I see you've bought into the terrist propaganda. Surveillance is all about controlling the masses. > the existing system and restricting their ability to communicate and > plan. A useful side effect for the government is that everyone gets Except the watchers themselves, of course. > watched. The criminal would be the last person to complain about being Forget the criminals. > watched - only honest people do - although criminals might add to the > protests acting like "Honest people who genuinely want privacy" simply > as a political ploy to pressurize governments who are high on their > ability to control. > > I am not trying to criticize or mock anyone, but I have noticed that in > America the constitution guarantees certain freedoms and those freedoms The problem is not limited to the US. > are being removed, leading to protests. If I extrapolate this I predict > that there is an outside chance that Americans might win court battles We're living in a postdemocratic world. The courts are complicit. > that protect US citizens, but non US citizens will continue to face > everything that can be thrown at them by way of control and monitoring. > Under the circumstances, I see no option other than to simply cooperate > with the system and discover my own ways of doing what I might want to > do in private. What is this 'private' thing you talk of, citizens? Remember, you opted in to the Total Panopticon. This is way beyond of paltry things like Orwell imagined. > Incidentally is there a "right to privacy?". I have no idea. If you have no right to privacy, you have no right to your life.
