Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by USANEEDSHELP | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

USANEEDSHELP

Mass surveillance is meant to work against anybody and everybody

View on HN

Certainly, but the point here is that it suppresses some opinions much more effectively than others.

If your opinion is already popular, you don't have to be brave: you know it's out there.

If your opinion is unpopular, knowing someone's watching may silence it altogether.

Yes. But the people who run the institutions will mostly reflect the majority and hence protect their kind.

When the society was mostly anti-gay the government machinery was used to hurt these target homosexual groups. Now that society is pro-gay we see government forcing bakers to bake cake for gay weddings.

I will not be surprised if the surveillance mechanism would be used to hurt Libertarians and anti-government people.

That's an interesting premise, do you think that the heads of e.g. the KGB were representative of the majority of Soviets? It was my impression that there was a large class distinction between the Soviet intelligence apparatus and the proverbial average Joe.

Note: I selected the USSR/KGB not for any particular resemblance to current Western intelligence agencies (much more human intelligence and shotgun mics back then) but rather because they seem to me to be the textbook case of the effects of mass, pervasive surveillance over a long time.

I haven't studied the period, but my impression was that it was very much possible for a brilliant person from humble origins to rise to the top on the basis of their skills. Though becoming outright head would probably require networking/corruption as in any large organization.

To give a growth hacking analogy, becoming KGB head is the final step in the funnel. To be a KGB head you should probably have qualities that 99.99% of the people do not posses. But it is wrong to say he does not represent the majority of soviets because the entry to the system and almost every other step in the funnel is highly biased towards those who conform to majority opinion.

For example when I say Donald Trump is representative of majority of conservative base I do not mean majority of conservative base is narcissist and billionaire. I basically mean Trump is pro-Gun, pro-Life, pro-Christian, anti-Gay. Because without those criteria he would not have entered the funnel in first place.

Conservatives or Liberals the current trend among American politicians is "trust us", "bend before authority", I am 100% sure no person can rise to top in American government if he does not conform to these ideas.

That makes no sense. Why would mass surveillance be used against people that support the regime?

One day they may not.

To maintain their support.

Regimes come and go; metadata is forever.

To make sure they support it, and to make sure they keep supporting it. Compliance today does not buy you a free pass tomorrow.

Look at Xi Jinping's regime. Lots of party officials, members of the politburo, etc. who while they support the party itself may not support Mr. Xi, or vice versa.

Even strong (executive power) leaders like Mr Xi or Mr Putin do not rule over a monolith.

Snoopers’ Charter: Only amendment politicians have submitted to controversial bill is to stop MPs being spied on

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...

Everyone except those in power.

That seems a little too simplistic; the parent example of McCarthyism was used to drive people out of the government so the "power/no power" binary doesn't seem adequate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com