Hacker News Reader

Comment by cynicalsecurity | Hacker News Reader

Mass surveillance helped the UK Counter Terrorism Police identify Russian spies Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov in Salisbury investigation who were trying to kill a family of dissidents.

Granted, the website is dedicated to mass surveillance in the IT. But then think, generally speaking, is the mass surveillance on some reasonable level really so bad? It's helping identifying Russian soldiers who are committing war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine. It helps preserve the free and democratic society rather than creates a road to dystopia. Of course, I'm speaking of some reasonable levels, not of something like real-time client device scanning. It doesn't make any sense and it would simply not work.

View on HN

It's a dangerous train of thought. You will end up like China where it's acceptable for the "greater good". And nobody will ever give the power back once they have it.

I agree it's dangerous but what are governments supposed to do?

In a world where individuals or very small groups of people are increasingly gaining the power to do potentially catastrophic damage using increasingly powerful technology, what are the actual alternatives? Trust?

How can society functionin going forwards without at least some oversight ?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want society to go this way, but I'm starting to see fewer and fewer options presented to Governments. I can see both sides of the story.

I wouldn't pretend I know the right answer, but I think we have to admit the world has changed quite a bit recently.

Yes, it really is so bad. People are unbelievably ignorant of history.

What happens when the state intelligence apparatus has the ability to perfectly surveil the population? Look no further than what the Stasi accomplished - it becomes trivially easy to discredit political opposition, journalists, business leaders, or any other person or group standing in the way of the powerful.

People split hairs about this kind of oversight, or that kind of oversight, but when the powerful are overseeing their own surveillance apparatus - using secret courts, secret warrants, and all manner of other methods for hiding the true scope of the surveillance - I do not believe it can be contained.

But the Stasi was a secret police in a totalitarian state, not a liberal democracy. Apples to oranges. Good faith actors in government, with intense oversight from elected officials, makes your concerns null and void.

Because government agencies have such a good track record of ensuring they only ever contain good faith actors and would never hide things from oversight, and such oversight would never be done by people willing to look away if it "hits the right people" or some nonsense like that.

A liberal democracy has the ever present risk of devolving into a totalitarian state (just look at the Weimar republic or Argentina in the 70s). We must hedge our risks, fight tooth and nail so it doesn't happen, but when it eventually happens, better not to leave a well oiled, powerful machine ready for the totalitarians to crush us.

It is ok as long as you are not the target :)

It is basically only ok if you can guarantee it’s users always use it in good faith which is virtually impossible.

Police being able to walk into anyone's home at will to search it would definetly lead to catching some criminal activity. The issue isn't "would this thing lead to catching some criminals". The issue is abuses, government overreach, and innocent civilians being targeted.

“It is better, so the Fourth Amendment teaches, that the guilty sometimes go free than the citizens be subject to easy arrest.” William Douglas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The argument to give up your rights is always initially used to target the worst of the worst. Its always terrorists, spies, child murderers, etc. Of course we shouldn't be slowed down by due process when it is for this child murderer. Yet it is then used against those least likely to be able to defend themselves for easy wins. Russian spies first, then its minor crimes committed by immigrants.

Would it have been impossible to achieve the same goal with targeted surveillance instead?

You know what they say about the end justifying the means.

I take it you’re not a Florida woman with a miscarriage.

Nice straw man

Completely agree. When used properly and ethically in a democratic society, surveillance is an absolute net positive for society.

> When used properly and ethically in a democratic society

So, for the first five minutes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com