Hacker News Reader

Comment by meepmorp | Hacker News Reader

> I think it would be more accurate to say that such work can be used for spy tools.

I think that's a distinction which lacks a practical difference. Of course they have applications that don't involve enabling surveillance by three letter agencies. But you're kidding yourself if you don't think that every major advance in any remotely useful discipline isn't reviewed and employed by these agencies.

These groups don't just hire sys admins and suits and engineers to monitor signals, etc. They hire PhDs and researchers, both to help assess technologies and to develop them internally.

I guess the point is, the advance of technology must inevitably advance tha capabilities of the surveillance state.

View on HN

But you're kidding yourself if you don't think

Oh, but I do. Further, I think it's natural and inevitable. It's ridiculous to expect governments to artificially hobble themselves in terms of potential just because they're governments. It's what they do with that potential that concerns me. As an analogy, the fact that the government controls vast arsenals of weaponry does not necessarily mean it's planning to kill everyone else.

There's a popular meme on HN that government inevitably tends towards tyranny. I think this is total bullshit; tyrranical government is far from unusual, but it isn't the norm either, and the assumption that it is, is a false premise. Or put another way, there's no good priding yourself on your skills at Bayesian analysis if you have a habit of selecting inaccurate priors.

Edit: while I was making dinner it popped into my head that while nowadays there's a high probability that any given terrorist is Islamic, the probability that any given Muslim is a terrorist is, of course, quite low. Likewise, while tyrannies are often perpetuated by governments (that is, bureaucratic organizations as opposed to warlords or roving tribes), the probability of a given government turning tyrannical is far lower.

But the advance of technology also inevitably advances the capabilities of murderers, rapists, and parking meter scofflaws.

The question is, does it advance their capabilities more than it advances the capabilities of those who oppose them? Is there any way to influence that balance?

Or should we just say "any technology can be used for good or evil, so don't even bother considering the question, let someone else worry about it"?

In fairness, only if we, the people, allow our government to conduct surveillance on us, the citizens. We need to roll back the provisions of the patriot act and FISA that are currently being interpreted to allow the collection of data on citizens who are not suspected of any crime and without any warrants. Then advances in surveillance technology will not necessarily lead to more invasive surveillance of citizens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com