The Electronic Police State 206
gerddie writes "Cryptohippie has published what may be called a first attempt to describe the 'electronic police state' (PDF). Based on information available from different organizations such as Electronic Privacy Information Center, Reporters Without Borders, and Freedom House, countries were rated on 17 criteria with regard to how close they are already to an electronic police state. The rankings are for 2008. Not too surprisingly, one finds China, North Korea, Belarus, and Russia at the top of the list. But the next slots are occupied by the UK (England and Wales), the US, Singapore, Israel, France, and Germany." This is a good start, but it would be good to see details of their methodology. They do provide the raw data (in XLS format), but no indication of the weightings they apply to the elements of "electronic police state" behavior they are scoring.
Police state UK (Score:4, Insightful)
RE: Police state UK (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they have most of it dont they?
Phone Logs - Check
Email Logs - Check
ISP Logs - Check
Tracking domestic flights - Check
Web Usage - Check
Subscriber Information - Check
Banking Records - Check
Number Plate Tracking - Check
Facebook friends list - Pending
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Facebook would cave and hand over your friends list pretty quickly, if it wasn't already public.
Currently there is a flaw in the way web site details are collected. Logs are made of DNS requests (they only log the top level domain, not the whole URL). If you don't use your ISP's DNS servers, you are currently safe. Ditto with emails.
It isn't clear if they are planning to simply expand the current system or if they want to somehow try and foil these rather easy methods of avoiding their tracking.
I w
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook friends list - Pending
I have a facebook friend who's currently waiting for some top secret credentials for a job. He warned me that I may receive some questions from the FBI. It kinds of surprises me since I am not affiliated with the USofA. I guess he was pulling my leg...
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, history suggests that our government has no problem screwing innocent people based on garbage data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A one terabyte drive would last about a month for me, because i rarely call people.
And it isn't just data retention it is also all the real time processing power needed to process and convert that stuff. Let alone transmit it to a required location. And if ISP hold it separately then you can be pouring through logs of random databases trying to find something useful with front ends made not to work right.
Re:Police state UK (Score:4, Funny)
Shit, I wish.. I bet they would do a better job than the current assclowns.
Is this for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sorry, but if you are claiming something to be a report on "national rankings" of "The Electronic Police State", you should at a very least have a clue.
A few hints to the fact that this report is a bunch of crap (no offense to a good name of real crap) is clear lack of understanding of legal concepts, imprecise and not legally or scientifically accepted definitions and simply errors in basic terms and grammar.
It is spelled "habeAs corpus". You do not start a paper that you want to be taken seriously with cheap usenet flame references to "Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR".
It is not a "criminal evidence" (what the hell is "criminal evidence" anyway?), unless it is admissible in court and no information as collected is admissible on its own merits. And how do you compare countries with completely different legal systems?
I could go on and on, but really it isn't worth the time. This report should not be on a first page of "idle", much less on /. Really, editors - get a clue.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is this for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
The document might be crap - the rise and spread of "Electronic Police State" is quite real.
Re: (Score:2)
I just wasted my mod points on you ... but I wanted to say it's exactly like a real police state: an arbitrary decision from some people with powers will get you imprisonned for real.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing how quickly the Nazis get brought up is a great way to tell whether or not an article is worth reading. The higher on the page you see Hitler, the higher it will rank on the the unintentional humor scale.
Re:Is this for real? (Score:5, Informative)
The usual image of a âoepolice stateâ includes secret police dragging people out of their homes at night, with scenes out of Nazi Germany or Stalinâ(TM)s USSR. The problem with these images is that they are horribly outdated. Thatâ(TM)s how things worked during your grandfatherâ(TM)s war â" that is not how things work now.
Seems like a perfectly reasonable statement to me. Context matters, people. It won't stop everyone shouting 'Godwin!' and giggling like imbeciles but it is actually a very good metaphor to use when talking about how the imagery people associate with police states is outdated.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me it's a balance of techniques. I always think of the discussion of whether apartheid South Africa was "fascist". After all, the homeland reservations weren't death camps, as such, and people only now and then "slipped in the shower" or "jumped out the police station fifth floor window" or got dumped in the ocean alive from planes. But a whole lot of fascist characteristics were present in the society without death camps.
South Africa relied on force nonetheless. Hell, they outlawed television
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I see an American flag in a trailer court or row house window it makes me want to cry.
Not sure if you're trolling, but hell. Everytime I read something so inane on the internet it makes me want to laugh. The thought that American patriotism makes someone what to cry, in a world where they still beat the women in Kumar, makes me chuckle.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Legal systems? Wtf? Like many Slashdotters I live in Germany, and at the moment our politicians are very busy to adapt our legal system to make it fit the needs of a police state. I think the only one who has no clue is you.
Re:Is this for real? (Score:4, Insightful)
What is freedom? (Score:2, Interesting)
Does freedom mean that you can do anything you want any time you want? Or is freedom the life you lead based upon rules set out by the government?
What does freedom require of you? Is responsibility a facet of freedom? Is societal responsibility actually slavery?
Maybe after we stopped throwing around loaded code words like Freedom and Police State, perhaps we can find that sometimes freedom isn't what we think it ought to be, but that the actual practice of freedom is more humane and invigorating than true f
Re:What is freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps then an anarchy like Somalia would be more preferable to you than an oppressive nanny state like England?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*Ahem.* Somalia is more like a conglomeration of warring mini-states than an anarchy. The problem isn't that there are no rulers (an-archos), it's that there's too many, and they fight each other.
Re:What is freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it too much to ask for a limited government that is by the people and for the people?
Surveillance should be in the opposite direction. We should be able to see what our elected officials are doing 24/7. Have microphone on them at all times to make sure they arent being bought by lobbists and taking bribes and what not.
Re: (Score:2)
Im sad that you've switched from analogies to just making blatant false dichotomies.
Re:What is freedom? (Score:4, Informative)
I was thinking more along the lines of a less craven, self-serving gov't. Not sure where you got the anarchy bit from.
To get a less craven, self-serving govt. The people kinda need to actively participate in government. Choosing the lesser of two evils candidate will no bring about the end your seeking.
Re: (Score:2)
This sort of thing seems to happen a lot more frequently in weak democracies like the UK. It's not just that your vote doesn't count for much here*, it's the knock on effect of people not being interested in politics and not bothering to form an opinion beyond the one they got from a Daily Mail headline.
* The first-past-the-post system discards your vote if your candidate does not win. Say you vote Lib Dem but the Tory candidate wins in your area. Your vote counts for nothing now, it won't increase the perc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn straight. It should be people setting the rules for the government, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
So this is a comprehensive set of rankings (Score:3, Insightful)
with no information on how it was compiled
good job
Next up, we'll publish a list of the top 50 mutual funds to invest in...with no mention of the criteria for generating the list.
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, is "Enforcement Ability" as(or more, or less) significant as "Financial Tracking"?
Every item gets a score between 1 and 5, but do they all carry the same weight in the study?
Scores vs Rankings (Score:5, Informative)
I downloaded the raw data. Some countries are missing, and the results are quite different from the PDF:
59-China
54-United Kingdom: England & Wales
53-Singapore
53-United States of America
52-France
52-Germany
51-Malaysia
50-Ireland
49-Netherlands
49-United Kingdom: Scotland
48-Israel
48-Russia
45-Australia
45-Belgium
45-Japan
44-Austria
44-New Zealand
43-Norway
41-Italy
40-Denmark
40-Taiwan
39-Canada
39-Greece
39-Hungary
39-Switzerland
38-Finland
38-Poland
38-Slovenia
38-Sweden
37-Cyprus
37-Estonia
37-Latvia
37-Lithuania
37-Malta
36-Czech Republic
36-Iceland
36-Luxembourg
36-Portugal
36-Spain
36-South Africa
34-Argentina
33-Romania
32-Thailand
31-Bulgaria
30-Brazil
28-Philippines
27-India
Re: (Score:2)
Why is the UK split in to two categories? What point are they trying to make, and what biasis are they carrying? And what about Northern Ireland - is there a third category not listed, or do they not want to include that?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Scotland has a different legal system from England and Wales. See here for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law [wikipedia.org]
Also, historically, camera surveillance wasn't quite as omnipresent in Scotland, though that seems to be changing, based on the last time I was in Edinburgh.
I'd have to agree with some of the other comments: the data doesn't seem to add up (even accepting their evaluation criteria at face value), and there do seem to be strange omissions (e.g. the lack of looking at police surveillance c
Re: (Score:2)
England+Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland all have separate and distinct legal systems. I guess perhaps NI is too small to include.
Re: (Score:2)
While the stats may be accurate, the terminology isn't. If you leave out Scotland and Northern Ireland, you can't use the term 'United Kingdom'. Citing 'The United Kingdom (England and Wales)' is akin to saying 'The United States (California and Texas)'.
Re: (Score:2)
The way Republicans down in Texas keep talking, saying 'The United States (California and Texas)' is akin to saying 'The United Kingdom (England and Massachusetts)'
Also, technically the UK doesn't include Northern Ireland. The 'United Kingdom' is the United Kingdom of England and Scotland; 'Great Britain' is England, Scotland, and (Northern) Ireland.
Math is hard, let's go shopping! (Score:5, Informative)
So, if you download their XLS raw data, and add up their scores, the worst 6 nations are:
1. China, with a score of 3.47
2. UK (Englad/Wales), with a score of 3.18
3. US and Singapore (tied for 3rd place), with a score of 3.12
5. France and Germany (tied for 5th place), with a score of 3.06
And as for Israel and Russia -- they are tied for 11th place, with a score of 2.82
Quite different from the top offenders list in the PDF, eh? It gets worse: North Korea and Belarus (in the top 5 according to the PDF) are not even mentioned anywhere in the raw data XLS... So not only did these "experts" pull their data out of their asses, but they managed to fail at adding up their own funny numbers!
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea and Belarus (in the top 5 according to the PDF) are not even mentioned anywhere in the raw data XLS
Covert Hacking
State operatives removing - or adding! - digital evidence to/from private computers
covertly. Covert hacking can make anyone appear as any kind of criminal desired.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "Covert Hacking" column in the raw data. There is a "Warrantless Hacking" column, though - I'm assuming that's the same thing (arriving at a consistent naming scheme is yet another area that the authors fail at). And there is no data for North Korea or Belarus in the "Warrantless Hacking" column, just like in all other columns.
In any case, I fail to see how the concept of covert/warrantless hacking is even relevant to North Korea: there is nothing in the country to hack, since virtually no North
Habeas, not Habeus (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Drumming up hysteria (Score:5, Interesting)
After skimming that report, and comparing it with what's on the Cryptohippie website - it looks to me that the document is more of a marketing tool to promote their company. Am I the only one who thinks this?
Here's what the group claims to do: "Cryptohippie USA, Inc. exists to protect individuals and organizations against attacks on privacy by agents of industrial and competitive espionage, organized crime, oppressive governments and even hired hackers. We do this with the best of encryption technologies and a closed group of highly protected networks - for your peace of mind and safety."
Here's what the report posits:
* "In an Electronic Police State...[every electronic flotsam you produce is] criminal evidence, and they are held in searchable databases, for a long long time."
* "Whoever holds this evidence can make you look very, very bad"
* The State knows everything you do, a-la Big Brother
They are trying to frame this paranoia into a neat little package, which sets you in the right mood to accept what they have to sell - which is protection against attacks on your privacy.
Classic marketing technique? Sorry, it just looks like another insurance agent to me.
ARGH! (Score:2)
This is a good start, but it would be good to see details of their methodology.
No, it would be good to see details of their method. Methodology is the study of methods. It is not a synonym for method.
Democracy does not equal Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
A quote from the articles' referenced PDF:
1. We really don't see how it is going to hurt us. Mass surveillance is
certainly a new, odd, and perhaps an ominous thing, but we just
don't see a complete picture or a smoking gun.
2. We are constantly surrounded with messages that say, Only crazy
people complain about the government.
As a person who has recently (over the past couple of months) done some review and a lot of reading into Nazi Germany, I can see the same types of Authoritarian trends and psychological tendencies to dismiss the worst case scenarios in "Democratic" countries (I scary-quote the word "Democratic" because there appears to be a cultural assumption that Democracy is necessarily equated with Freedom and justice, which, at the most is an accident. Democracy only assumes voting power (to an extant, for the majority of people), and not Freedom from oppression. I will emphasize that Democracy is generally a more utilitarian means towards Freedom than other forms of government. Benign and beneficent Autocracies would be great if they weren't "Utopian" [that is, mythical] in nature).
There also appears to be a tendency for people to appease authority in order to minimize worst case scenarios.
There also appears to be a tendency for governments to rationalize extremist and authoritarian practices. Hitler (and perhaps more tellingly Goebbels [who wasn't intellectually fanatical against Jews, but realized the value of Fear, Ignorance, and Hatred]) used the Jews as his main propaganda vehicle. The contemporary West uses the "pedophile" and the "terrorist" as the excuse. In both cases the regimes generally tend to have financial support from big businesses and the "conservative" voting class (I don't mean to slight well-meaning Conservatives here, but I am taking my language directly from the history books, some of which are contemporary to the history I am talking about). In both cases (Nazi pre-war Germany and the Authoritarian-leaning democracies of the West) share the same thing: the propagation (propaganda) of fear and nationalism. Think of the children is certainly a motto that Hitler used (I'm not going to bother to look up the references; they've been pointed out before on Slashdot). "Terrorism" too, was used as an excuse by Hitler; granted that much of his terrorism was contrived (like the Russian government bombings of residential buildings. Yes, I am aware that the Russians claim it was the Chechens. Western Intel AFAIK and have heard, seems to think differently).
Like the British and American public of 1930's, and much of Europe for that matter, people rationalized away their fears. The moderates in Germany at the time appeased the authoritarian measures as well. They kept thinking that a giving up a little freedom was politically expedient. Like the famous poem goes, people don't put much thought into things until it happens to them (ref: First they came [wikipedia.org]. Considering the fact the US has the most amount of people in jail than any other country in the world, I would be concerned (A popular and fairly good reference: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2494/does-the-united-states-lead-the-world-in-prison-population). Notice that I'm not talking about secret CIA prisons, MK-ULTRA type covert activities, etc., just the stuff that is well documented. Life is fine if you are "middle-class" and lucky enough not to piss off the wrong people. Don't hold your breath.
Re: (Score:2)
"Terrorism" too, was used as an excuse by Hitler; granted that much of his terrorism was contrived [..]
There was of course also a lot of genuine terrorism in Nazi occupied Europe, at least in the sense that the events really happened as reported. Newspapers that were still legally in print here in the Netherlands during WWII often referred to acts of resistance as terrorism, and the press (even sometimes the resistance friendly illegal press) also editorialized about the immorality of doing things like stea
1 in 31 people in the U.S in .... (Score:3, Insightful)
1 in 31 people in the U.S. are in prison, on parole or on probation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469360/
The U.S. has more people in prison that the Peoples Republic of China.
It doesn't really matter if it is an electronic Police state or not.
Surprisingly Interesting (Score:2)
I clicked on the link, expecting some half-baked vilification of modern society, but aside from the inane introduction, the ranking system appears clear, logical, fair, and relevant.
England is a very curious case (Score:5, Insightful)
England is a very curious case. In law its in a situation in which any authoritarian government, having got itself elected, would never need to call another election. There are a host of measures which have been passed in the last ten years which would permit the suspension of Parliament and rule by decree. The terrorism legislation would allow such a government to imprison anyone it liked for any or no reason. Then there is the surveillance, which is on a scale only previously found in science fiction. All travel, all communication (including this post) are logged. Henry Porter's articles in the Guardian and Vanity Fair detail the whole thing. Recently an opposition Member of Parliament was arrested, on Parliament premises, on suspicion of 'conspiring to encourage misconduct in public office'. Well.
Yet, it is obvious that England is a far pleasanter and freer place to live than the countries it is being compared to. Its also obviously, if you look at the recent deep embarrassment of its politicians over expenses, ruled by people who feel accountable to public opinion in a way that none of the true authoritarian states do. You will still find vigorous debate in the media. Only today, for example, Polly Toynbee in the Guardian runs up one side of the Prime Minister and down the other, and calls on the Party to get rid of him in the next three weeks. There will shortly be elections, relatively properly run, and the goverment will take a huge hit, and will accept it.
What has happened is that a genuinely democratic party, elected admittedly on a flawed and not particularly representative electoral system with a minority of the vote, one which consists of pleasant and well meaning people, has gradually without realizing what it is doing, passed legislation which would enable the British National Party, should it ever take power, to be as unrestrained by legislative limits on its powers as the Nazi Party in Germany 1933.
At the moment what stands between the English and either left or right authoritarianism is tradition, an independent judiciary, and the goodwill of the ruling party. We are effectively Weimar, with all the legal framework any future government will need to turn us at will either into Nazi Germany or the GDR.
We just have to hope that the wrong people don't get elected. If they do, its all over.
Re: (Score:2)
god help you if the BNP ever get in power
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with most of what you say, except for two things.
1) Labour have not passed most of this stuff 'accidentally'. I honestly think that they don't like governmental and police restrictions, and just don't want to bother with them. Sure, they think THEY'll govern 'fairly', but they seem to have no concept of why we had those limitations in the first place. You wonder whether they wouldn't just support something that literally allows the police to do anything 'in pursuit of justice'.
2) Labour aren't th
Re: (Score:2)
...only couple of things wrong with this,
what makes you think it is possible for the BNP to ever get into power? With our admittedly flawed electorial system this is actually very unlikely (or would be the will of the people)
and what makes you think this could not happen elsewhere? Get someone in power in the USA and they can emend the constitution, so they can rewrite it, so they can basically do what they like if they have the will of the majority of the senate, representatives and the president ....A c
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot help but wonder if the only difference between us now, and Nazi Germany pre 1939 is solely hindsight.
We're not explicitly discriminating against particular groups quite to the same extent. Though what is explicit versus what is implicit might not matter that much in the long run..
Data out of thin air ? (Score:2)
Now raw data for Isreal form TFA (scale 1-5):
Daily documents - 3. Not quite reasonable, I would put 4 at least.
Border Issues - 3. Wrong. While border search is intrusive, electronic data are not inspected usually.
Financial tracking - 3.Plausible.
Gag order - 3.Questionable.
Maybe They're Not All Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't in fact a group of smart men behind the scenes running the show. That the face put forward as stupid politicians is just that.
Any Google on "exponential growth human population" or "failure understand exponential growth" will help illustrate what we're looking forward to. It will be in our lifetime where the population will grow beyond the ability for the state to police it using just human manpower (police-person). Very soon maintaining civil order will require automation. It already does.
Whomever is running the show does seem to understand and are taking steps necessary building the infrastructure we're going to need in 25-50 years. And a 25-50 year build-out for infrastructure is about right. The ratio of citizen to state will easily rise to hundreds of thousands to one. Cameras are needed, the ability to mass collect people will be needed.
Anyone familure with the courts already know. If 100% of the population demanded jury trials the system would collapse. The only way they're able to hold it together is that +90% plea to "lessor" charges. The courts are already like the Airline industry as in hurdling cattle. When the population doubles even this stop gap measure won't be enough.
This automation of state control is evidence to me that either the politicians aren't as stupid as the face they put forward or there is a group behind the scenes running the show that do understand exponents.
-[d]-
Re: (Score:2)
Being from the USA I can tell you I feel like we should be first on the list as far as government inspection of our online activities.
The government inspection is not nearly as bad as employer/school policing of your online activities.
Are you serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
The government inspection is not nearly as bad as employer/school policing of your online activities.
My apologies, but I am always shocked when people make the claim that potentially nefarious activities are somehow "more evil" when performed by private actors as opposed by government. What is the basis for your argument?
The government has an absolute monopoly on force. A corporation, no matter how evil, cannot lawfully detain you, lock you in a cage or kill you. The government can do all of those things and more. Your school cannot deprive you of your income, restrict your movements or require that your name be entered on a list of proscribed persons. The government does these things as a matter of course.
Perhaps you feel more in control of your government than you do your employer or school? Good luck with that. You can find another job. You can study elsewhere. Your government is inescapable.
Re: (Score:2)
Your government is inescapable.
Immigrate.
Re:Are you serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Immigrate.
You know it isn't nearly as simple as that. Especially since many governments are enacting this, there seems to be no safe-haven from restrictions on freedom, unless we want to move to a law-less place like Sudan. We want a place with a stable government that cares about its population, is truly democratic, and cares about freedom, and not the money it gets from lobby groups. And most of all, has fast internet. ;)
Re:Are you serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
And most of all, has fast internet. ;)
I know you meant that tongue-in-cheek, but you bring up an interesting concept. If you move to a place you feel is more free, it's nice if it's a place that has a standard of living that is as good--or better--than you're used to.
On the other hand, there is a point where the luxuries aren't worth the cost of principles. When that happens, you end up with things like rebellions, successions, and other transitions. People will forfeit plumbing, transit systems, electricity, and even food for the chance to govern themselves as they see fit, if the situation feels dire enough. The world can beat them, or join them--either way, it makes little difference in that situation, because the right to rule or be ruled as they believe, and thereby control their futures, becomes the first, and most basic need.
The food, the water, the electricity, medicine, fuel: to a desperate person, those things lose their worth. They're all tethers binding them to something they hate. Time and time, again, it's shown that the people will abandon or destroy them before allowing those things to hold them any longer.
Open manufacturing as part of the answer? (Score:3, Interesting)
I put a reference to your insightful comment on the "open manufacturing" mailing list:
"Forfeiting plumbing for self-determination?"
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/browse_thread/thread/8462e40751be6966# [google.com]
What I found interesting in the comment and reply is the perceived tension between relying on (centralized?) manufacturing and freedom.
Anyway, it seems to be the general feeling of slashdot that there is no land one can go to right now to escape these trends (othe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've been looking for a place like that for a couple of years now. Sweden and Switzerland, which once seemed good candidates, have since fallen. I even joked that the Principality of Sealand was the last place remaining.
Let me know if you find any country still respecting, and thus worthy of, citizenship.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The main reason for this is that though there can be laws, no one is interested in implementing "high blown" stuff and the police more or less only stick to the basics like real crime fighting. Politicians fight so much that there's no consensus on anything really, and in light of what I see happening in other countries, that's a good thing!
And perhaps best of all, it's highly consumer friendly - corporations don't dicta
Re: (Score:2)
Those of us who spell without the extra "u" have similar opinions. These days, both are questionable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
or if that doesn't work, emigrate!
Re: (Score:2)
or if that doesn't work, emigrate!
Emigrate where??
Re: (Score:2)
Or walk out of your society and join the freeman [worldfreemansociety.org] movement.
Check out some of Robert Menards' media on youtube.com [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And join the freeman movement.
It's time for an uprising against the Combine!
Er, now the relevance to the article is starting to get a little creepy.
Re: (Score:2)
To immigrate is to move INTO a country, emigrate is to move OUT.
Re:Are you serious? (Score:4, Funny)
where to? There is no place without some state claiming ownership over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Western Sahara.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care; I'm still free. You can't take the sky from me!
Re:Are you serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
My apologies, but I am always shocked when people make the claim that potentially nefarious activities are somehow "more evil" when performed by private actors as opposed by government. What is the basis for your argument?
I guess I was being vague when I said "bad" and there are multiple interpretations. Sorry for shocking you with that, here I was talking about numbers of those affected. I was also vague about where I was referring to, I meant the US which the AC was talking about.
What I meant was far, FAR more people in the US have been affected by employers and schools imposing and enforcing their own restrictions on citizens' online activities. The government isn't going to care if you post pictures of yourself drinking beer to your facebook profile, your school or employer might though.
I realize that when the government steps in, it's much bigger penalties than getting fired. But that's not the only way to measure impact of electronic policing, and I'd argue that typically, the restrictions your employer or school places on your online behavior is a lot more arbitrary and vague than the government's. Generally.
You can change schools, jobs, whatever, but there are pretty significant consequences to that. They do pale in comparison to what your government can do to you, but you are more likely to get fired, lose your house and career because of something your boss saw you posted online than the government, plus the government is usually better about telling you what they won't tolerate.
Perhaps you feel like losing your job or getting kicked out of school is insignificant because it's not the government executing you? I guess that's one way of looking at things.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... Why shouldn't either of these impose restrictions on how you use THEIR resources?
That's not what I was talking about. A google search for "Fired for facebook" or "Suspended for facebook" (and probably other non-facebook related searches) came up with numerous examples of schools and employers penalizing their students and employees for online activity which was not using their resources or company time.
Re: (Score:2)
because they are MY resources. I thought we went through this 200 years ago?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll agree the government has the potential to be worse, but at the moment, I've not heard of the government pulling insane BS like blocking everything but port 80 and 443 the way many college dorms do, or requiring that people give the government systematic access to their machines so they can check up on them (a common practice in law schools).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A corporation, no matter how evil, cannot lawfully detain you, lock you in a cage or kill you.
http://www.google.com/search?q=riaa+swat+team [google.com]
'Nuff said.
Which was done using the powers of government ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA haven't undertaken raids on their own authority, nor have they used their own forces. In these cases, they are influencing government (police SWATs) to use its monopoly on force to "enforce the law". Maybe it's a fine line, but it is a line.
No, it's a blurred line. Corporations write the laws the government enforces, even if not directly.
Re:Are you serious? (Score:4, Interesting)
"A corporation, no matter how evil, cannot lawfully detain you, lock you in a cage or kill you."
Actually the can and they do, we just don't hear about it. Corporations BUY the laws and commit many crimes, did you not know that corporations were killing their workers up into th 1930's? How about third world sweatshops? Corporations pay others to do their dirty work for them, while their PR machines give the impression that "private" corporations are better then government... my ass. History shows that private men who have much commercial power are just violent as any government not to mention they fund armies and rebellions, they are intertwined (corps and government).
This idea that the world "government" is somehow different from "private corporation" is a bunch of bullshit, most corporations LOVE government in fact many couldn't exist and get away with the shit they do if not FOR buying off people in government.
Private men of commerce have been amongst the most evil since they fund governments of the world let's not forget, buy and lobby laws in their favor.
They are JUST as bad as government, because you see the word "government" and "corporation" hide the TRUE meaning most elites would not want you to see: They own both, and their is a revolving door from one to the other, while the average public man rails against "government" nad supports "pro privitization" little does he know people in power know the score, is that their is no difference in people that run these insitutions and their influence is peddles via both means, it's the people themselves that cause stuff we should be after.
"Government" is a ghost that ignorant people rail against, when it is PEOPLE that cause things to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
In all but a handful of disfunctional tyrannies, to lawfully kill or indefinitely detain you, the government must prove you guilty of a particularly disgusting crime (i.e. one that very few people wouldn't be appalled by). To do otherwise is just as unlawful for the state as any other organization, so what difference does it make?
Something being unlawful doesn't mean it's not done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The catch is that once companies get outside of the law they can do more than governments. How many people have lost their lives to deliberate corporate actions in regard to unsafe products. Asbestos is one example. Tobacco is another.
Matter of fact tobacco is a great example as the current answer of tobacco sellers is to push product to foreign shores as the US is now a restricted tobacco market.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah that is harsh.
I mean its like they think you are borrowing their computers? They think they can do whatever they want with equipment they paid for and tell you how you can and cannot use their stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean its like they think you are borrowing their computers?
Even [huffingtonpost.com] when [switched.com] you [neveryetmelted.com] aren't [cnn.com], I know, crazy!
Re:USA (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have nothing to hide, government surveillance would not matter at all.
Just stop using the Internet, driving a car, visiting public places, using credit cards, signing up for lists at major US retailers, enrolling in any public organization or institution, talking on a cell phone, renting videos, or getting cable television. This should ensure your basic expectations of privacy are respected.
M
Re:USA (Score:4, Insightful)
You forgot to mention traveling on an airplane, traveling on a coach, traveling on Amtrak, holding a bank account, gambling at a casino (they have to take your details so they can tell the IRS if you win and need to pay income tax on that win IIRC) or owning a firearm.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot 'walking down the street'.
What about NOT the USA? (Score:5, Insightful)
This technology is available to the next Pol Pot, or Idi Amin, or Saddam Hussein. As a dictator, cost is little if any problem - you just tell people to set up the surveillance, and report to you. Not to mention, the US comes awfully close locking up political prisoners sometimes. Remember McCarthy? Just think if HE had access to all this newfangled monitoring equipment. The next George W. Bush may whisk you off to Guantanamo, based on some comment you made online, or in an email. And, people who notice you gone will say, "Well, if he had nothing to hide, he wouldn't have gone missing!"
Re: (Score:2)
Nutter. You miss the point. They aren't top on the list because we hate them. It is inaccurate to say that 'they use electronics to catch baddies and we do the same so it's really all equal in the end'. They top the list because they are oppressive, corrupt regimes who use technology to extend their repression.
Although your favorite tinfoil hat theory may posit that the west is just as repressive and ruthless as the good ol' commies in the east, the truth is starkly different. The extent to which tho
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have nothing to hide, encrypt everything anyways.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Go try web browsing in North Korea, let us know if you still feel that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a question slashdotters, does this guys uid
instantly Godwin any discussion he posts to?
Obviously 90c short of a dollar.
Re: (Score:2)
worth a few chuckles at least
Re: (Score:2)
_Today_, it's thoughts. What percentage of America is already on a legal mind-numbing drug? I have people I miss on them.