1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

The Dangers of Surveillance

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by melbo, Apr 1, 2013.

  1. melbo

    melbo Hunter Gatherer Administrator Founding Member

    Neil M. Richards
    Washington University in Saint Louis - School of Law


    March 25, 2013

    Harvard Law Review, 2013

    From the Fourth Amendment to George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, our law and literature are full of warnings about state scrutiny of our lives. These warnings are commonplace, but they are rarely very specific. Other than the vague threat of an Orwellian dystopia, as a society we don’t really know why surveillance is bad, and why we should be wary of it. To the extent the answer has something to do with “privacy,” we lack an understanding of what “privacy” means in this context, and why it matters. Developments in government and corporate practices, however, have made this problem more urgent. Although we have laws that protect us against government surveillance, secret government programs cannot be challenged until they are discovered. And even when they are, courts frequently dismiss challenges to such programs for lack of standing, under the theory that mere surveillance creates no tangible harms, as the Supreme Court did recently in the case of Clapper v. Amnesty International. We need a better account of the dangers of surveillance.

    This article offers such an account. Drawing on law, history, literature, and the work of scholars in the emerging interdisciplinary field of “surveillance studies,” I explain what those harms are and why they matter. At the level of theory, I explain when surveillance is particularly dangerous, and when it is not. Surveillance is harmful because it can chill the exercise of our civil liberties, especially our intellectual privacy. It is also gives the watcher power over the watched, creating the the risk of a variety of other harms, such as discrimination, coercion, and the threat of selective enforcement, where critics of the government can be prosecuted or blackmailed for wrongdoing unrelated to the purpose of the surveillance.

    At a practical level, I propose a set of four principles that should guide the future development of surveillance law, allowing for a more appropriate balance between the costs and benefits of government surveillance. First, we must recognize that surveillance transcends the public-private divide. Even if we are ultimately more concerned with government surveillance, any solution must grapple with the complex relationships between government and corporate watchers. Second, we must recognize that secret surveillance is illegitimate, and prohibit the creation of any domestic surveillance programs whose existence is secret. Third, we should recognize that total surveillance is illegitimate and reject the idea that it is acceptable for the government to record all Internet activity without authorization. Fourth, we must recognize that surveillance is harmful. Surveillance menaces intellectual privacy and increases the risk of blackmail, coercion, and discrimination; accordingly, we must recognize surveillance as a harm in constitutional standing doctrine.

    Comments here (which include the original author's)
    I initially read this on slashdot: Gauging the Dangers of Surveillance - Slashdot
    38 page paper (pdf) attached below.

    Attached Files:

    Mindgrinder, VHestin and ghrit like this.
  2. Mindgrinder

    Mindgrinder Karma Pirate Ninja Jedi Bipolar WINNING M.L.F.

    This is the biggest part of the problem.
    If you give them an inch...they'll incrementally take another, and another and another until they have what they originally set out to do.
    Spying on a lawful citizen for ANY reason is something we should have never compromised on in the slightest.
    Alas, it's too late now and more than 1/2 of it is done via corporations (ISPs, credit cards, debit cards, loyalty cards, smart phones, etc) giving the government a convenient excuse to claim it wasn't them.

  3. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    No government = No problem
    VisuTrac likes this.
  4. Mindgrinder

    Mindgrinder Karma Pirate Ninja Jedi Bipolar WINNING M.L.F.

    That would be fine if we had a society of educated (not indoctrinated) individuals capable of self-regulating or at the very least were personally accountable for their actions. I'd be ok with small tribal sized community level government in the interm.
  5. VisuTrac

    VisuTrac Ваша мать носит военные ботинки Site Supporter+++

    I'm just wonder what kind of surveillance they will have at KCGR? I've got a couple of things i want to try out with those blacked out windowed black SUV's
  6. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    They look black only from the outside. EZ to see thru from the inside. (They are exempt from the laws regarding darkened windows, ya seez.)
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary