6 ms·

You skipped this part: “Five years ago, [a suspect] could have physically walked into a bank and carried out a transaction. We could have put a surveillance te

You skipped this part: “Five years ago, [a suspect] could have physically walked into a bank and carried out a transaction. We could have put a surveillance team on that but now, most of it is done online. We just want to know about the visit.” Willie sutton robbed banks cause "That's where the money is". When bad guys use the internet to do bad things, you have to go 'where the money is' or suffer the consequences if you don't.

junto 11y ago
Do you know how expensive surveillance teams are? :-)
zimbatm 11y ago
The equivalent would be to bug the internet and phone of the target. That's something they can already do and which is reasonable.
- subter 11y ago
  So it's ok for the police to get a warrant and track a person's internet usage in real time but it's not ok for them to get a warrant to view a person's browser history? This is seriously the illogical nonsense this place has devolved to at any mention of surveillance of any kind on Hacker News, even when it involves warrants.
  - sanitychecker 11y ago
    The difference is monumental. One relies on creating a huge, disproportionate, non-transparent transfer of power over the population to various (unelected) actors. Power which they wield over the many. One relies on creating a huge stockpile of data, which we have no reason to believe will be secure, will not be abused now or in the future, or accessed via the proper protocols for the proper reasons. One relies on making service providers extensions of law enforcement and government over the populace. One measure affects the degree to which people will be able to freely express themselves without worrying about how it might affect their future, or the future of the people they love. One measure relies on digital footprints made in the past which can't be verified for actual human intent and authenticity, yet can lead to situations where, say, a hacker starts incriminating another person intentionally or unintentionally by creating digital footprints leading to them. Both measures rely heavily on digital footprints that can't be questioned or verified or even proved to be accurate or even reliably called into questioned by a person under investigation. In some cases it won't even be clear that the digital footprints were used. At least with real time targeted surveillance the use of the data is more likely to be used to identify real threats and used to correlate digital prints with actual crimes, rather than what would occur with the blanket storage of information on the populace. One measure weakens our ability as a society to function as a healthy democracy. One measure is vastly more susceptible to abuse, misdirection, confabulation and mistaken identity. One measure assumes we can trust government and law enforcement and service providers to do the right thing, all the time. Even when there is little evidence for that, just assess how many bankers and politicians are in jail for crimes committed. Unhealthy concentrations of power don't serve the good of the population. One measure makes it even easier for bad actors to acquire data and thus power over not just ordinary citizens but our elected officials and people with positions of great responsibility. This can be used to compromise many aspects of government and business and probably already does. At least with realtime targeted surveillance, the measure can be executed upon reasonable conditions. There are no reasonable conditions under which we can justify the blanket surveillance and data storage detailing the mental life of millions of people. At least with realtime targeted surveillance, an individuals breach of privacy is complete, with its effects fairly understood. The damages of which are at least confined to a narrow range of people. With the mass storage/mass surveillance practices the natural inclination will be to expand over time. One years storage will turn into 5 years, and 5 years will turn into decades. It will be incredibly cheap. More people will gain access, more use cases will be used for it. We have decades of evidence that this is how powers are expanded beyond the scope of their original intent. The damage that does will far exceed its benefits, for which we don't even have evidence today. One measure is inherently coming from complacent motivations. Much more can be done to create more secure infrastructure. Much can be done politically to limit the proliferation of extremist violence and so on. Much more can be done, and isn't done, to persecute criminals with means we already have, but we don't. Yet certain parties are chomping at the bit to spend millions on these particularly gross measures under the myth that it's needed to do a better job.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    It is ok to assassinate a terrorist with a sniper and not ok to nuke a whole city on the suspicion that a terrorist must be inside...
    - tremon 11y ago
      > It is ok to assassinate a terrorist with a sniper Legally ok, or morally ok in your view? Because organisations like Greenpeace have been branded terrorists in the past, and I'm quite sure the definition of "terrorist" is malleable beyond belief, especially when the government needs to explain itself for killing an individual. Of course there may be situations where life-and-death intervention may be required (as in, sniping the person holding a bomb trigger), but I'm seriously opposed to your unqualified statement that it's ok to shoot a terrorist.
      - venomsnake 11y ago
        Greenpeace also used bombs. Morally is also ok, but if you check my posting history - I don't value moral or human life at all. Edit: I was thinking of PETA not greenpeace.
pilsetnieks 11y ago
That "physical transaction" analogy would be correct if it was putting a surveillance team on every single person in the UK 24/7/365 recording everything they do, just in case any man, woman, or child turned into a bank robber at any time.
- andy_ppp 11y ago
  Sounds like the Starzi.
  - kaybe 11y ago
    You mean the StaSi (Staatssicherheit - state security)?
    - andy_ppp 11y ago
      Pedanzi.
      - kaybe 11y ago
        I went on a google search to figure out what you could have meant. There are many things I do not know, and a single word without context is seldomly enough to assume. (Starzi appears to be a last name and not much more.) Also, if I'm googling it, most of the time there are others wondering.
        andy_ppp 11y ago
        Fair enough :-). I just assumed everyone knew who the Stasi were! I can't recommend the film The Lives of Others enough. Really is a scary insight into the end game of a surveillance state...

junto 11y ago

Do you know how expensive surveillance teams are? :-)

zimbatm 11y ago

The equivalent would be to bug the internet and phone of the target. That's something they can already do and which is reasonable.

subter 11y ago
So it's ok for the police to get a warrant and track a person's internet usage in real time but it's not ok for them to get a warrant to view a person's browser history? This is seriously the illogical nonsense this place has devolved to at any mention of surveillance of any kind on Hacker News, even when it involves warrants.
- sanitychecker 11y ago
  The difference is monumental. One relies on creating a huge, disproportionate, non-transparent transfer of power over the population to various (unelected) actors. Power which they wield over the many. One relies on creating a huge stockpile of data, which we have no reason to believe will be secure, will not be abused now or in the future, or accessed via the proper protocols for the proper reasons. One relies on making service providers extensions of law enforcement and government over the populace. One measure affects the degree to which people will be able to freely express themselves without worrying about how it might affect their future, or the future of the people they love. One measure relies on digital footprints made in the past which can't be verified for actual human intent and authenticity, yet can lead to situations where, say, a hacker starts incriminating another person intentionally or unintentionally by creating digital footprints leading to them. Both measures rely heavily on digital footprints that can't be questioned or verified or even proved to be accurate or even reliably called into questioned by a person under investigation. In some cases it won't even be clear that the digital footprints were used. At least with real time targeted surveillance the use of the data is more likely to be used to identify real threats and used to correlate digital prints with actual crimes, rather than what would occur with the blanket storage of information on the populace. One measure weakens our ability as a society to function as a healthy democracy. One measure is vastly more susceptible to abuse, misdirection, confabulation and mistaken identity. One measure assumes we can trust government and law enforcement and service providers to do the right thing, all the time. Even when there is little evidence for that, just assess how many bankers and politicians are in jail for crimes committed. Unhealthy concentrations of power don't serve the good of the population. One measure makes it even easier for bad actors to acquire data and thus power over not just ordinary citizens but our elected officials and people with positions of great responsibility. This can be used to compromise many aspects of government and business and probably already does. At least with realtime targeted surveillance, the measure can be executed upon reasonable conditions. There are no reasonable conditions under which we can justify the blanket surveillance and data storage detailing the mental life of millions of people. At least with realtime targeted surveillance, an individuals breach of privacy is complete, with its effects fairly understood. The damages of which are at least confined to a narrow range of people. With the mass storage/mass surveillance practices the natural inclination will be to expand over time. One years storage will turn into 5 years, and 5 years will turn into decades. It will be incredibly cheap. More people will gain access, more use cases will be used for it. We have decades of evidence that this is how powers are expanded beyond the scope of their original intent. The damage that does will far exceed its benefits, for which we don't even have evidence today. One measure is inherently coming from complacent motivations. Much more can be done to create more secure infrastructure. Much can be done politically to limit the proliferation of extremist violence and so on. Much more can be done, and isn't done, to persecute criminals with means we already have, but we don't. Yet certain parties are chomping at the bit to spend millions on these particularly gross measures under the myth that it's needed to do a better job.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  It is ok to assassinate a terrorist with a sniper and not ok to nuke a whole city on the suspicion that a terrorist must be inside...
  - tremon 11y ago
    > It is ok to assassinate a terrorist with a sniper Legally ok, or morally ok in your view? Because organisations like Greenpeace have been branded terrorists in the past, and I'm quite sure the definition of "terrorist" is malleable beyond belief, especially when the government needs to explain itself for killing an individual. Of course there may be situations where life-and-death intervention may be required (as in, sniping the person holding a bomb trigger), but I'm seriously opposed to your unqualified statement that it's ok to shoot a terrorist.
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      Greenpeace also used bombs. Morally is also ok, but if you check my posting history - I don't value moral or human life at all. Edit: I was thinking of PETA not greenpeace.

pilsetnieks 11y ago

That "physical transaction" analogy would be correct if it was putting a surveillance team on every single person in the UK 24/7/365 recording everything they do, just in case any man, woman, or child turned into a bank robber at any time.

andy_ppp 11y ago
Sounds like the Starzi.
- kaybe 11y ago
  You mean the StaSi (Staatssicherheit - state security)?
  - andy_ppp 11y ago
    Pedanzi.
    - kaybe 11y ago
      I went on a google search to figure out what you could have meant. There are many things I do not know, and a single word without context is seldomly enough to assume. (Starzi appears to be a last name and not much more.) Also, if I'm googling it, most of the time there are others wondering.
      - andy_ppp 11y ago
        Fair enough :-). I just assumed everyone knew who the Stasi were! I can't recommend the film The Lives of Others enough. Really is a scary insight into the end game of a surveillance state...