From 94f9d654f9ea154d8799fb31f0741be9b35afe3c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Patrick Spek Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 22:45:33 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Add initial draft of The Surveillance State --- _articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc | 147 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 147 insertions(+) create mode 100644 _articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc diff --git a/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc b/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc new file mode 100644 index 0000000..283ee61 --- /dev/null +++ b/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc @@ -0,0 +1,147 @@ +--- +title: The Surveillance State +date: 2018-03-13 12:32:20 +tags: Politics Freedom Surveillance Privacy +description: > + In the past three months I have attended three meetups focussed on privacy + and security. Though these were reasonably small gatherings, I still had some + interesting conversations with interesting people. +wip: true +--- += The Surveillance State +:toc: preamble + +In the past three months, I have attended meetups focussed primarily on +privacy, and a slight part on security. At these gatherings, we have had +discussions with other people, the latest of which focussed on surveillance +cameras. Due to time limits, I was not able to discuss every point raised in +depth. + +This article is intended to give a more thorough overview of my arguments +against some of the popular arguments in favor of more surveillance cameras in +the city of 's Hertogenbosch. + +== Raising awareness +First off, I think it's a great innitiative to raise awareness on political +issues like this, which are rarely discussed in a proper fashion by the +politicians themselves. What surprised me during all the meetups, I was one of +the youngest, if not the youngest attendee out of the crowd. Most of the +attendees were people of 40 years or older, which seems like politics (or +specifically politics about privacy) are not interesting for the new generation +of voters. + +Having tried to raise this issue with friends, family members and online, I can +clearly see that there is very little interest in privacy or security with the +average citizen. A common answer is "I'm not doing anything wrong" or "I have +nothing to hide". + +== Opening discussion +Awareness is great to have, since it opens up the possibilities for discussion. +It's incredibly hard to discuss something that people aren't aware if is even +happening. I think the first and especially the last meetup did a great job in +getting people to discuss their views on the issues. + +At the last meetup, I personally took issue with some of the argumentation +given to us by a law enforcement officer, who was greatly in favor of +surveillance cameras. I tried to discuss these arguments with him, but he +seemed to care very little about the opinions of others, and instead opted to +simply restate his first argument. + +=== There's no point to stop something that is already happening +Or, as he said it, "you're trying to stop a flood of water with your hands". +I'd like to note the irony of a Dutch person saying you can't stop water, +seeing as how the Dutch people have been doing this for quite a while with the +dykes. + +The argument itself is defeatist in nature: it's happening, so there's no point +in doing anything about it. Our entire society is built upon the idea of laws +to stop people from doing things which are considered bad. He as a police +officer would have a very boring job if his captain said there's no point in +trying to stop crime since it's happening already anyway. + +The point of a democratic society is that we can vote for things we, as +citizens, find bad, so policies can be made to stop such practices. This is one +such a "thing". Some people may find it bad, others may say it's a good change. +But claiming one should just accept it for the sole fact that it's already +happening makes very little sense to me. + +=== Absolute confidence and trust in the technology and its implementors +His second argument was about confidence in the entire system, and trust in the +people who create, maintain and use it. + +I can guarantee you, as a software engineer, that having absolute trust in +software is possibly one of the most stupid things you can do. My job exists +because bugs appear. There is not a single software project that I would trust +absolutely to be completely correct in its implementation. + +He made this argument by claiming that he had friends in the IT sector of the +government, and was therefore knowledgable on the surveillance camera project. +He knew these people would not abuse their powers in any way or form. Which is +nice to know, but these specific people, even if I too knew and trusted them, +won't be in charge forever. With long-running projects like these, you need to +account for the future, and the people maintaining and using the systems then. + +Trust in the technology is also a rather hard point to sell to citizens. +Citizens are not allowed to know about the hardware specifications, or the +software in use, or the software used to store and analyze video footage. It is +impossible to put trust in a system you have no insight of. If the government +would be transparent in their IT projects, maybe we as citizens could put some +trust in these systems. + +=== It's the same as putting an officer at each camera location +Another argument he raised in defense of surveillance cameras was to put an +officer at every camera location instead. Nobody would complain about this like +they do when it's cameras. These officers would then tell one another what they +were seeing, which is less trustworthy than actual camera footage. + +While he is correct that an officer's retelling of an event might be less +trustworthy than actual camera footage, there is a major flaw in the argument: +more surveillance cameras arent going to stop any crime. They can assist in +finding the perpetrator and retelling the story of what happened at a given +location, but they're not stopping any crime. Law enforcement officers *can* +stop crimes that are happening right in front of their eyes. + +=== More street cameras will stop the production of child porn +This was possibly the most egregious of his claims. He reasoned that cameras +keep an eye on both the public life, but also the "hidden" lives of criminals. +And part of the "hidden" crimes they are supposedly solving with the cameras +are the crimes of child prostitution and child porn production. + +For starters, I highly doubt the cameras will bring insight into "hidden" +crimes, as they are named "hidden" for a reason. They might be able to spot +such events if they were happening in public, but I'd guess that such criminals +would be arrested by cops if they do it this publicly. If police officers would +not arrest them if they did it in broad daylight, I highly doubt they'd be able +to do so if they do it out of sight. Cameras make no difference in this +perspective. + +Secondly, the argument of child porn and prostitutes is, together with +terrorism, a very recurring argument by officials as a (or the) reason to add +more surveillance. However, there are no statistics on how much of these +activities have been thwarted compared to the amount of privacy and freedom we +as civilians had to sacrifice for it. To add salt to the injury, in the United +Kingdom, a place where they have quite a lot of camera surveillance already, +multiple astonishingly large pedophile networks have been discovered. Victims +of these networks say that these crimes are still happening. Clearly, simply +adding surveillance isn't doing the trick to stop these activities. + +== Local politician refuses to answer questions +This was a sad announcement. For the last event, the organisers had sought +contact with a local politician who deals with the surveillance cameras. They +had arranged this many weeks in advance, and the original answer was positive. +Sadly, shortly before the actual meetup, this person informed the organisers +they will not be attending due to the political circumstances. + +This circumstance was the upcoming elections. The person did not want to answer +questions on the topic of surveillance, apparently out of fear that it might +influence the results. This bothers me quite a bit, as important information +about policies like this are important to discuss with the politicians, so you +can make a better decision on who to vote for. Transparency is a very important +aspect of a healthy democracy, and this politician seems to be actively working +against this. + +In his last message, there was a possibility of having a Q&A session with them +after the elections happened. The organisers of the event showed interest in +taking them up on their offer, and would make announcements if they could reach +an agreement (once more). If this happens, I will surely attend and request +more information about his reasoning. From eb9813b2419927ff457baa37dfa7e16694d50b9d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Patrick Spek Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 22:53:46 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] Apply aspell on the article --- _articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc b/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc index 283ee61..8c25e92 100644 --- a/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc +++ b/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ title: The Surveillance State date: 2018-03-13 12:32:20 tags: Politics Freedom Surveillance Privacy description: > - In the past three months I have attended three meetups focussed on privacy + In the past three months I have attended three meetups focused on privacy and security. Though these were reasonably small gatherings, I still had some interesting conversations with interesting people. wip: true @@ -11,9 +11,9 @@ wip: true = The Surveillance State :toc: preamble -In the past three months, I have attended meetups focussed primarily on +In the past three months, I have attended meetups focused primarily on privacy, and a slight part on security. At these gatherings, we have had -discussions with other people, the latest of which focussed on surveillance +discussions with other people, the latest of which focused on surveillance cameras. Due to time limits, I was not able to discuss every point raised in depth. @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ against some of the popular arguments in favor of more surveillance cameras in the city of 's Hertogenbosch. == Raising awareness -First off, I think it's a great innitiative to raise awareness on political +First off, I think it's a great initiative to raise awareness on political issues like this, which are rarely discussed in a proper fashion by the politicians themselves. What surprised me during all the meetups, I was one of the youngest, if not the youngest attendee out of the crowd. Most of the @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ such a "thing". Some people may find it bad, others may say it's a good change. But claiming one should just accept it for the sole fact that it's already happening makes very little sense to me. -=== Absolute confidence and trust in the technology and its implementors +=== Absolute confidence and trust in the technology and its implementers His second argument was about confidence in the entire system, and trust in the people who create, maintain and use it. @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ because bugs appear. There is not a single software project that I would trust absolutely to be completely correct in its implementation. He made this argument by claiming that he had friends in the IT sector of the -government, and was therefore knowledgable on the surveillance camera project. +government, and was therefore knowledgeable on the surveillance camera project. He knew these people would not abuse their powers in any way or form. Which is nice to know, but these specific people, even if I too knew and trusted them, won't be in charge forever. With long-running projects like these, you need to @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ were seeing, which is less trustworthy than actual camera footage. While he is correct that an officer's retelling of an event might be less trustworthy than actual camera footage, there is a major flaw in the argument: -more surveillance cameras arent going to stop any crime. They can assist in +more surveillance cameras aren't going to stop any crime. They can assist in finding the perpetrator and retelling the story of what happened at a given location, but they're not stopping any crime. Law enforcement officers *can* stop crimes that are happening right in front of their eyes. @@ -126,10 +126,10 @@ of these networks say that these crimes are still happening. Clearly, simply adding surveillance isn't doing the trick to stop these activities. == Local politician refuses to answer questions -This was a sad announcement. For the last event, the organisers had sought +This was a sad announcement. For the last event, the organizers had sought contact with a local politician who deals with the surveillance cameras. They had arranged this many weeks in advance, and the original answer was positive. -Sadly, shortly before the actual meetup, this person informed the organisers +Sadly, shortly before the actual meetup, this person informed the organizers they will not be attending due to the political circumstances. This circumstance was the upcoming elections. The person did not want to answer @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ aspect of a healthy democracy, and this politician seems to be actively working against this. In his last message, there was a possibility of having a Q&A session with them -after the elections happened. The organisers of the event showed interest in +after the elections happened. The organizers of the event showed interest in taking them up on their offer, and would make announcements if they could reach an agreement (once more). If this happens, I will surely attend and request more information about his reasoning. From 167f3f81666495c3dc905f5299500dae75647fc1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ShadowM00n <36942155+ShadowM00n@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:28:50 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] Minor grammatical corrections See above --- _articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc | 30 +++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc b/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc index 8c25e92..4de50f1 100644 --- a/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc +++ b/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc @@ -19,25 +19,25 @@ depth. This article is intended to give a more thorough overview of my arguments against some of the popular arguments in favor of more surveillance cameras in -the city of 's Hertogenbosch. +the city of Den Bosch. == Raising awareness First off, I think it's a great initiative to raise awareness on political issues like this, which are rarely discussed in a proper fashion by the -politicians themselves. What surprised me during all the meetups, I was one of -the youngest, if not the youngest attendee out of the crowd. Most of the -attendees were people of 40 years or older, which seems like politics (or -specifically politics about privacy) are not interesting for the new generation -of voters. +politicians themselves. What surprised me during all the meetups was that I was +one of the youngest, if not the youngest attendee in the crowd. Most of the +attendees were people of 40 years or older, which makes it seem like politics +(or specifically politics about privacy) are not interesting for the new +generation of voters. -Having tried to raise this issue with friends, family members and online, I can +Having tried to raise this issue with friends, family members, and online, I can clearly see that there is very little interest in privacy or security with the average citizen. A common answer is "I'm not doing anything wrong" or "I have nothing to hide". == Opening discussion Awareness is great to have, since it opens up the possibilities for discussion. -It's incredibly hard to discuss something that people aren't aware if is even +It's incredibly hard to discuss something that people aren't aware is even happening. I think the first and especially the last meetup did a great job in getting people to discuss their views on the issues. @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ surveillance cameras. I tried to discuss these arguments with him, but he seemed to care very little about the opinions of others, and instead opted to simply restate his first argument. -=== There's no point to stop something that is already happening +=== There's no point in stopping something that is already happening Or, as he said it, "you're trying to stop a flood of water with your hands". I'd like to note the irony of a Dutch person saying you can't stop water, seeing as how the Dutch people have been doing this for quite a while with the @@ -59,9 +59,9 @@ to stop people from doing things which are considered bad. He as a police officer would have a very boring job if his captain said there's no point in trying to stop crime since it's happening already anyway. -The point of a democratic society is that we can vote for things we, as +The point of a democratic society is that we can vote against things we, as citizens, find bad, so policies can be made to stop such practices. This is one -such a "thing". Some people may find it bad, others may say it's a good change. +such thing. Some people may find it bad, others may say it's a good change. But claiming one should just accept it for the sole fact that it's already happening makes very little sense to me. @@ -103,8 +103,8 @@ stop crimes that are happening right in front of their eyes. === More street cameras will stop the production of child porn This was possibly the most egregious of his claims. He reasoned that cameras -keep an eye on both the public life, but also the "hidden" lives of criminals. -And part of the "hidden" crimes they are supposedly solving with the cameras +keep an eye on both the public life and also the "hidden" lives of criminals, +and part of the "hidden" crimes they are supposedly solving with the cameras are the crimes of child prostitution and child porn production. For starters, I highly doubt the cameras will bring insight into "hidden" @@ -134,9 +134,9 @@ they will not be attending due to the political circumstances. This circumstance was the upcoming elections. The person did not want to answer questions on the topic of surveillance, apparently out of fear that it might -influence the results. This bothers me quite a bit, as important information +influence the results. This bothers me quite a bit, as information about policies like this are important to discuss with the politicians, so you -can make a better decision on who to vote for. Transparency is a very important +can make a better decision on whom to vote for. Transparency is a very important aspect of a healthy democracy, and this politician seems to be actively working against this. From 77eb215f65392f66fc701e8a3900b199cc900713 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Patrick Spek Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:51:59 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] Fix up an idiom to be more correct --- _articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc b/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc index 8c25e92..c395b2b 100644 --- a/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc +++ b/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ Secondly, the argument of child porn and prostitutes is, together with terrorism, a very recurring argument by officials as a (or the) reason to add more surveillance. However, there are no statistics on how much of these activities have been thwarted compared to the amount of privacy and freedom we -as civilians had to sacrifice for it. To add salt to the injury, in the United +as civilians had to sacrifice for it. To add salt to the wound, in the United Kingdom, a place where they have quite a lot of camera surveillance already, multiple astonishingly large pedophile networks have been discovered. Victims of these networks say that these crimes are still happening. Clearly, simply