My threat model is against mass surveillance. This is one of the hardest threat models to defend against and to justify, because (at least here in the US), mass surveillance has become normalized. I've heard people directly tell me that "privacy is weird." I'm not here to shoot down the Nothing to hide argument literally labelled on Wikipedia as "a logical fallacy," instead, I want to take my own approach to show just how unnatural mass surveillance is.
Picture this: Your best friend tells you that he heard rumors that someone put cameras in your house and was actively spying on you. That is super creepy, but you brush it off and say that nobody would do that, because who would care that much about you? However, when you get home, you look around and find multiple dozen hidden cameras everywhere. Think about how you're feeling right now, knowing that you're being watched. Even though you know that you're being watched, but have no idea who has been watching you, what they have seen, or how long they've been watching you, it's disillusioning and creepy to find out that what your friend said was true.
Then, you do some digging online and find out that everyone in your neighborhood is also being watched. Oh, it's fine then, right? Suddenly it's much better that you're not alone. No! More surveillance is not a good thing. People fall into the false belief that as long as it's not targeted surveillance or a personal attack that it's suddenly fine, that you will just blend in with the noise. Your data is valuable, and spying in any capacity is NOT normal. Remember: The situation never changed, you are still being watched, you just found out that not only you, but everyone around you is also being spied on.
You still have no idea who is watching you, and it's even worse to find out that it might not just be one person, that anyone can buy this data for cheap. Data like this can be used to stalk you, drain your bank account, read intimate personal texts, rig elections, manipulate you into buying things you never intended to buy, and so much more. This is the state of mass surveillance and it needs to stop. It's not a conspiracy, the dystopia is today.
Mass surveillance is not normal. Privacy also isn't normal: it's a right, instead.
Snowden is and always will be a hero.
Sorry we let you down dude.
Lol there is a ring camera on every door and an Alexa in every home. Mass surveillance is so normal they got "normies" to pay for it monthly.
There is a house that put a Ring camera on their fence... facing nothing but the public sidewalk and the properties of other people. Thankfully, they live on a common path for schoolers to walk home, who happily harass them by ringing it 100 times a day.
I toyed with many ideas, spray paint being one of them, but outdoor cameras such as that are designed to be water resistant and the spray paint would simply bead up and do no damage. It's not my place to force privacy on others, I will just hope that one day they will realize how much of an issue that camera is.
It has significant mental health and social effects, too. We need to start seeing these behaviors by governments and corporations the same way that we see similar actions by abusive people. Stalking and monitoring someone isn't wrong only because a regular individual is the one doing it, it's wrong because it's fundamentally wrong. Such behaviors are designed to intimidate and control someone. It is absolutely unjustifiable on every level.
Just last week, my partner and I were on a long hike. No one was around us so to loosen our muscles we started dancing like goofballs on the trail only to look up and find a drone hovering in the shadows recording us. I was embarrassed, but my partner is a very private person and was really upset. Surveillance is seriously getting out of hand. If things continue in this direction then I wouldn't be surprised if people find a way to use powerful Lazer pointers to burn out cameras.
US northern midwest. That was the first time we had a drone just silently recording us so I am not sure what to make of it.
Didn't know there were drones just wandering around the us. Could it have belonged to a nature photographer? Creepy af for sure
In all honesty, I believe it falls on each of us to educate as much people as possible in the actual dangers of mass surveillance and what are the potential options to minimize it's impact.
For example, I've been advocating for privacy within my family, friends and other acquaintances for years now. Only recently have I managed to get my wife to start caring (some fearmongering was required) and have gotten a friend from church already on track to eliminating Google, Crapple, mainstream social networks and even self hosting. Some people at work have been reaching out to ask me how they can start moving away from the big tech overreach, and now even my kids have gotten their friends on Simplex, which have made some of their parents move to it as well.
Again, it's taken me over 7 years to manage this little, but it's something. If all of us keep doing this, avoiding getting to the point of annoying others (though I've annoyed quite a few persons with this, but whatever) more and more people will start moving in that direction.
Just getting some people to change from chrome to brave, which is one of the easiest things to do without making them change their streamlines, or move to Signal from SMS and WhatsApp, is already making headway.
If we get tired and stop preaching security, the surveillance wins. At least that's how I see it.
Define normal...
If you go by the definition of being the most common thing, the current surveillance capitalist dystopia is literally the new normal.
What you mean is that you feel it shouldn't be normal. And you're right. But sadly, it is now undeniably the norm.
Your heart is in the right place, but relying on what Wikipedia calls a fallacy and on implicit "natural rights" both undermine your argument severely. Your fourth paragraph is far and away the most valuable one.
i talked to people that had a difficulty grasping the concept of "if you delete a post, it might still be stored on the server"
the obscure and closed tech we have makes it hard for laymen to get a true grasp on whats truly happening.
It's normal but people don't like it. Just ask the people you know if they are ok with all the mass surveillance, they don't like it. But it's just too difficult for them to do anything about it. They don't like this "small beginner steps" approach to privacy. They want complete privacy without effort or nothing at all and they don't want to pay for it. It's laughable and sad but that's my experience talking about privacy with people. But the point here i guess is that mass surveillance has been forced on us all. They create a new wonderful technology with lots of use case but then they also add in some mass surveillance on it as well as a bonus.
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from." - Jodie Foster. This quote is referring to social norms, and how what is truly normal is not what is accepted, but what is right.
"Impering" is not a real word,(Fixed) I presume your question is if abnormalities can become new social norms, and what happens when that is the case (thereby creating a paradox within the quote). Abnormalities can become social norms, if given enough shift in social and cultural attitudes. The grim reality is that this is often leveraged in an immoral direction, such as the rise of mass surveillance. True privacy is not a solution either: The thought that privacy leads to an increase in crime is true and cannot be ignored, but removing privacy comes at a cost. Eventually that cost outweighs the benefits of privacy infringement, and we are far past that line. Criminals, however, will always find access to robust privacy; just as they have found access to guns. Removing privacy in the public does nothing but removing protection from those with privacy: governments and criminals alike. Unjust laws only burden the just, as the lawless will not heed them. Privacy is a right, not a privilege to be revoked due to the actions of a few.https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperate
I don't think they used it right (and they're a Spanish speaker, see the little tag?) but the verb they used is a valid English verb.
It was a typo that they later fixed. I didn't see the tag, apologies for that. I didn't intend to come off as harsh.
