All I see are broad defeatist statements. I’m more curious about actual reasons, technical or otherwise that prevent proactive legislation from being passed. nostr:note1cxacam68v2khks6kykrt5n4ca55qnrsgt8drwf5tm0y2428dp43s96hcv9
Discussion
Most people including legislators are actually intimidated by freedom tech as they will perceive they lose control of their constituents. Most citizens are too happy to call the authorities for any freedoms taken that they don’t like.
Maybe ask Peter Thiel? He spends a lot more time on these matters.
There was a moment I felt more open to political solutions and then I saw up close how political powers work (my partner was very active in political campaigns). It left a nasty taste and combine that with the power of the surveillance industry, it’s hard not to feel defeatist.
Do you have any ideas?
I tried to add something of value.
Most can't see outside the box or like to complain more than offer imperfect solutions.
My personal take on this is, that we cannot count on governments and legislation to stop surveillance (why should a government want this?), the responsibility to stop it lies in the hands of tech people to build and educate the users about alternatives and in the hands of the users to actually USE those alternatives.
Not many alternatives to cameras on every corner and on fedex trucks
Oh there is, a very old one: Boycott
Granted, if its only a minority it will do nothing, but if companies that use FedEx are shunned by many it will have an effect.
Right but I also don’t think of this as a very effective method. People hardly have time to disrupt their lives for x y z cause. It’s probably what the corrupt politicians rely on because they know we’re too complacent. This feels like bringing a knife to a gun fight … just why?
Yeah, you are right, normally people are too occupied with, well, "just keep going" to fight for a cause, but this can change. I remember back in the time after the Snowden leaks there was a very strong push - even by normal people - for defense against surveillance. I remember how many coworkers and friends started to ask what they could do for more privacy...
But with other news and other problems this all fizzled out after months to years. I guess we will have to push the matter ever more in the focus to keep up with the ever shrinking attention span of the general population.
Yeah, its like good old Sisyphus... but I think its the only tool we have.
If it were important to a majority of voters, it would be outlawed. Politicians would bend to whatever will keep their seat.
The problem is Bob. Bob simply doesn't know or care about surveillance tech.
Bob cares that his TV knows what time he gets home and automatically turns on so he can watch "Ow! My Balls!" Bob cares that his refrigerator tells him he's out of beer.
Bob doesn't care HOW the TV or the fridge does that. If he did, we wouldn't need Daddy Gov to outlaw it because Bob wouldn't buy it in the first place.
It's just always Bob. Bob posts to Nostr with his iPhone using a free VPN that sponsors a youtuber.
I’m sure it’s part of it but can’t be the entire reason. I’m pretty sure someone in position of power is aware of all of these issues.
Yes, but Bob will vote for them whether or not they outlaw facial recognition on a FedEx truck. Bob will vote for them because he likes abortion, or hates gambling, or whatever. Bob isn't angry about telematics in his car. Nobody told him to care about that. Always Bob.
Still doesn’t explain away any values already possessed by the elected person.
That's true. I want to believe SOMEBODY in gov will fight for my right to privacy. I don't think they have any integrity left, though. I think getting to that position breaks them, assuming they were good people in the first place. Don't forget that Bob is in politics, also.
Maybe it's just statistics. I've never met a person in real life who really gets fired up about this stuff. They'd have to exist AND be informed AND reach a position of political power AND have a couple hundred peers who did the same thing. No chance.
I guess I better research what passing legislation entails. That’s more likely to give me some concrete answers. I refuse to believe every elected person is “broken”.
Just find a local representative, schedule a meeting, tell them how important this is, and get them to commit to outlawing these invasive practices. Start small, somebody at the community level. Let me know how that goes.
For bonus points, find any random person on the street and convince them to pay for a Proton subscription. If they do it, tell them to run for political office. 😂
I promise I'm not trying to be a doomer, it's just a dark reality. On the bright side, we CAN de-Bob them sometimes and shift the odds a little.
In well aware that people generally don’t care, too busy or feel powerless when it comes to influencing legislative outcomes. This is precisely my point earlier that the rules are not in our favor and I’d rather not play by the rules.
Well if we're cheating, then we give a GrapheneOS phone loaded with Tor, VPN, eSIM, SimpleX, Amethyst, etc. to the most corrupt piece of crap we can find. They'll tell all their crooked friends how great it is to not get caught being crooked and it'll spread like wildfire. 😂
For the same reason you can't stop the signal:
The tech exists. It provides utility to those who would use it. It also provides control, which many humans value even if it's mostly a fallacy.
The people in the government creating the legislation serve the people that want surveillance. It’s really very simple. The current structure of government is prone to a lot of corruption.
This feels very handweavy. No doubt true to some extent; but cannot be the complete answer.
You can’t outlaw something on a state level that the state has a limitless ambition to have… you can only control what you do with surveillance tech
I don’t think this is true. Many things are limited by law at a state level - tobacco, gun control, alcohol, plastic bans, emissions control to name a few.
I’m not saying individual states, but government in general… although at city level, governments are now allowed to access doorbell cameras “for your protection” through some manufacturers… but also what you are talking about are limits the state sets, the state doesn’t want to limit surveillance, especially corporate surveillance… corporate surveillance isn’t limited by constitutional limits and if data is for sale, the state will buy it. Most surveillance tech is also marketed to people as “smart tech” and they tell us how much easier it will make life… unfortunately they’ve also made it harder and harder to avoid smart tech
People are giving you the explanation: that the political system self-selects for corrupt people who serve the same masters. There is no way in unless you do, and if you somehow manage to do it, then you have to fight everybody else. So the corruption self-perpetuates.
You just don't like the explanation and ask people to give you another one, but there isn't.
The response I see are more arm chair expert than anything believable. I don’t blame people for providing these viewpoints - many of which I am sure are accurate to some degree; I just don’t think the reality is this simple. Will study further, just not on nostr.
You don't need to be a scholar to see how the political system works both in "representative democracy" regimes and even worse in others.
It's evident and transparent, in large measure because the corrupt elites have become so powerful and emboldened that they hardly even care to hide anymore, even in our "democracies".
Have you read Fredrick Bastiat? the first question of any legislation should be, "Is this the proper role of the law?" If you did outlaw it, would it stop the tech from being used?
From where I stand, if the tech exists, it will be used.
But it doesn't sound like you're asking about the tech as much as you're asking about it's usage. Outlawed for who, Citizens or Government?
I don't know how things go in most states, but the legislature here has managed to pass some things like banning license plate readers on traffic lights & recognizing data as property. I think it simply comes down to the mindset of the population that votes in their representatives. A lot of people don't know, don't care, or feel unsafe in some way.
You might find this informative:
https://freemansperspective.com/the-new-age-of-intelligence/