International day of protest against surveillance Oct 11

Tom sez, "An international protest against undue surveillance is being held next month on the 11th of October. It is 'a broad movement of campaigners and organizations is calling on everybody to join action against excessive surveillance by governments and businesses'. We need to get this on the radar for the elections in the USA this year, the EU parliamentary elections next year and many more."

Surveillance mania is spreading. Governments and businesses register, monitor and control our behaviour ever more thoroughly. No matter what we do, who we phone and talk to, where we go, whom we are friends with, what our interests are, which groups we participate in - "big brother" government and "little brothers" in business know it more and more thoroughly. The resulting lack of privacy and confidentiality is putting at risk the freedom of confession, the freedom of speech as well as the work of doctors, helplines, lawyers and journalists.

The manifold agenda of security sector reform encompasses the convergence of police, intelligence agencies and the military, threatening to melt down the division and balance of powers. Using methods of mass surveillance, the borderless cooperation of the military, intelligence services and police authorities is leading towards the construction of "Fortresses" in Europe and on other continents, directed against refugees and different-looking people but also affecting, for example, political activists, the poor and under-priviledged, and sports fans.

People who constantly feel watched and under surveillance cannot freely and courageously stand up for their rights and for a just society. Mass surveillance is thereby threatening the fabric of a democratic and open society. Mass surveillance is also endangering the work and commitment of civil society organizations.

International Action Day "Freedom not fear - Stop the surveillance mania!" on 11 October 2008 (Thanks, Tom!)

• [Baldhead]

  There would be a vast difference between telling everyone who you are, and them knowing without your consent. Which I think is the point here.

  Me, I oppose the waste involved in the mass surveillance system. The amount of resources used in the UK for example to very little effect in terms of stopping crime. I think there must be more effective methods.

• [Takuan]

  I have to agree with you James. Bat21: what you did could be considered a deliberate attack, not just illustrating a point.

• [Jake0748]

  James, no need for the hesitant quotes. I don’t find the word dick to be particularly offensive to men. Its a good insult.

  Bat21 may or may not BE a dick, we have no way of knowing. But he certainly is ACTING like one.

• [Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator]

  Bat21, please don’t do that.

  Mindy-san, good comment. The signature line is unnecessary, though.

• [jamesgyre]

  @#37… mindysan… and all others concerned about obama/biden.

  it’s really simple…

  Obama is not perfect. Biden promotes some wackness.

  this is abundantly clear…

  but not voting for Obama IS voting for McCain.

  BUT JOHN MCCAIN IS OVERTLY EVIL IN ALMOST EVERY WAY!

  sorry, but it’s true. again:

  not voting for Obama IS voting for McCain.

  stupid system? yes. lesser of two evils? yes.

  not voting for Obama IS voting for McCain.

• [cajunfj40]

  Takuan @#32: A question for those who feel safe because they have nothing to hide from their current government:

  I don’t exactly feel safe, nor do I feel I have “nothing to hide” from the gov’t, but one other argument that’s been made (and even by my own self), is that I’m too *boring* to be of any special interest to the gov’t. Given that I am a citizen in the US, and that I’m pretty “average”, I know there are any number of things that could be dug up that are either law violations or “potentially embarrassing” if brought to light – but by being “average”, there’s nothing sticking out that would call gov’t attention to myself.

  Is this the same argument as the “nothing to hide” crowd? I’m not fond of their argument, and if I’m only using a variant (even if only to myself) I need to rethink it.

  As for your question:
  What will you feel if that government changes to one you don’t like – and won’t like you?

  I already don’t like them. If they take an *active dislike* (or, it could be argued, just a more noticeable active dislike) to me personally, or to my family/gender/skin color/socioeconomic class/#other category name to which I belong, that could change the cost-benefit ratio quite a bit towards the “get out of Dodge/get a new identity” end of the spectrum.

• [jamesgyre]

  oh and takuan, thanks for the link to the letter (#4)… i’ll post it around soon…

  and thanks for the support people… (and the devoweling, theresa) that seemed really aggressive and wrong.

• [Takuan]

  we all come from somewhere.

• [imipak]

  Hmmm, 11th October is three days before the snap Canadian general election Stephen Harper just called…

• [ill lich]

  “I scan the crowds until I see someone who is obviously insane
  and then I follow that person until they go into a building or get into a car
  in order to make sure that they dont do anything crazy.”

  – MC 900-foot Jesus

• [Takuan]

  In the case of the USA, recent legislation hidden in the “Heroes Bill” will confiscate your property at the border if you try to leave.

  As to the “blending in with the other working schmoos”, yes – but when a government tips into full tyranny it becomes necessary to process a certain percentage of “criminals” to justify and feed the system. Even if you break no law, belong to no group etc. you could be selected at random at any time. If the population grows so homogeneous (visible differences like skin, openly professed religion etc. already eliminated), then synthetic divisions are created. Consider Cambodia under Pol Pot. Wearing eyeglasses earned a trip to the killing fields.

• [querent]

  @ 1 Check out Biden. He offered an early version of the Patriot Act back in 1995. When this one came around he said, “This was MY bill!”, or something like that.

  I’m in.

  How bout we coordinate informative flyers on public key cryptology et all.? I’m gonna

• [Duffong]

  I hate the folks to say, well if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. Screw that. I have nothing to hide nor fear, but I also happen to hate it when someone’s reading what I’m reading over my shoulder. It’s just rude. And that’s what’s wrong with surveillance.

• [0xdeadbeef]

  Why do people like Bat21 exist?

  I’m not sure whether he is praising the surveillance society, or if he is admonishing someone for not hiding behind this fragile anonymity as he does, but either way, it is pathetic.

  Is he willfully submissive to the snooping eyes of government, or merely a coward in the face of its power over him?

  Come on, Bat21, if you’re still here, explain yourself. Don’t worry, I can read without vowels.

• [trueblue2]

  27: Not to mention that while you may think your information is benign, there is no predicting how the surveillor might interpret it and what action they may or may not take against you as a result.

• [0xdeadbeef]

  @27: Like the disappeared in Argentina had nothing to fear?

  Blanket surveillance is not about privacy. It’s about the threat of a government that can instantly identify and categorize people in a thousand different ways, none of them having anything to do with crime.

• [lgagnon]

  October 11 is also the day that the National Assembly to End the Iraq War and Occupation has chosen to hold this year’s national anti-war protests. I think this anti-surveillance protest might be a bit mistimed. Then again, if they are willing to merge into the anti-war protests, that might work out fine.

• [Takuan]

  A question for those who feel safe because they have nothing to hide from their current government: What will you feel if that government changes to one you don’t like – and won’t like you? Do you think they won’t use the machinery they inherit any way they see fit?

• [ill lich]

  The argument that “you don’t have anything to be afraid of if you’re not doing anything wrong” is like saying “what do you care if someone is watching you all the time, as long as you’re not naked.”

  We all have something to hide, even so-called law-and-order-family-values Republicans, just ask Larry Craig or David Vitter.

• [cam295]

  This is also National Coming Out Day. I get to rejoice in being open about who I am, and at the same time I protest the idea that people find out who I am without my consent! w00t!

• [brownbat]

  @Takuan:

  “What will you feel if that government changes to one you don’t like…?”

  You’re right that we shouldn’t be naive, but if we assume bad faith on the part of the government, then doesn’t every policy look miserable? I mean, if the government must be one that I don’t like, then I’d much prefer the cops rode around on Penny Farthings and were armed only with whistles and disapproving scowls.

  On the other hand, Cam brings up a good point, I’d hate to see anyone outed except on their terms.

  I’m not quite pro-surveillance, I’m just a bit lukewarm. Why can’t we ever have a “Sedate Cost Benefit Analysis of Regulations Day?” C’mon everybody, wouldn’t that be fun?

• [Takuan]

  Dear Brownbat:

  Assume incompetence if not outright bad faith. An exercise: Think of yourself. Think objectively of your failings and shortcomings – go ahead, no one else can see, be brutally honest. Now think of yourself on your very worst day. Would you trust you? Now take that value and divide by ten to account for government unaccountability, institutional inertia, the dead hand of history, the wretched treachery of the universe in general and the fact that even if you are only of average intelligence, half the people in the country are stupider than you. Got that number? THAT is how far you should trust your government.

  (I wish to further append that I would never hurt a bat, even a rabid one, quiet, useful, unassuming creatures that they are)

• [insomma]

  James, what are you trying to say exactly? :)

• [jamesgyre]

  obama isn’t perfect on this (see fisa), but he’s a lot less scary in terms of his police state ambitions than mccain is. this is a guy who thinks bush’s policies have been peachy-fucking-keen.

  i’ve been compiling a list of mccain’s b.s., lies and insanities here. it’s ever-growing (and it’s hard to keep up with all the lies and misinformation), so add to it if i’m missing anything.

  for the record, i know other versions of this are being made… if you know of any, let me know, i’ll link to them/expand mine. fuel for the future, people… don’t let that lobbyist puppet or his evil henchwoman get near the controls!

• [Anonymous]

  I’ll be watching this event really closely!

• [Jake0748]

  I’m in.

• [Takuan]

  support letter URL
  http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Freedom_Not_Fear_2008/Letter_Supporter

• [SleighBoy]

  @Jamesgyre:
  Biden came right out and said he wants more police on the streets. Or does he mean good, rational police and not the ones with itchy tazer fingers and short tempers..he must mean the rational ones because he is in the Democratic party.

  At 1:25:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZaUDKejZ_g

  On the fundamentals the two major party candidates are basically identical. At least Obama/Biden are coming right out and letting us know how much the same they are. McCain keeps up his front of BS, which is sickening.

• [bat21]

  Hw t mntn yr prvcy -
  Stp n:
  Dn’t pst stff ll vr th ntrnt sng yr rl nm.
  < hrf="http://prfl.myspc.cm/ndx.cfm?fsctn=sr.vwprfl&frndd=#####" rl="nfllw">Jms Gyr’s MySpc pg
  < hrf="http://www.blggr.cm/prfl/#####" rl="nfllw">Jms Gyr’s Blggr pg
  < hrf="http://schlfvrythng.cm/tchr/jmsgyr" rl="nfllw">Jms Gyr’s prfl t Schl f vrythng
  < hrf="http://prfls.frndstr.cm/#####" rl="nfllw">Jms Gyr’s Frndstr prfl

  fnd t ntrstng tht th ppl wh cmpln bt gvrnmnt srvllnc th mst r th ns wh’v lrdy thrwn thr prvcy wy fr n rsn.

• [Marcel]

  You know what?! Let them monitor and control my behaviour. I only have one, single condition. That we, the people, are equaly allowed to monitor and control every move of our government representatives and institutions.
  I want a CCTV camera hooked to the Internet registering every meeting, every conversation, every deal made with whoever, every interrogation room. I want your phone conversations made available to the people.
  You wanna know about me? Fine. Then I wanna know about you.
  Only then would I feel a lot safer.

• [jphilby]

  Scientific American’s September issue is largely devoted to technological threats to privacy:

  http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/?contents=2008-09

  The RFID story alone is likely to give most of us serious pause.

• [Man On Pink Corner]

  #5: Gee, you think the voluntary nature of those particular disclosures might have some impact on the question?

• [Phikus]

  JAKE@2: As am I. Hopefully it will be a day to rival or surpass 02-15-03, and hopefully with greater impact. Thanks BB for the head’s up.

• [mindysan33]

  Hi Teressa- Sorry, force of habit!

  Takuan @36- Again brilliant, as always. I’ve been thinking about this in regards to Obama. He voted for the Fisa bill, and he seems to be saying that we can trust him with these new powers that the executive has carved out of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. While I lean more towards him, I still don’t trust him with those powers. I think that people want to make this into a partisan issue (if the democrats just get in power it will be okay, cause they will be responsible), but it really isn’t. It’s about what powers the government should or shouldn’t have over our lives. This isn’t about W and Darth “Cheney” Vader spying into our private lives, trying to sniff out traitors- but about the government spending time keep tabs on us. Plus don’t forget the role of corporations which now have access to vast amounts of personal data, which they often don’t purge. But this doesn’t have to be about evil per se, but more about incompetence and paternalism. I think Takuan hits the nail on the head with this line: “Assume incompetence if not outright bad faith.” Yep.

• [bat21]

  @ Man on Pink Corner,

  Nope.

• [Anonymous]

  I totally agree with Marcel, we have to pretty much accept that society is going to be more transparent in the future, technology will make it so, and it is probably a good thing. However, that condition should be applied equally across the board (particularly with Government funded surveillance). Who watches the people watching us…we do! The is a Facebook group for this here

  http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=21045744467&ref=ts

• [Baldhead]

  To back up Takuan @32:

  This would be the central dillemma in the old Squadron Supreme miniseries. Yes we are good people who will use behaviour modification to good effect. But what about the next bunch who may not be good people?

• [mindysan33]

  Hi Bat21-

  I think that man on pink corner has a good point. It’s one thing to have a public persona or whatever. On some level its the nature of our modern society. Many of us have left digital trails of our lives. But that should be up to us to do so. I too have a trail online, but am going into a profession which might include a public face outside of whatever university I end up at in the nebulous future (since my topic I think has cross over appeal to a non-academic audience). Also, what about musicians, artist, actors and the like, who most definetly have a public face by nature of their jobs? Should they all go residents? I agree that it’s a big difference putting yourself out there and being surveilled by the government. That being said, being public online makes things much easier for them doesn’t it? That’s certainly an argument against doing so because of that. But should we have to worry about that, I think is the question. Where should a public face online begin and end? I think on some level, we are all still feeling these things out in regards to the new communications methods. I’m curious what you guys all think is the best way to walk this line…

  I’ll go protest if anyone round here sets one up. Maybe I should…?

  Mindy

• [Lilorfnannie]

  “What? You say all these surveillance measures are taking away your rights and freedoms? You say things are starting to closely resemble “1984″? You say your elections are stolen, your guns are registered, and your Constitutional rights have been done away with, even Habeas Corpus? You say you DON’T want FEMA camps for “terrorists”, or a North American Union? OH! My bad! Certainly, I agree with you- we have too much power entirely. Here, lets set about dismantling this behemoth right away!”

• [jamesgyre]

  @bat 21…

  first off, james gyre ISN’T MY REAL NAME

  second off, if there is a problem with that, thank you for “making it a lot worse” by posting a set of my personal pages…

  what are you hoping to achieve by this?

  “dick”

• [jamesgyre]

  @4 sleighboy…

  you are absolutely right about biden wanting more cops on the streets. personally i’m more put off by the RAVE act, but you can cherry pick legislation from most legislators careers, especially those as long as bidens.

  for some historical perspective on his interest in police, the “violent crie and law enforcement act” which is biden’s main police legislation, was made in 1994 in response to a lot of high profile street murders. it’s a troubling law, but it includes things like the violence against women act, which isn’t bad in itself.

  i’m not trying to excuse his ignorance abut how the bandaid of more police actually serves as an oppressive force, but more just that it’s important to keep historical perspective, realize the role compromise plays in getting any laws past, and understand that biden does amazingly well on many of his other positions, like education, the environment and unions, even if he is a dufus on other issues like the RIAA. i mean, compare this guy’s record to mccain’s.

• [Anonymous]

  I’d be interested in seeing these protests. Will they have webcams set up so that we can view them on line?

• [jamesgyre]

  @ myself #13

  by the way, i find the use of the word “dick” offensive to men, and repulsive, hence the hesitant quotes… the tone just summed up my feelings about bat21′s snarky shortness… like his very illuminating response (#10) to man on pink corner’s question. it’s one thing to be right, which may yet be the case here, and it’s another to be a “dick”.

• [brownbat]

  I ask, “If we assume bad faith on the part of the government, then doesn’t every policy look miserable?”

  Takuan responds, “We should assume bad faith on the part of the government.”

  Point and match to you, my insistent friend. Know, for my part, I shall think no ill will towards daikons.