Re:What Happens When the Surveillance State Becomes an Affor...
by LeifCarrotson on Sunday March 13, 2016 @02:43PM
(#11278795)
The difference is that you had to have a human physically listening in. Now with the right access, a half-dozen people, and a few thousand dollars, an entire small town could be surveiled.
The fact that it's always been possible doesn't change the fact that it's only recently become practical.
Re:What Happens When the Surveillance State Becomes an Affor...
by coldtea on Sunday March 13, 2016 @04:57PM
(#11279305)
People (even technies) always forget that technology is a multiplier, and a multiplier is an enabler for things that before would be impractical...
That something was already possible "back in the day" doesn't say much, if it was also impractical and costly to perform.
Re:What Happens When the Surveillance State Becomes an Affor...
by maxerickson on Sunday March 13, 2016 @02:52PM
(#11278836)
In a lot of jurisdictions today, any fool with a computer and internet access can listen to the local dispatch channel.
(I came across a link to such a channel when the internet was spectating a manhunt and easily found my local jurisdiction)
Any fool with a scanner could listen in on police, fire, the neigbour's cellphone before GSM, their wireless landline phone, and any number of other things. Almost no one cared. Anyone who did was a tinfoil wearing nutcase.
So whilst I can hope, I doubt much will change. Not enough for things like Signal to become mainstream, or for there to be general pushback against privacy invasion. Now if a few politicians get outed in the inconsistency of their public/private beliefs or an affair or three, perhaps. Though they will probably demand a new phone network for public figures only, with secure encryption and vast cost. :)