Re:UK spies using social media data for mass surveillance
by anigbrowl on Tuesday October 17, 2017 @07:50PM
(#15495917)
It's kind of rational to do so. I mean, individuals cannot realistically compete with governments who want to oppress them unless they're monumentally stubborn and self-sacrificing, but the various benefits of sharing information on social media has measurable upsides for thema s consumers - they get to meet friends, receive advertising on topics of genuine interest, and so on, which may outweigh the relatively low probability of direct repression.
There's a parallel phenomenon in political behavior that's ably explained in Brian Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter.
You could practice really rigorous security culture and avoid creating any digital footprint worth talking about in the first place, but then you'd be socially isolated to a degree that was economically disadvantageous (economically meaning in multiple contexts besides purely fiscal). And to the degree that you can be socially connected, inferences could still be made about you through the behavior of your friends.
As a crude example, recall that Osama bin Laden's hiding place was determined to be interesting because there was physical traffic of people and goods to the residence, but an uncharacteristic lack of electronic communication for the neighborhood it was situated in. What kind of house has a bunch of people living there and regular visitors, but not internet or phone service?
Finally, people have different kinds of risk calculus. Many people know that they're subject to such surveillance and the ramifications that follow from it, but choose to be who they are anyway despite the risks, on the theory that they'd rather live on their feet than die on their knees.
There's a parallel phenomenon in political behavior that's ably explained in Brian Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter.
You could practice really rigorous security culture and avoid creating any digital footprint worth talking about in the first place, but then you'd be socially isolated to a degree that was economically disadvantageous (economically meaning in multiple contexts besides purely fiscal). And to the degree that you can be socially connected, inferences could still be made about you through the behavior of your friends.
As a crude example, recall that Osama bin Laden's hiding place was determined to be interesting because there was physical traffic of people and goods to the residence, but an uncharacteristic lack of electronic communication for the neighborhood it was situated in. What kind of house has a bunch of people living there and regular visitors, but not internet or phone service?
Finally, people have different kinds of risk calculus. Many people know that they're subject to such surveillance and the ramifications that follow from it, but choose to be who they are anyway despite the risks, on the theory that they'd rather live on their feet than die on their knees.