Always-on surveillance is the ultimate prison. Foucault articulated this very clearly back in the 70s in Discipline and Punish. You don't need walls, you don't even need guards. You just need an ever-present observer and a fear of being observed doing something 'undesirable'.

Perhaps the genie isn't going back in the bottle, but rolling over and reiterating the 'if you have nothing to hide...' fallacy is not a productive course of action either.

Nowhere did I say anything about "...nothing to hide". I am saying we need to, via legislation, weaken governmental and corporate authority, and increase personal authority so that the data collected cannot be used to harm us. Because the real fantasy here is that there is some way the data is not going to be collected.

If we agree that data will be collected whatever laws we put in place, under the same premises can’t we agree that it will be misused as well ?

Problem with laws to me is that they are only binding to some portion of the actors. Some government actors have a mandate to work around the law, and other organisations have divisions dedicated to avoid triggering these laws. Regulation is only part of the solution.

> What is it that you want to do that these technologies are preventing you from doing

Organizing tea parties without being surveilled and oppressed?

Inviting friends to a meeting, without tech giants knowing about it, and taking actions against said meeting.

Which actions are tech giants taking against people organizing meetings?

Does Google have a goon squad that is busting people's doors down and breaking up meetings? It seems like something like that would be in the news somewhere.

> Which actions are tech giants taking against people organizing meetings?

Feeding the data straight to NSA, which then feeds FBI, which then crashes the party with pepper spray and dogs. Sometimes the Feds can send under-cover agents to join the party, then stirr dissent and division.

See Occupy Wallstreet.

Another example is, tech giants forbid/censor messages (try sending a torrent link with wikileaks data in it to your friends), making your party so small you think no-body is actually interested. But the message is just silently dropped. Spooky eh.

it's a bit like global warming probably. untill it has no obvious effect. but it's too late to do something when goon squad is already knocking.

>What is it that you want to do that these technologies are preventing you from doing?

Please make public all your (accounts,passwords) or at least post publicly all your communication. What is it that you want to do that these actions would preventing you from doing?

The technologies discussed in the article do not record account passwords, nor are there any such technologies proposed that would do so.

Services you use already have a record of your account password (or a hash of it at least). It is necessary in order for you to be able to use the service. You supply your Amazon password to Amazon every time you log in. Are you saying you need to keep it a secret from them?

There is a famous analogy, I forgot the source (maybe Cory Doctorow?): why do you have a door at your toilet? everybody knows what you are doing there.

So I don't need any of your private data. I voluntarily post my own, as concerns my passions. But let me choose what I make public and what I don't. That's the point.

(I don't use Amazon. All my work is public, I use only free software, even at home.)

The article is not talking about recording people on the toilet. It's talking about the surveillance cameras that are placed outside, in public. There is no conceivable way for your actions outdoors, in public, to be private because they are taking place in public.

The article also seems to presume that there is some single source where the data from all these disparate systems is tied together, but no such thing exists afaik.

You know what "the map is not the territory" means, right? That one should not make a confusion between reality and (any form of) bureacracy. Now, technically any interaction a real person has on the net is influenced by the map of the person, i.e. by the classification of that real individual. The classification does not have to be geographically centralized, it is enough that the tags the real individual is blessed with by algorithms can travel effectively with the individual. This is technically possible and it is the root of the problem. So not that _they_ know, but that my interactions with other people are mediated not by the territory, but by the map. Who owns the map owns the territory, this way.

You can see that this is the problem in many places. One of those places which springs to mind is that, for example, Google argues that they are just like any user of the (infrastructure of the) internet. But whenever two individuals interact via anything Google, the communication goes mediated by Google. In a sense it is centralized, and there is a centralized map, even if physically spread between variously located data centers.

There is a conceivable way for actions outdoors to be private. Just roll back the clock a whopping 3 decades. Maybe nosy old Ethel notices when you leave for work in the morning, but she's not tracking your face's position and emotion across the city. Your location and reading history is not being recorded from your cell phone and logged permanently. Would it bother you to send me your exact GPS coordinates right now, or if I dispatched a drone to follow you around at all times the instant you stepped outside your front door, then post the video feed on the internet?

There are multiple billion-dollar companies whose entire business is tying together data from all these disparate systems, e.g. Palantir. There are leaked multiple government programs whose entire purpose is the same, e.g. XKeyscore. Or look at something more general purpose like Splunk, where it is trivial to filter 1TB of logs from different sources and map identifiers.

> What is it that you want to do that these technologies are preventing you from doing?

Have secrets.

>What is it that you want to do that these technologies are preventing you from doing?

It's a spiritual thing. What does it mean if something is private? What do you allow yourself to do if nobody is watching? E.g. do you eat more sloppy when you are in private than in a restaurant?

If everything is public, there is no privacy. This comes with its own spiritual benefits but some people don't like that.