> Despite this, it hasn't been abused nearly as much as it could be.
Yes, because a few decades ago a total surveilance of a population would have needed a signifikant part of the population to do the surveilance or base your surveilance on statistical chance. If you ever get the chancs to inform yourself about the way the GDR/Stasi watched its citizens before the fall of the Berlin Wall, go for it.
I previously described the recent technological advances as a shift of the above-mentioned ratio: Never in history could a dictator know more of the communications of all his citizens with less people being in on it. Never before in history could a dictator pretend the populus was on his side with less people then now.
These changed ratios already altered the face of politics, and I am pretty sure this wasn't it.
And for your grandma example: Metadata isn't encrypted nearly anywhere. If your grandmas network looks as if she makes a special, explosive kind of dough (or this ever gets mentioned anywhere), the timing of your message and whom you are sending it to might be enough for them to send you to a secret prison without due process. Correctness of such accusations is only a requirement when you don't have absolute powers and dictators will always find someone to blame, otherwise they would look weak.
>Never in history could a dictator know more of the communications of all his citizens
One must be incredibly naive to think only dictators have this capability and not democratically elected governments. Just start a protest and find out just how quickly the government unlocks Godlike surveillance capabilities to be used against you. Hell, even a Tweet might do in places like UK or Germany.
They don't even have to send the police to the streets to beat you up or throw you in a van like in the USSR, they can just debank you like the trucker protestors in Canada and the problem solves itself peacefully.
You are unfavourably reading things into my comment I did not say. Please consider this section of the HN guidelines:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
If someone uses a specific term (dictator), that does not automatically impyly they think the broader term (any government) doesn't apply. If I say "all dogs do eventually die" that does not imply I think that all other animals are immortal. This is basic logic.
And btw. I agree with your statements about democratically elected governments not being immune to abuse of surveilance power.
Yes, because a few decades ago a total surveilance of a population would have needed a signifikant part of the population to do the surveilance or base your surveilance on statistical chance. If you ever get the chancs to inform yourself about the way the GDR/Stasi watched its citizens before the fall of the Berlin Wall, go for it.
I previously described the recent technological advances as a shift of the above-mentioned ratio: Never in history could a dictator know more of the communications of all his citizens with less people being in on it. Never before in history could a dictator pretend the populus was on his side with less people then now.
These changed ratios already altered the face of politics, and I am pretty sure this wasn't it.
And for your grandma example: Metadata isn't encrypted nearly anywhere. If your grandmas network looks as if she makes a special, explosive kind of dough (or this ever gets mentioned anywhere), the timing of your message and whom you are sending it to might be enough for them to send you to a secret prison without due process. Correctness of such accusations is only a requirement when you don't have absolute powers and dictators will always find someone to blame, otherwise they would look weak.