Scroogled (2007)(scroogle.org)
scroogle.org
Scroogled (2007)
http://www.scroogle.org/doctorow.html
57 comments
You can tell this is from 2007 because Google employees are obsessing about what Yahoo! are doing. Today, it would be Facebook.
Or because Google did move out of mainland China and stopped censoring searches in 2010.
This is an important reminder that events do not progress in a straight line.
"This is an important reminder that events do not progress in a straight line"
Yes, Google+ is the intermediate step in the all seeing "identity" service depicted in this story ;)
Yes, Google+ is the intermediate step in the all seeing "identity" service depicted in this story ;)
Or a reminder that sometimes symptoms are misidentified as causes.
(Which is to say: Doctorow seems to have seen being in China as a big step on the way to relaxing "Don't be evil". But perhaps Google was only in China because it had already relaxed on "Don't be evil". And thus staying in China, or even going there initially, was relatively irrelevant to its corporate trajectory.)
(Which is to say: Doctorow seems to have seen being in China as a big step on the way to relaxing "Don't be evil". But perhaps Google was only in China because it had already relaxed on "Don't be evil". And thus staying in China, or even going there initially, was relatively irrelevant to its corporate trajectory.)
[deleted](4)
Of course, the potential (but improbable) implications of up-voting this story should not be lost on anyone.
Or reading it on a Google Chrome browser...
D'oh! Might as well upvote, then - in for a penny, in for a pound.
I guess this is minor, but why does it say 1997 in the title? I can't find the year anywhere in the story or in these comments.
If 1984 were written today, I believe it would read a lot like this. However this one reads remarkably like reality. Good story Mr. Doctorow.
Reality?
Since when have government started using information technology efficiently?
Since when have government started using information technology efficiently?
They haven't. But they do leverage civilian companies who do - for instance, the credit bureaus routinely do what turns out to be police or intelligence surveillance, without specifically meaning to.
If they could make Google do the same, they would.
If they could make Google do the same, they would.
Brings to mind the line "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist." Just because some govt institutions are notoriously bad at IT, doesn't mean that all are. And perhaps those capable, are more than content to let you think they aren't? There are some spooky mother effin agencies out there.
Rickmb makes a good point as well.
Also, I already thought Google had been involved in doing some work with the NSA? I'm too lazy to dig up the sources for it, but I'm pretty sure they're already in bed together.
edit: my bad, this was in reply to dennisgorelik's comment
Rickmb makes a good point as well.
Also, I already thought Google had been involved in doing some work with the NSA? I'm too lazy to dig up the sources for it, but I'm pretty sure they're already in bed together.
edit: my bad, this was in reply to dennisgorelik's comment
The problem is that when government involves private company, the resulting quality of work deteriorates down to typical government work.
One example is fraud prevention. Fraud hurts e-commerce badly, and the government would have been in great position to identify and prosecute fraudsters (fake credit cards etc.).
But government agencies are so inefficient and lazy, that they even discourage sending fraud data to them.
My biggest concern with government abuse of power in airports is not violation of privacy.
It's travelers time and tax payers money wasted for nothing.
One example is fraud prevention. Fraud hurts e-commerce badly, and the government would have been in great position to identify and prosecute fraudsters (fake credit cards etc.).
But government agencies are so inefficient and lazy, that they even discourage sending fraud data to them.
My biggest concern with government abuse of power in airports is not violation of privacy.
It's travelers time and tax payers money wasted for nothing.
Don't confuse the public services (including internal IT used for public services) with the IT governments use to secure their power.
Are you talking about efficiency of Obama's Twitter campaign in 2008 election?
This is true, what we know of the government's use of technology is rather inefficient, but it misses the point. Inefficient does not equal non-invasive. My takeaways from both, 1984 and this article, were not that of an efficient government, but a totalitarian government. Further, I'm less concerned about the things we know about than the things we don't.
Here is one of the edges of reality I'm concerned about (specifically their interaction with AT&T): https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying
Here is one of the edges of reality I'm concerned about (specifically their interaction with AT&T): https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying
Why wiretapping by government is such a concern?
My concern is about government needlessly restricting freedom of people (long lines in airports, unreasonable restrictions of what can be taken on board, interrogations, arrests, shutting down information resources, etc).
Wiretapping by itself does not restrict freedom of people.
Government can be totalitarian without wiretapping.
Total wiretapping can be not totalitarian at all.
My concern is about government needlessly restricting freedom of people (long lines in airports, unreasonable restrictions of what can be taken on board, interrogations, arrests, shutting down information resources, etc).
Wiretapping by itself does not restrict freedom of people.
Government can be totalitarian without wiretapping.
Total wiretapping can be not totalitarian at all.
Because privacy is a form of freedom. It's freedom from prying eyes, freedom to live without worrying about Big Brother's watchful gaze.
Why worry about Big Brother watching me in the first place?
Big Brother watching me actually adds safety to me and adds safety to people doing business with me.
Please don't confuse watching with restricting my actions though. I know quite well why it's bad when government restricts my actions.
Big Brother watching me actually adds safety to me and adds safety to people doing business with me.
Please don't confuse watching with restricting my actions though. I know quite well why it's bad when government restricts my actions.
Why do you suppose that the government might want to watch you, if not to restrict your actions?
There could be 1000 and one reasons for government to watch a person. I'll give you two:
1) Government may consider to give that person a job, but want to verify first that the person is ok for that.
2) Government may suspect that person is doing something bad, so government may want to find out what's really the case.
1) Government may consider to give that person a job, but want to verify first that the person is ok for that.
2) Government may suspect that person is doing something bad, so government may want to find out what's really the case.
1) In what world is this acceptable? Is it okay if I install a keylogger on your machine as part of a job application process?
2) Like watching your search history for terms like "homemade bomb" and putting you on the no-fly list if they find them?
Remember that when you say, "it's okay for the government to do X", you're saying "it's okay for people to do X", because the government is people. And the government is a lot of people, many of whom are good, but some of whom are bad, and others of whom are just plain douchebags.
2) Like watching your search history for terms like "homemade bomb" and putting you on the no-fly list if they find them?
Remember that when you say, "it's okay for the government to do X", you're saying "it's okay for people to do X", because the government is people. And the government is a lot of people, many of whom are good, but some of whom are bad, and others of whom are just plain douchebags.
1) That would depend on the job. For almost all jobs it's not ok.
Besides, keylogger is an extreme thing here, because it's direct way to steal identity (which is very bad).
Let me remind you, that original fiction story implies that information was already available to Google, and Google shared part of that information with Government. Keyloggers weren't part of that picture.
Please also restrain yourself from slippery slope argument. The slope is not slippery. In my view we have more privacy than we really need. That does not mean that privacy is not needed at all. But if we lose a little bit of privacy we are likely to gain more than we would lose.
Now freedom of speech and freedom of flying is a very different story. There is almost no benefit from limiting it, and there is lots to lose.
2) You are mixing up "watching" and "limiting freedom to fly" - something that I explicitly asked not to do. Unreasonable placing on no-fly list is bad. Watching for "risky" search queries is not nearly as bad by itself.
Regarding leaks of collected information from government agencies into hands of bad people - that can be fixed by suing government agencies in case if such leak did happen and it hurt innocent people. Then government agencies should pay for the leak. A lot. And perhaps being dissolved if while losing tax payers money they did not provide enough benefit for the society.
Besides, keylogger is an extreme thing here, because it's direct way to steal identity (which is very bad).
Let me remind you, that original fiction story implies that information was already available to Google, and Google shared part of that information with Government. Keyloggers weren't part of that picture.
Please also restrain yourself from slippery slope argument. The slope is not slippery. In my view we have more privacy than we really need. That does not mean that privacy is not needed at all. But if we lose a little bit of privacy we are likely to gain more than we would lose.
Now freedom of speech and freedom of flying is a very different story. There is almost no benefit from limiting it, and there is lots to lose.
2) You are mixing up "watching" and "limiting freedom to fly" - something that I explicitly asked not to do. Unreasonable placing on no-fly list is bad. Watching for "risky" search queries is not nearly as bad by itself.
Regarding leaks of collected information from government agencies into hands of bad people - that can be fixed by suing government agencies in case if such leak did happen and it hurt innocent people. Then government agencies should pay for the leak. A lot. And perhaps being dissolved if while losing tax payers money they did not provide enough benefit for the society.
1) The distinction between keyloggers and wiretaps is nearly moot. Would you allow me to run a wiretap instead?
When the government can wiretap at will, there is basically no privacy. And I agree that the slope is not slippery, because there is no slope at the bottom. Unfettered government snooping as you seem to support is the bottom. There's no way to have less privacy than none.
2) I dispute your distinction because it's meaningless. Do you believe that the government is or should be unable to act on the intelligence it gathers? If so, why would you support such a pointless waste of money? If not, why do you suppose that you could not be the target of such action?
As for suing, that's missing the point. The damage doesn't go away when you sue. Nor does it stop bad people from being bad. Abused of the system will always happen.
Besides, in your world, what grounds would there be for a suit? You said that free flow of information is a good thing. Why would it be good for someone's private info to flow to the government but not the public?
When the government can wiretap at will, there is basically no privacy. And I agree that the slope is not slippery, because there is no slope at the bottom. Unfettered government snooping as you seem to support is the bottom. There's no way to have less privacy than none.
2) I dispute your distinction because it's meaningless. Do you believe that the government is or should be unable to act on the intelligence it gathers? If so, why would you support such a pointless waste of money? If not, why do you suppose that you could not be the target of such action?
As for suing, that's missing the point. The damage doesn't go away when you sue. Nor does it stop bad people from being bad. Abused of the system will always happen.
Besides, in your world, what grounds would there be for a suit? You said that free flow of information is a good thing. Why would it be good for someone's private info to flow to the government but not the public?
1) Where did you even get that idea of unfettered government snooping?
Did anybody suggest it to you?
2) Government agency should be able to act on the intelligence it gathers. But if that act limits people's freedom without good reason - that agency should be punished for that (cut funding, fire abusing government employee, disassemble agency, send responsible agents to jail - depending on the severity of the violation).
If I'm the only watched, then I would probably lose more than gain. But if everyone is watched then I would probably gain more than lose.
3) I now see where the root of your mistake is. You are assuming, that by giving government more watching power government would become more powerful. But that does not have to be that way.
Let assume that governments need X amount of power to be efficient in law enforcement. Where X = WatchingPower + ActingPower.
That means that if we keep government power at X and increase WatchingPower, then ActingPower of government would decrease. That's what I'd like to see happen: government watches more and acts less (avoiding awkward actions).
Would you prefer to take WatchingPower away from government and replace it with dumb ActingPower?
Did anybody suggest it to you?
2) Government agency should be able to act on the intelligence it gathers. But if that act limits people's freedom without good reason - that agency should be punished for that (cut funding, fire abusing government employee, disassemble agency, send responsible agents to jail - depending on the severity of the violation).
If I'm the only watched, then I would probably lose more than gain. But if everyone is watched then I would probably gain more than lose.
3) I now see where the root of your mistake is. You are assuming, that by giving government more watching power government would become more powerful. But that does not have to be that way.
Let assume that governments need X amount of power to be efficient in law enforcement. Where X = WatchingPower + ActingPower.
That means that if we keep government power at X and increase WatchingPower, then ActingPower of government would decrease. That's what I'd like to see happen: government watches more and acts less (avoiding awkward actions).
Would you prefer to take WatchingPower away from government and replace it with dumb ActingPower?
[deleted]
Why is it bad? I'm interesting in hearing you defend a specific freedom, after seeing you completely disregard the importance of privacy.
If I'm not able to do what I want then I cannot accomplish what I want. That makes my life worse.
Another reason: certain people's actions keep government in check (e.g. speech). If government punish for delivering speech then it removes checks that prevent government from turning into dictatorship.
Privacy works in the opposite direction. Privacy adds barriers to the information flow and decreases our awareness, which causes less informed and less efficient decisions.
Another reason: certain people's actions keep government in check (e.g. speech). If government punish for delivering speech then it removes checks that prevent government from turning into dictatorship.
Privacy works in the opposite direction. Privacy adds barriers to the information flow and decreases our awareness, which causes less informed and less efficient decisions.
This only makes sense if information flows both ways. When one party has significant information about another party, and the second party doesn't have similar information about the first, an imbalance is created that gives the first party power over the second. When I know your secrets, I have power over you. You fear my knowledge, perhaps rightfully so, because your secrets might be enough to destroy your life, or at least cause you significant embarrassment.
When the government engages in widespread privacy violations, they are creating this same kind of power imbalance. You know nothing new about the government, but the government may know many things about you. They may have information tha could greatly embarrass you. They might have information they could use to arrest you, even if you've done nothing wrong or illegal.
This is not an increase in awareness or information flow or efficiency. It is merely an increase in government power.
When the government engages in widespread privacy violations, they are creating this same kind of power imbalance. You know nothing new about the government, but the government may know many things about you. They may have information tha could greatly embarrass you. They might have information they could use to arrest you, even if you've done nothing wrong or illegal.
This is not an increase in awareness or information flow or efficiency. It is merely an increase in government power.
That's a valid argument. The solution - making government more open. Including being open about what kind of information government does collect. Including creating another government agencies that oversee government agencies that collect information about citizens.
As usual there are budget constraints on that system, so even though government would not be limited legally too much about the amount of information it can collect, it still would be pretty limited by the budget, because it's expensive to maintain red tape and keep collected information secure.
In any case, legal system should mostly limit government in how much it can restrict citizens, not in how much information government can collect.
As usual there are budget constraints on that system, so even though government would not be limited legally too much about the amount of information it can collect, it still would be pretty limited by the budget, because it's expensive to maintain red tape and keep collected information secure.
In any case, legal system should mostly limit government in how much it can restrict citizens, not in how much information government can collect.
> Including creating another government agencies that oversee government agencies that collect information about citizens.
Because the solution to government overstepping is government oversight?
> In any case, legal system should mostly limit government in how much it can restrict citizens, not in how much information government can collect.
I don't understand how you can hold this belief. Do you believe that information holds no value, or that it doesn't give the government power to hold the secrets of its populace? Or do you believe that the government cannot be too strong? I'm seriously confused how you can believe that government snooping has no downside.
Because the solution to government overstepping is government oversight?
> In any case, legal system should mostly limit government in how much it can restrict citizens, not in how much information government can collect.
I don't understand how you can hold this belief. Do you believe that information holds no value, or that it doesn't give the government power to hold the secrets of its populace? Or do you believe that the government cannot be too strong? I'm seriously confused how you can believe that government snooping has no downside.
> Because the solution to government overstepping is government oversight?
Yes.
+ Budget limitations.
+ Oversight from the press.
Every action has downside (including watching), but relatively to restricting freedom to act, downside of watching is small.
In addition to that there are significant benefits of efficient watching. Imagine that there is watching device that clearly identifies people who are planning terrorist attack. That significantly simplifies security check in airports and saves everyone time and effort in the process.
Yes.
+ Budget limitations.
+ Oversight from the press.
Every action has downside (including watching), but relatively to restricting freedom to act, downside of watching is small.
In addition to that there are significant benefits of efficient watching. Imagine that there is watching device that clearly identifies people who are planning terrorist attack. That significantly simplifies security check in airports and saves everyone time and effort in the process.
What you are seeing is not something specific to their use of IT, but almost all of their actions that are hampered by politics.
This story is also included in the excellent "With a Little Help" collection:
http://craphound.com/walh/
The free audio versions of the stories are particularly good.
http://craphound.com/walh/
The free audio versions of the stories are particularly good.
I like the reference to China, considering Google recently backing out of there due to these sorts of reasons. Makes me wonder if they'd ever consider doing the same in one of their key markets, such as the US.
I didn't read the short story line at the top there, I actually thought this was a real account then. Coming from the UK none of this applies to the UK so I wouldn't have heard about this initiative if any of it was true.
Good story and could quite easily be true
Good story and could quite easily be true
reminds me of the nine billion names of God: http://365tomorrows.com/09/12/the-nine-billion-names-of-god/
May I point out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God
Nothing to do with Google and I hope that all that are interested can find a copy of the original story which I remember quite well.... even though according to that wiki article it hasn't been republished in the last 45 years.
Nothing to do with Google and I hope that all that are interested can find a copy of the original story which I remember quite well.... even though according to that wiki article it hasn't been republished in the last 45 years.
Of course, the irony of this being hosted on that site is that using Scroogle primarily would result on a suspiciously light Google profile, which would most definitively get yourself marked for further investigation. After all, that's the corollary to "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide".
I couldn't help myself from drawing subtile comparison with 1984. And I loved it.
Particularly the bit about probable cause from statistical anomalies. Oh, we don't indiscriminately go through your records, unless you use TOR, in which case what are you hiding?
The suicide bit is cute. Indeed.