3 ms·

While equal justice before the law is essential, it is well understood that since at least the ancient Greek city states and the Roman Republic, that certain pu

by JackFr 11y ago

While equal justice before the law is essential, it is well understood that since at least the ancient Greek city states and the Roman Republic, that certain public offices are conferred with with special rights, privileges and responsibilities. That lawmakers, in the process of deliberation and legislation have a greater expectation of privacy is arguable, but not unreasonable.

wpietri 11y ago
If they are using them as part of their official duties, then yes, special privileges can be reasonable. But then logically surveillance is one of the things they can't really object to; if they are only doing the business of government, then why shouldn't government know what they're up to?
- JackFr 11y ago
  But they are not doing the business of government, they are determining what the business of government is. And in particular as Congress is a co-equal branch of government to the Presidency. Just as Congress shouldn't ask the GAO Office of Special Investigations to bug the Oval Office, the President should not have the NSA conduct surveillance on members of Congress.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    Sure, but citizens are also determining what the business of government is. "Of the people, by the people, for the people." One could argue that government shouldn't be in the business of wholesale surveillance. One could also argue that the government should be hoovering up everything, because safety (or whatever). But when lawmakers argue for wholesale surveillance of everybody except themselves, I don't think there's any sort of logical consistency there.
- vidarh 11y ago
  > if they are only doing the business of government, then why shouldn't government know what they're up to? The "business of government" is not a single, unified thing. The "business of government" for elected representatives involves debating and deciding when and how to change laws. Part of doing that properly may involve gathering information from people that if they fear surveillance may be unwilling or unable to communicate openly or truthfully. Consider England and Wales (specifically England and Wales, not the UK, as the laws were changed separately for England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland etc.). Consensual gay sex was only made legal in England and Wales in 1967. Surveillance would put anyone gay petitioning their MPs (members of parliament) at risk of legal sanctions up to and including prison and chemical castration if they were to be caught admitting to having had gay sex. For a long time afterwards, they were at risk of being imprisoned for statutory rape if they admitted to having had sex with someone over 16 (the legal age of consent for straight sex now and then), as the age of consent for homosexual sex was set higher. At the same time, MPs had a legitimate interest in hearing exactly from such constituents, whose lives were substantially affected by unfair laws. There are many issues here - not subjecting MPs to scrutiny also allows undue influence from lobbyists, or outright bribes, for examples, so there are tradeoffs both ways. But there are many situations where an elected officials duties to to their constituents may be in jeopardy if their communications are subjected to surveillance or even if people believe they are under surveillance because it creates barriers against effectively petitioning them. To take a more contemporary issue: Imagine if surveillance agencies could legitimately pick up all discussions about cannabis legalisation between constituents and lawmakers and use private admissions to lawmakers of use as evidence against the people involved. As much as it might be inadvisable for people to admit to illegal acts when talking to lawmakers, it is often certainly part of "doing the business of government" for lawmakers to listen to such admissions to get an understanding of their constituents wishes. Something they should be doing more of, not less of.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    Personally, I think the surveillance state is bunk, so I agree with your basic thrust here. But I still think the notion that elected representatives alone deserve special surveillance exceptions makes no sense. Representatives represent. If they can't do their work fairly while being recorded, then citizens can't either. Sure, you should be able to talk to your elected reps about how they should vote on cannabis. But if you can't talk to your friends, family, neighbors, and colleagues about an issue, then you may not even know why you should talk to your representatives or what to say.
    - legel 11y ago
      There's a great book called The Circle by Dave Eggers that features a scenario with representatives also under constant surveillance. It wasn't painted to be too pretty. But I would agree that accountability in the face of "corruption from special interests" is one of the greatest issues in government.
legel 11y ago
This historical wisdom is very interesting. I'd be happy to hear more about the arguments in favor of it. But also, keep in mind there is no precedent for one factor that is perhaps critical to today's and tomorrow's power dynamics: information technology. The intelligence community today has radically expanded its powers, for better and for worse, because of its ability to monitor and consider (i.e. A.I.) so much more. This is actually one of the most concerning factors for me, because historically we know humans can be absolutely brutal to each other, and perhaps inevitably so, given bad contexts. Hence, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Just imagine replacing the word "papers" for "data".) I would be pleased to see better oversight by Congress of the intelligence community, just as the opposite is also happening.

by JackFr 11y ago

wpietri 11y ago

If they are using them as part of their official duties, then yes, special privileges can be reasonable. But then logically surveillance is one of the things they can't really object to; if they are only doing the business of government, then why shouldn't government know what they're up to?

JackFr 11y ago
But they are not doing the business of government, they are determining what the business of government is. And in particular as Congress is a co-equal branch of government to the Presidency. Just as Congress shouldn't ask the GAO Office of Special Investigations to bug the Oval Office, the President should not have the NSA conduct surveillance on members of Congress.
- wpietri 11y ago
  Sure, but citizens are also determining what the business of government is. "Of the people, by the people, for the people." One could argue that government shouldn't be in the business of wholesale surveillance. One could also argue that the government should be hoovering up everything, because safety (or whatever). But when lawmakers argue for wholesale surveillance of everybody except themselves, I don't think there's any sort of logical consistency there.
vidarh 11y ago
> if they are only doing the business of government, then why shouldn't government know what they're up to? The "business of government" is not a single, unified thing. The "business of government" for elected representatives involves debating and deciding when and how to change laws. Part of doing that properly may involve gathering information from people that if they fear surveillance may be unwilling or unable to communicate openly or truthfully. Consider England and Wales (specifically England and Wales, not the UK, as the laws were changed separately for England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland etc.). Consensual gay sex was only made legal in England and Wales in 1967. Surveillance would put anyone gay petitioning their MPs (members of parliament) at risk of legal sanctions up to and including prison and chemical castration if they were to be caught admitting to having had gay sex. For a long time afterwards, they were at risk of being imprisoned for statutory rape if they admitted to having had sex with someone over 16 (the legal age of consent for straight sex now and then), as the age of consent for homosexual sex was set higher. At the same time, MPs had a legitimate interest in hearing exactly from such constituents, whose lives were substantially affected by unfair laws. There are many issues here - not subjecting MPs to scrutiny also allows undue influence from lobbyists, or outright bribes, for examples, so there are tradeoffs both ways. But there are many situations where an elected officials duties to to their constituents may be in jeopardy if their communications are subjected to surveillance or even if people believe they are under surveillance because it creates barriers against effectively petitioning them. To take a more contemporary issue: Imagine if surveillance agencies could legitimately pick up all discussions about cannabis legalisation between constituents and lawmakers and use private admissions to lawmakers of use as evidence against the people involved. As much as it might be inadvisable for people to admit to illegal acts when talking to lawmakers, it is often certainly part of "doing the business of government" for lawmakers to listen to such admissions to get an understanding of their constituents wishes. Something they should be doing more of, not less of.
- wpietri 11y ago
  Personally, I think the surveillance state is bunk, so I agree with your basic thrust here. But I still think the notion that elected representatives alone deserve special surveillance exceptions makes no sense. Representatives represent. If they can't do their work fairly while being recorded, then citizens can't either. Sure, you should be able to talk to your elected reps about how they should vote on cannabis. But if you can't talk to your friends, family, neighbors, and colleagues about an issue, then you may not even know why you should talk to your representatives or what to say.
  - legel 11y ago
    There's a great book called The Circle by Dave Eggers that features a scenario with representatives also under constant surveillance. It wasn't painted to be too pretty. But I would agree that accountability in the face of "corruption from special interests" is one of the greatest issues in government.

legel 11y ago

This historical wisdom is very interesting. I'd be happy to hear more about the arguments in favor of it. But also, keep in mind there is no precedent for one factor that is perhaps critical to today's and tomorrow's power dynamics: information technology. The intelligence community today has radically expanded its powers, for better and for worse, because of its ability to monitor and consider (i.e. A.I.) so much more. This is actually one of the most concerning factors for me, because historically we know humans can be absolutely brutal to each other, and perhaps inevitably so, given bad contexts. Hence, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Just imagine replacing the word "papers" for "data".) I would be pleased to see better oversight by Congress of the intelligence community, just as the opposite is also happening.