4 ms·

Well sometimes you cannot tell...

by eva1984 11y ago

bad_user 11y ago
Since when it's better to assume that everybody is guilty?
- eva1984 11y ago
  I won't make a suggestion, because I don't have one. However, I am against the circlejerk that we don't need to change anything to battle the seemingly rising terrorism.
gkoberger 11y ago
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- js2 11y ago
  Here's an interesting historical fact I have dug up in some research for an essay I am writing about the relationship between liberty and security: That famous quote by Benjamin Franklin that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” does not mean what it seems to say. Not at all. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said And maybe it doesn't matter so much what Franklin was actually trying to say because the quotation means so much to us in terms of the tension between government power and individual liberties. But I do think it is worth remembering what he was actually trying to say because the actual context is much more sensitive to the problems of real governance than the flip quotation's use is, often. http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous...
  - thatcat 11y ago
    from npr link: >Far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it's a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation. >It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security.
the8472 11y ago
So if it were bombs instead of surveillance you would bomb the target when you're uncertain about its enemy status? And since we're talking about mass surveillance... I guess carpet bombing?
- superuser2 11y ago
  ... this is an obviously terrible argument. If you surveil someone secretly and then decide not to act on the intelligence, they aren't harmed in any way. They don't even know. The mistakenly assassinated are still dead.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Yes. They. Are. EDIT For example the mere knowledge of surveillance changes how people interact. This has a chilling effect upon speech that is not compatible with a robust democracy.
  - Thriptic 11y ago
    As long as the data is discarded after the fact. People can be harmed if that data is kept and then repurposed in unforseen ways which are harmful to the surveiled non-terrorist.
  - the8472 11y ago
    so you're saying mass surveillance is victimless as long as nobody learns that they specifically have been spied upon?

Well sometimes you cannot tell...

by eva1984 11y ago

Well sometimes you cannot tell...

bad_user 11y ago

Since when it's better to assume that everybody is guilty?

eva1984 11y ago
I won't make a suggestion, because I don't have one. However, I am against the circlejerk that we don't need to change anything to battle the seemingly rising terrorism.

gkoberger 11y ago

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

js2 11y ago
Here's an interesting historical fact I have dug up in some research for an essay I am writing about the relationship between liberty and security: That famous quote by Benjamin Franklin that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” does not mean what it seems to say. Not at all. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said And maybe it doesn't matter so much what Franklin was actually trying to say because the quotation means so much to us in terms of the tension between government power and individual liberties. But I do think it is worth remembering what he was actually trying to say because the actual context is much more sensitive to the problems of real governance than the flip quotation's use is, often. http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous...
- thatcat 11y ago
  from npr link: >Far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it's a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation. >It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security.

the8472 11y ago

So if it were bombs instead of surveillance you would bomb the target when you're uncertain about its enemy status? And since we're talking about mass surveillance... I guess carpet bombing?

superuser2 11y ago
... this is an obviously terrible argument. If you surveil someone secretly and then decide not to act on the intelligence, they aren't harmed in any way. They don't even know. The mistakenly assassinated are still dead.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Yes. They. Are. EDIT For example the mere knowledge of surveillance changes how people interact. This has a chilling effect upon speech that is not compatible with a robust democracy.
- Thriptic 11y ago
  As long as the data is discarded after the fact. People can be harmed if that data is kept and then repurposed in unforseen ways which are harmful to the surveiled non-terrorist.
- the8472 11y ago
  so you're saying mass surveillance is victimless as long as nobody learns that they specifically have been spied upon?