4 ms·

Given the track record which is more likely to be effective? Continuing to wish for common sense and latitude in our public officials or protecting yourself fr

by ytinas 17y ago

Given the track record which is more likely to be effective? Continuing to wish for common sense and latitude in our public officials or protecting yourself from their normal behavior?

nostrademons 17y ago
Honestly, in my experience - wishing for common sense and latitude in public officials. I know its fun to rag on public officials on Internet forums. But most of the ones I know have been fairly decent people who are just doing their jobs. There're a few bad apples, but there're a few bad apples in any population. Even the TSA officials (which gets my vote for "worst government bureaucracy") were very apologetic when they confiscated my toothpaste. I think that you're more likely to get absurd institutional behavior - like confiscating toothpaste - when you deny latitude in employee judgment. The TSA screeners have this massive rulebook that they have to follow, and they risk losing their job when they deviate from it, even if they personally believe the rules are stupid. Same with the private sector. Companies that have the best reputations tend to be those that empower their employees to solve the customer's problem, like Virgin or Nordstroms. Companies with the worst reputations tend to be those where the employees can't do anything but follow the playbook, like most telecoms.
- scotty79 17y ago
  That's exactly what I'm talking about. Silly laws exist because they may not be obeyed. Citizens get around them, enforcers get around them and the message never bites the policy makers in the ass - the people that are responsible for this mess are often not even aware that they made a mistake. So I am claiming that loss of privacy that I perceive inevitable in face of modern and upcoming technology is not necessary bad thing because it may create the demand for fixing some stupid rules that may cause some of us harm.
  - nostrademons 17y ago
    I used to think the same way, but I'm not so sure it's a good idea now. Problem is that it's much easier to ignore bad rules than it is to fix them. You're assuming that if everyone had to abide by the bad rules, they'd get fixed. I'm not sure that's the case - the examples I gave indicate that when you force employees to abide by bad rules, they just start acting badly. When I was younger, I used to find it very frustrating that the rules said one thing but the way everyone acted was something else. We even have a word for that: "hypocrisy". But as I've gotten older and occasionally even been responsible for creating some of those rules, I've started realizing that the rules are an abstraction. They're there to set expectations. They aren't followed exactly because they can't be followed exactly, and if you try you end up with absurdities like confiscated toothpaste. I'm not so certain that fixing the laws will work, both because it's difficult and because it's quite possible that the reason the laws are broken is because they can't take every situation into account, not because their authors were stupid.
    - scotty79 17y ago
      > I'm not sure that's the case - the examples I gave indicate that when you force employees to abide by bad rules, they just start acting badly. If there is a strong asymmetry between law makers and people who must respect the law (such as in case of employers and employees) people will obey because they have no choice. But even then they will vote with their legs leaving environment that is governed by stupid laws. In case of state and citizens in democracy there is no such strong asymmetry because government must maintain appearance that it works for the people. > it's quite possible that the reason the laws are broken is because they can't take every situation into account, not because their authors were stupid. Same thing with computer programs or any complex system but it should not stop us from striving for improvement and inventing tools that may make such improvement possible. I think that surveillance is one such tool that allows to monitor how much harm enforcing given law can cause and may lead to fixing the law.
      - ytinas 17y ago
        I think you really underestimate the desire of people to not have to be bothered with this kind of stuff. No matter how insane things get people tend to say "well, it could be worse. We've still got beer and football". I would, for example, never consider moving to the UK with their surveillance, etc., but they obviously have a large populace that disagrees. Trying to force people into doing something they just don't want to do never works.
  - sketerpot 17y ago
    What happens when a stupid rule only affects a small minority of people, and the majority can't understand the fuss? (Remember when some guy got arrested and put on the sex offender registry for his manga collection having some lolicon stuff in it? A few people were outraged; most just laughed and had no idea what the case was about.) Privacy is nice because it doesn't require large numbers of people to act sanely.
- ytinas 17y ago
  >I know its fun to rag on public officials on Internet forums. But most of the ones I know have been fairly decent people who are just doing their jobs. This could be said about a lot of people who did incredibly horrific things. Virtually no one, no matter how evil they appear to everyone else, really thinks of themselves that way. They always justify their actions in some way (e.g. "The world will be better off without this race", "no one else is smart enough to see what I see, so fudging a little bit is completely justified. They are too simple minded to understand anything else", etc.). In regards to rule following, people fall into one of two categories: "Rule followers", people who follow what the rule says, and people like myself who follow the sense behind the rule, not the words specifically and even then only if it makes sense [1]. People from e.g. your TSA example are clearly "rule followers". Here is an article that outlines some of the issues with following rules to this degree: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6433397/The-Authoritarians http://www.scribd.com/doc/6433397/The-Authoritarians Basically, if you can get people who will blindly follow rules you can accomplish just about anything with them. It's also a very handy justification for highly antisocial behavior. Of course people in my category can also use shaky justifications to engage in poor behavior but I can't claim "I was just doing as I was told". I have plenty of "rule follower" friends (whom I constantly annoy with my heretical suggestions that rules are just guidelines). But at the end of the day we can only judge people's actions based on what they did (rule follower or not). Not how friendly they are doing it. Jeffrey Dahmer's neighbors thought he was nice enough. >and they risk losing their job when they deviate from it, even if they personally believe the rules are stupid. If everyone would avoid rules that are, from a common sense point of view, stupid then their job wouldn't be "at risk". They couldn't be replaced with anyone who wouldn't do the same thing. >Same with the private sector. Companies that have the best reputations tend to be those that empower their employees to solve the customer's problem, like Virgin or Nordstroms. Companies with the worst reputations tend to be those where the employees can't do anything but follow the playbook, like most telecoms. Interesting point. [1] e.g. I don't stop at a stop sign if I can clearly see that I can go without impacting anyone else. For me stop sign means "the other people have the right of way, don't impact them". I find following the letter of the law "all four wheels to a full and complete stop" irritating, insulting and of little or no value.
  - giardini 17y ago
scotty79 17y ago
In short term you are right. But in long term you end up with buggy law system in which you know you can be prosecuted for your daily activities. Such system is fertile ground for corruption ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1063485 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1063485 ) and straight way to totalitarian state when you always know you've done something that can put you in jail but just hope authorities won't find out. That significantly limit your incentive to oppose activities of the state.
- ytinas 17y ago
  Are you sure you wont get that regardless? I guess my perspective comes from just seeing the US government as a failed experiment at this point. It has so many problems and those problems themselves prevent any solution (e.g. how are you going to get politicians bought by lobbyists to ban lobbying?). Given that, the only option is to make it harder for the government to enforce their ridiculous legislation. Sort of buying more time for the hero to make his appearance and fix everything.
  - koanarc 17y ago
    I think you and scotty79 are both right, actually. On the one hand, I agree with the sentiment that the US Government (at the very least on a Federal level) has deteriorated to a point that it actively prevents itself from being repaired -- it doesn't want fixing. The addition of a two-party system, big media, and citizenry at large careless or clueless about how to protect and expand their liberties, and there's not really anything anybody can do about that. I don't think, though, that simply accepting bad law as irreparable damage and trying to mitigate its area of influence is a viable long-term course of action. Letting government get progressively worse little by little can result in either a) prolonged suffering for many, until conditions get so bad that the government is disassembled (by civil unrest, economic collapse, population decline, or war), or b) another North Korea, a state frozen in time in total control with little chance of popular revolution, subsisting by the "grace" of other nations that haven't collapsed into political black holes. One way or another, I expect that the current state of the State will only get worse before getting better. How much worse depending on how long Americans put off the task of figuring out how to start fresh on a new government. One with better antivirus capabilities.

by ytinas 17y ago

Given the track record which is more likely to be effective? Continuing to wish for common sense and latitude in our public officials or protecting yourself from their normal behavior?

nostrademons 17y ago

Honestly, in my experience - wishing for common sense and latitude in public officials. I know its fun to rag on public officials on Internet forums. But most of the ones I know have been fairly decent people who are just doing their jobs. There're a few bad apples, but there're a few bad apples in any population. Even the TSA officials (which gets my vote for "worst government bureaucracy") were very apologetic when they confiscated my toothpaste. I think that you're more likely to get absurd institutional behavior - like confiscating toothpaste - when you deny latitude in employee judgment. The TSA screeners have this massive rulebook that they have to follow, and they risk losing their job when they deviate from it, even if they personally believe the rules are stupid. Same with the private sector. Companies that have the best reputations tend to be those that empower their employees to solve the customer's problem, like Virgin or Nordstroms. Companies with the worst reputations tend to be those where the employees can't do anything but follow the playbook, like most telecoms.

scotty79 17y ago
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Silly laws exist because they may not be obeyed. Citizens get around them, enforcers get around them and the message never bites the policy makers in the ass - the people that are responsible for this mess are often not even aware that they made a mistake. So I am claiming that loss of privacy that I perceive inevitable in face of modern and upcoming technology is not necessary bad thing because it may create the demand for fixing some stupid rules that may cause some of us harm.
- nostrademons 17y ago
  I used to think the same way, but I'm not so sure it's a good idea now. Problem is that it's much easier to ignore bad rules than it is to fix them. You're assuming that if everyone had to abide by the bad rules, they'd get fixed. I'm not sure that's the case - the examples I gave indicate that when you force employees to abide by bad rules, they just start acting badly. When I was younger, I used to find it very frustrating that the rules said one thing but the way everyone acted was something else. We even have a word for that: "hypocrisy". But as I've gotten older and occasionally even been responsible for creating some of those rules, I've started realizing that the rules are an abstraction. They're there to set expectations. They aren't followed exactly because they can't be followed exactly, and if you try you end up with absurdities like confiscated toothpaste. I'm not so certain that fixing the laws will work, both because it's difficult and because it's quite possible that the reason the laws are broken is because they can't take every situation into account, not because their authors were stupid.
  - scotty79 17y ago
    > I'm not sure that's the case - the examples I gave indicate that when you force employees to abide by bad rules, they just start acting badly. If there is a strong asymmetry between law makers and people who must respect the law (such as in case of employers and employees) people will obey because they have no choice. But even then they will vote with their legs leaving environment that is governed by stupid laws. In case of state and citizens in democracy there is no such strong asymmetry because government must maintain appearance that it works for the people. > it's quite possible that the reason the laws are broken is because they can't take every situation into account, not because their authors were stupid. Same thing with computer programs or any complex system but it should not stop us from striving for improvement and inventing tools that may make such improvement possible. I think that surveillance is one such tool that allows to monitor how much harm enforcing given law can cause and may lead to fixing the law.
    - ytinas 17y ago
      I think you really underestimate the desire of people to not have to be bothered with this kind of stuff. No matter how insane things get people tend to say "well, it could be worse. We've still got beer and football". I would, for example, never consider moving to the UK with their surveillance, etc., but they obviously have a large populace that disagrees. Trying to force people into doing something they just don't want to do never works.
- sketerpot 17y ago
  What happens when a stupid rule only affects a small minority of people, and the majority can't understand the fuss? (Remember when some guy got arrested and put on the sex offender registry for his manga collection having some lolicon stuff in it? A few people were outraged; most just laughed and had no idea what the case was about.) Privacy is nice because it doesn't require large numbers of people to act sanely.
ytinas 17y ago
>I know its fun to rag on public officials on Internet forums. But most of the ones I know have been fairly decent people who are just doing their jobs. This could be said about a lot of people who did incredibly horrific things. Virtually no one, no matter how evil they appear to everyone else, really thinks of themselves that way. They always justify their actions in some way (e.g. "The world will be better off without this race", "no one else is smart enough to see what I see, so fudging a little bit is completely justified. They are too simple minded to understand anything else", etc.). In regards to rule following, people fall into one of two categories: "Rule followers", people who follow what the rule says, and people like myself who follow the sense behind the rule, not the words specifically and even then only if it makes sense [1]. People from e.g. your TSA example are clearly "rule followers". Here is an article that outlines some of the issues with following rules to this degree: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6433397/The-Authoritarians http://www.scribd.com/doc/6433397/The-Authoritarians Basically, if you can get people who will blindly follow rules you can accomplish just about anything with them. It's also a very handy justification for highly antisocial behavior. Of course people in my category can also use shaky justifications to engage in poor behavior but I can't claim "I was just doing as I was told". I have plenty of "rule follower" friends (whom I constantly annoy with my heretical suggestions that rules are just guidelines). But at the end of the day we can only judge people's actions based on what they did (rule follower or not). Not how friendly they are doing it. Jeffrey Dahmer's neighbors thought he was nice enough. >and they risk losing their job when they deviate from it, even if they personally believe the rules are stupid. If everyone would avoid rules that are, from a common sense point of view, stupid then their job wouldn't be "at risk". They couldn't be replaced with anyone who wouldn't do the same thing. >Same with the private sector. Companies that have the best reputations tend to be those that empower their employees to solve the customer's problem, like Virgin or Nordstroms. Companies with the worst reputations tend to be those where the employees can't do anything but follow the playbook, like most telecoms. Interesting point. [1] e.g. I don't stop at a stop sign if I can clearly see that I can go without impacting anyone else. For me stop sign means "the other people have the right of way, don't impact them". I find following the letter of the law "all four wheels to a full and complete stop" irritating, insulting and of little or no value.
- giardini 17y ago

scotty79 17y ago

In short term you are right. But in long term you end up with buggy law system in which you know you can be prosecuted for your daily activities. Such system is fertile ground for corruption ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1063485 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1063485 ) and straight way to totalitarian state when you always know you've done something that can put you in jail but just hope authorities won't find out. That significantly limit your incentive to oppose activities of the state.

ytinas 17y ago
Are you sure you wont get that regardless? I guess my perspective comes from just seeing the US government as a failed experiment at this point. It has so many problems and those problems themselves prevent any solution (e.g. how are you going to get politicians bought by lobbyists to ban lobbying?). Given that, the only option is to make it harder for the government to enforce their ridiculous legislation. Sort of buying more time for the hero to make his appearance and fix everything.
- koanarc 17y ago
  I think you and scotty79 are both right, actually. On the one hand, I agree with the sentiment that the US Government (at the very least on a Federal level) has deteriorated to a point that it actively prevents itself from being repaired -- it doesn't want fixing. The addition of a two-party system, big media, and citizenry at large careless or clueless about how to protect and expand their liberties, and there's not really anything anybody can do about that. I don't think, though, that simply accepting bad law as irreparable damage and trying to mitigate its area of influence is a viable long-term course of action. Letting government get progressively worse little by little can result in either a) prolonged suffering for many, until conditions get so bad that the government is disassembled (by civil unrest, economic collapse, population decline, or war), or b) another North Korea, a state frozen in time in total control with little chance of popular revolution, subsisting by the "grace" of other nations that haven't collapsed into political black holes. One way or another, I expect that the current state of the State will only get worse before getting better. How much worse depending on how long Americans put off the task of figuring out how to start fresh on a new government. One with better antivirus capabilities.