5 ms·

You missed the point. Obama thinks that taking our privacy away will help him target the bad guys better. So the argument is, "How many lives is your 'privacy

by dhimes 11y ago

You missed the point. Obama thinks that taking our privacy away will help him target the bad guys better. So the argument is, "How many lives is your 'privacy' worth? Would you give some up to spare the 2800% collateral damage?" Snark aside, this is, actually, the rational conversation that America and the world need to have. Like many difficult problems, it's sometimes helpful to start with a simpler version of the problem. So let's simplify it a bit to start. Let's assume for a moment that backdoors will lead to better capture ratios for terrorists- that is, a higher probability of stopping real terrorist attacks. Even if it's only the stupid copy-cat cell guys, let's assume for whatever reason that giving this access to law enforcement buys us X innocent, civilian saved lives per year, by perhaps some combination of thwarting attacks and better intel on targets. What is X such that privacy invasion is acceptable? This, for me, is a super-hard question.

pdonis 11y ago
> What is X such that privacy invasion is acceptable? It's impossible to tell in your simplified scenario, because you haven't said what the "simplified" version of the downside of privacy invasion is. If you're someone whose job is to prevent terrorist attacks, obviously you're going to judge that the downside of privacy invasion is a lot less than the downside of terrorist attacks. But if you're someone who's concerned about the long-term consequences of giving up civil liberties, you're going to judge that the downside of giving the government backdoor access to everyone's data is a lot more than the downside of terrorist attacks. One way to tackle this question is to look at history: how much damage has been done by terrorist attacks, child pornographers, etc., compared to the damage done by governments who were given too much power? I think the latter has done orders of magnitude more damage, which means we should be a lot more worried about privacy invasion than about terrorists. YMMV.
- dhimes 11y ago
  I originally attempted to leave the downside of privacy invasion unsimplified, and thus different people would have different opinions based on their view of this- in other words start a discussion, not look for a "right" answer that I am pretending to know (because I don't). But this is the way I think about it. Perhaps it's still too hard of a problem, but your second paragraph what I was after. A second, more poignant way of looking at the problem is this (I'll do this one in first person, because it flat-out sucks): My friend just lost his family in a terrorist attack on an airplane. It seems likely (via whatever channels) that the attack could have been averted with more intel that was unavailable due to encryption. My friend knows that I'm against back-doors and government invasion of privacy. What do I tell him in consolation? I think that questions like this allow us to empathize with the people who are responsible for making the decision. (Of course a counter-example is also possible: Ronald Drump has just used warrantless wiretaps to identify all of the Muslim sympathizers and has started rounding them up...)
  - pdonis 11y ago
    > It seems likely (via whatever channels) that the attack could have been averted with more intel that was unavailable due to encryption. If you don't mind answering, why does it seem likely? (You're welcome to answer that you don't want to talk further about the specific incident, or even say which specific incident it was.) I ask because my estimate of the prior probability of this actually being the case is quite low. > My friend knows that I'm against back-doors and government invasion of privacy. What do I tell him in consolation? Being against back-doors and government invasion of privacy doesn't preclude also being against terrorism. (I'm against both.) So you can still tell him that you're sorry he lost his family, and that you hope the people responsible are caught and punished.
    - dhimes 11y ago
      In this hypothetical construct, the arrangements for the attack were coordinated via cell phones. We had the ability to be able to control this information but forfeited that ability due to concerns about privacy. When I tell my friend I'm sorry he lost his family and I hope the people responsible are caught and punished, it will beg the retort that the situation could have been prevented. And people like me are the reason this wasn't prevented. The hard part of the question is when you look someone in the eye and tell them that their horrible loss is necessary for a greater ideal. I think a lot of idealistic talk goes away when it gets real. (Especially if you have kids.) And my main point is that I can empathize with a candidate who espouses the "ideal" but when it gets real has misgivings.
      - pdonis 11y ago
        > In this hypothetical construct Oh. I thought you were referring to an actual event. > the arrangements for the attack were coordinated via cell phones. We had the ability to be able to control this information but forfeited that ability due to concerns about privacy. Does your hypothetical take into account the future cost of giving up privacy? See below. > their horrible loss is necessary for a greater ideal No, it's not for an abstract "greater ideal". It's to avoid the highly concrete consequence of even more people dying when the government gets too powerful. The problem is that, in situations like your hypothetical, the worse consequence is still in the future, while the bad consequence of avoiding it is in the present. So people are greatly tempted to convince themselves that the worse consequence won't actually come to pass. That's why I talked about looking at history: in historical scenarios that are similar to your hypothetical, we know not just the shorter term gain of giving the government more power--some particular bad thing got prevented--but the longer term cost--millions of people dying because the government got powerful enough that its screwups were catastrophic.
andy_ppp 11y ago
Oh dear, I don't think such aggressive patronising comments deserve responses.
- dhimes 11y ago
  I must have written it poorly. I didn't mean for it to be aggressive nor patronizing. I meant it sincerely as a thought experiment. I extended to you the Principle of Charity in that you believe that Obama would actually reduce innocent casualties if he could- I am saying that he believes that more information will help him do so. I apologize if it didn't come across that way. I try to not be a web asshole- +1 for calling it out.
  - andy_ppp 11y ago
    Ah, that's cool, I think disagree but an opening gambit of "You missed the point" felt very harsh to me. I can see both sides of the debate on this but I do think trusting people with the keys to all the doors who believe drone strikes actually help Does not make sense. America and the west cause more terror than they receive.
jkestner 11y ago
And an issue with this question is that the government that's currently posing it stands to gain by softening the damage to privacy. I don't like that it has a horse in this race.

by dhimes 11y ago

pdonis 11y ago

> What is X such that privacy invasion is acceptable? It's impossible to tell in your simplified scenario, because you haven't said what the "simplified" version of the downside of privacy invasion is. If you're someone whose job is to prevent terrorist attacks, obviously you're going to judge that the downside of privacy invasion is a lot less than the downside of terrorist attacks. But if you're someone who's concerned about the long-term consequences of giving up civil liberties, you're going to judge that the downside of giving the government backdoor access to everyone's data is a lot more than the downside of terrorist attacks. One way to tackle this question is to look at history: how much damage has been done by terrorist attacks, child pornographers, etc., compared to the damage done by governments who were given too much power? I think the latter has done orders of magnitude more damage, which means we should be a lot more worried about privacy invasion than about terrorists. YMMV.

dhimes 11y ago
I originally attempted to leave the downside of privacy invasion unsimplified, and thus different people would have different opinions based on their view of this- in other words start a discussion, not look for a "right" answer that I am pretending to know (because I don't). But this is the way I think about it. Perhaps it's still too hard of a problem, but your second paragraph what I was after. A second, more poignant way of looking at the problem is this (I'll do this one in first person, because it flat-out sucks): My friend just lost his family in a terrorist attack on an airplane. It seems likely (via whatever channels) that the attack could have been averted with more intel that was unavailable due to encryption. My friend knows that I'm against back-doors and government invasion of privacy. What do I tell him in consolation? I think that questions like this allow us to empathize with the people who are responsible for making the decision. (Of course a counter-example is also possible: Ronald Drump has just used warrantless wiretaps to identify all of the Muslim sympathizers and has started rounding them up...)
- pdonis 11y ago
  > It seems likely (via whatever channels) that the attack could have been averted with more intel that was unavailable due to encryption. If you don't mind answering, why does it seem likely? (You're welcome to answer that you don't want to talk further about the specific incident, or even say which specific incident it was.) I ask because my estimate of the prior probability of this actually being the case is quite low. > My friend knows that I'm against back-doors and government invasion of privacy. What do I tell him in consolation? Being against back-doors and government invasion of privacy doesn't preclude also being against terrorism. (I'm against both.) So you can still tell him that you're sorry he lost his family, and that you hope the people responsible are caught and punished.
  - dhimes 11y ago
    In this hypothetical construct, the arrangements for the attack were coordinated via cell phones. We had the ability to be able to control this information but forfeited that ability due to concerns about privacy. When I tell my friend I'm sorry he lost his family and I hope the people responsible are caught and punished, it will beg the retort that the situation could have been prevented. And people like me are the reason this wasn't prevented. The hard part of the question is when you look someone in the eye and tell them that their horrible loss is necessary for a greater ideal. I think a lot of idealistic talk goes away when it gets real. (Especially if you have kids.) And my main point is that I can empathize with a candidate who espouses the "ideal" but when it gets real has misgivings.
    - pdonis 11y ago
      > In this hypothetical construct Oh. I thought you were referring to an actual event. > the arrangements for the attack were coordinated via cell phones. We had the ability to be able to control this information but forfeited that ability due to concerns about privacy. Does your hypothetical take into account the future cost of giving up privacy? See below. > their horrible loss is necessary for a greater ideal No, it's not for an abstract "greater ideal". It's to avoid the highly concrete consequence of even more people dying when the government gets too powerful. The problem is that, in situations like your hypothetical, the worse consequence is still in the future, while the bad consequence of avoiding it is in the present. So people are greatly tempted to convince themselves that the worse consequence won't actually come to pass. That's why I talked about looking at history: in historical scenarios that are similar to your hypothetical, we know not just the shorter term gain of giving the government more power--some particular bad thing got prevented--but the longer term cost--millions of people dying because the government got powerful enough that its screwups were catastrophic.

andy_ppp 11y ago

Oh dear, I don't think such aggressive patronising comments deserve responses.

dhimes 11y ago
I must have written it poorly. I didn't mean for it to be aggressive nor patronizing. I meant it sincerely as a thought experiment. I extended to you the Principle of Charity in that you believe that Obama would actually reduce innocent casualties if he could- I am saying that he believes that more information will help him do so. I apologize if it didn't come across that way. I try to not be a web asshole- +1 for calling it out.
- andy_ppp 11y ago
  Ah, that's cool, I think disagree but an opening gambit of "You missed the point" felt very harsh to me. I can see both sides of the debate on this but I do think trusting people with the keys to all the doors who believe drone strikes actually help Does not make sense. America and the west cause more terror than they receive.

jkestner 11y ago

And an issue with this question is that the government that's currently posing it stands to gain by softening the damage to privacy. I don't like that it has a horse in this race.