4 ms·

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

by 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.
- dhimes 11y ago
  So, at the wake for my friend's family you are going to give a history lesson on big bad privacy-invading government; "freedom isn't free" or something. I have a hunch that won't play well. (Yes, the idea that our government will do horrific things down the line is abstract to most people. It's fitting a pattern of past behavior by bad governments to our current scenario. Most people don't actually believe that our government is engaging in world-criminal or war-crime behavior that needs to be stopped. The idea that it will turn on its own citizens is pretty far-fetched to them.) We've probably gone on long enough in this thread, but my feeling is that if you want to get people to fear their government more than the terrorists, you have to make it as personal to them as the fear of terrorism already is. Until somebody can do that well we are all just preaching to the choir here. And in order to have that conversation, we have to be ready to ask the other, uncomfortable one that I've been posing: "What is X such that privacy invasion is acceptable?" One planeload of people per decade? Per year? We can ask it with a slightly different thought experiment. "OK the NSA surveillance data allowed us to thwart 5 plots last year; probably saved 200 lives. Turn it off, it's not worth it in the long run." If we replace 200 by X, what is X such that you, President pdonis, let the NSA program survive? How about President dhimes? President ady_ppp or President jkestner? I'm not asking for answers here, but just to consider this as a very real question faced by people who have to make these decisions, and that a whole lot of people would say X = 0 when it comes time to make that decision. I think Obama might be one of those. NB I'm actually in pretty good agreement with you on the privacy debate, but I think that concrete questions like these need to be discussed.
  - pdonis 11y ago
    > at the wake for my friend's family you are going to give a history lesson on big bad privacy-invading government Why in the world would I want to do that at the wake? Do you insist on stating all of your personal beliefs to everyone on every occasion? Anyway, I already suggested what to tell your friend, and it wasn't anything like this. > my feeling is that if you want to get people to fear their government more than the terrorists, you have to make it as personal to them as the fear of terrorism already is. Sure, that's easy: just describe what a Nazi or Soviet concentration camp was like, and ask, how would you like to live in one of those? The only reason that might seem less "personal" to people these days is that 9/11 happened more recently than WWII or the Cold War. But that's not a rational reason to fear terrorism more than excessive government power. (For extra credit, you could describe how the Nazis came to power in Germany: they were voted in by a democratic election.) > the NSA surveillance data allowed us to thwart 5 plots last year; probably saved 200 lives. But the problem is that, while the President gets to see these numbers, we the people don't. They're secret. So the decision can't be made as a public decision where we can have a debate and then vote. It has to be made unilaterally by the very small number of people who actually have the relevant data. Also, phrasing the question as "how large must X be for the program to survive" forecloses the possibility of finding other ways to save the same number of lives, without sacrificing everyone's privacy.
    - dhimes 11y ago
      Why in the world would I want to do that at the wake? That was your answer to the question I posed. You keep wanting removed conversations- that's the easy part. The hard part is what do you say when you have to look someone in the eye and explain yourself. But the problem is that, while the President gets to see these numbers, we the people don't. They're secret. So the decision can't be made as a public decision where we can have a debate and then vote. Precisely! That's why we have to be willing to discuss it also. Otherwise they have to make the determination and we all get to sit back and throw rocks at them. That's easy and cowardly for us, and not really good for them. Also, phrasing the question as "how large must X be for the program to survive" forecloses the possibility of finding other ways to save the same number of lives, without sacrificing everyone's privacy. No, nothing about this is mutually exclusive with (to?) working on better ways to keep us safe that help us keep our privacy. Of course, it would be difficult to regain that privacy, but I would definitely want sunset clauses built into any program or laws the I (as President dhimes) would sign off on.

by dhimes 11y ago

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.

dhimes 11y ago
So, at the wake for my friend's family you are going to give a history lesson on big bad privacy-invading government; "freedom isn't free" or something. I have a hunch that won't play well. (Yes, the idea that our government will do horrific things down the line is abstract to most people. It's fitting a pattern of past behavior by bad governments to our current scenario. Most people don't actually believe that our government is engaging in world-criminal or war-crime behavior that needs to be stopped. The idea that it will turn on its own citizens is pretty far-fetched to them.) We've probably gone on long enough in this thread, but my feeling is that if you want to get people to fear their government more than the terrorists, you have to make it as personal to them as the fear of terrorism already is. Until somebody can do that well we are all just preaching to the choir here. And in order to have that conversation, we have to be ready to ask the other, uncomfortable one that I've been posing: "What is X such that privacy invasion is acceptable?" One planeload of people per decade? Per year? We can ask it with a slightly different thought experiment. "OK the NSA surveillance data allowed us to thwart 5 plots last year; probably saved 200 lives. Turn it off, it's not worth it in the long run." If we replace 200 by X, what is X such that you, President pdonis, let the NSA program survive? How about President dhimes? President ady_ppp or President jkestner? I'm not asking for answers here, but just to consider this as a very real question faced by people who have to make these decisions, and that a whole lot of people would say X = 0 when it comes time to make that decision. I think Obama might be one of those. NB I'm actually in pretty good agreement with you on the privacy debate, but I think that concrete questions like these need to be discussed.
- pdonis 11y ago
  > at the wake for my friend's family you are going to give a history lesson on big bad privacy-invading government Why in the world would I want to do that at the wake? Do you insist on stating all of your personal beliefs to everyone on every occasion? Anyway, I already suggested what to tell your friend, and it wasn't anything like this. > my feeling is that if you want to get people to fear their government more than the terrorists, you have to make it as personal to them as the fear of terrorism already is. Sure, that's easy: just describe what a Nazi or Soviet concentration camp was like, and ask, how would you like to live in one of those? The only reason that might seem less "personal" to people these days is that 9/11 happened more recently than WWII or the Cold War. But that's not a rational reason to fear terrorism more than excessive government power. (For extra credit, you could describe how the Nazis came to power in Germany: they were voted in by a democratic election.) > the NSA surveillance data allowed us to thwart 5 plots last year; probably saved 200 lives. But the problem is that, while the President gets to see these numbers, we the people don't. They're secret. So the decision can't be made as a public decision where we can have a debate and then vote. It has to be made unilaterally by the very small number of people who actually have the relevant data. Also, phrasing the question as "how large must X be for the program to survive" forecloses the possibility of finding other ways to save the same number of lives, without sacrificing everyone's privacy.
  - dhimes 11y ago
    Why in the world would I want to do that at the wake? That was your answer to the question I posed. You keep wanting removed conversations- that's the easy part. The hard part is what do you say when you have to look someone in the eye and explain yourself. But the problem is that, while the President gets to see these numbers, we the people don't. They're secret. So the decision can't be made as a public decision where we can have a debate and then vote. Precisely! That's why we have to be willing to discuss it also. Otherwise they have to make the determination and we all get to sit back and throw rocks at them. That's easy and cowardly for us, and not really good for them. Also, phrasing the question as "how large must X be for the program to survive" forecloses the possibility of finding other ways to save the same number of lives, without sacrificing everyone's privacy. No, nothing about this is mutually exclusive with (to?) working on better ways to keep us safe that help us keep our privacy. Of course, it would be difficult to regain that privacy, but I would definitely want sunset clauses built into any program or laws the I (as President dhimes) would sign off on.