4 ms·

It was not all that bad. But there was some oversight, and mis-steps. He shouldn't have been hassled until there was reasonable evidence that he was a bad guy

It was not all that bad. But there was some oversight, and mis-steps. He shouldn't have been hassled until there was reasonable evidence that he was a bad guy - or there was something really significant on the line. We need surveillance, but we also need procedure, lawfulness, oversight. Also I should point out that we also need a good,free press. The linked article is decent, but also one-sided. It would seem that the primary issue this guy faces is not being able to get a job? From bad press? Ironic?

jomamaxx 10y ago
"But there was some oversight, and mis-steps." Meant to say 'lack of oversight and mis-steps. It's almost a pointless discussion here on HN, most readers are religious about the subject.
darpa_escapee 10y ago
> We need surveillance Source? We got by fine for thousands of years without the level of surveillance that's enabled today.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Arguable - history is not pretty. And today an individual can be a much greater threat than any time in the past. So yes I think our future will be one of constant Surveillance. We need to manage that, not deny it.
- chatmasta 10y ago
  The rapid speed of communication today is unprecedented, and it allows decentralized terrorist groups to form and morph at a very high pace and cause high levels of destruction. Surveillance, ideally, can act as a counterforce to that. I highly suggest reading "The Seventh Sense," which looks at the impact that high speed networking has and will have on the world. It frames it as the next era of power, where the last one was industrialization. It's a very good read with balanced viewpoints, and touches on subjects like terrorism and surveillance. Basically, the thesis is that networks are expanding into a great power, and we are completely unable to control them, especially with existing power structures.
  - Zigurd 10y ago
    > "...unprecedented..." Every age has unprecedented circumstances. I suggest this reform: Anyone saying "But the founding fathers didn't have..." gets hit in the face with a shovel before they can get the next word out because they committed the crime of not thinking the obvious: that every fucking week there's something the founding fathers didn't have and they were not such dopes as to not foresee that. CRISPR/Cas9 will make the internet look like two cans and a string. How much surveillance will be enough for you then?
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "> We need surveillance Source? " A) There is no need for 'source'? Asking for 'source' does not count as an argument. Where is your 'source' for 'we got by for thousands of years?' for example? B) We didn't 'get by for thousands of years' without surveillance. Spying has been part of statecraft for 5000 years. The very first textbook on any subject, written more than 2000 years ago - 'The Art of War' has a chapter dedicated to it. C) If you were ever exposed to what is actually going on in this and other countries, you'd immediately change your tune. It happens often. Here in Canada, we had a fuzzy new Prime Ministerial candidate who wanted to kill a new surveillance bill. Until he became PM and got his 'daily security briefings' as to the reality of the world. And 'poof' - his promise to overthrow the bill disappeared immediately as his naivte withered against the facts. I do not believe in a 'surveillance state' (i.e. arbitrary surveillance) and I generally believe that citizens should have the right to privacy as per other criminal issues. But I also believe that if you are building a bomb in your basement, and the Feds want to know why, they can get a court order and 'surveil' you.
  - titzer 10y ago
    > But I also believe that if you are building a bomb in your basement, and the Feds want to know why, they can get a court order and 'surveil' you. I also don't think that mere suspicion of building a bomb in your basement gives the government scary powers over you. This is why there is such a thing as due process. Because you never know when you might be wrongfully accused.
    - jomamaxx 10y ago
      If the Feds thought I was building a bomb, they surveilled my email with a court order, found nothing and moved on, I could care less. It's when there's not process that's the problem. As far as 'accused', I'm not worried about that because I'm not building a bomb so there's no way they'd have evidence. They'd have to fabricate it, which is a whole other level of fraud. Again, a long as it's done rationally, then we'll be just fine. I suggest there are very, very few cases wherein people's live have been upended because of 'too much surveillance'. The 'no fly list' is one bad example, it's because we don't have ways to uniquely identify people, and there's no process for removal. So if you have the same name as a terrorist, you're out of luck. Or of you get on by accident - no process for saying 'hey, I'm a normal guy'. Again procedural failrues mostly. Or entrapment, or an accusation which turns out to be false that throws your life in a bind. But it's not that common, and usually the result of back decisions on the side of the Feds, not so much inherently bad nature of surveillance. One issue - and that is mass surveillance - LAPD has cameras to know where every license plate is going at all times ... that I don't like. They should not be able to record any licence plates unless there is 'cause' - for example. Same for facial recognition in NYC and London. I think we'll find the sweet spot on this.
- cmdkeen 10y ago
  We actually didn't. There are occasional periods where technology or general progress outstrips the state's historical ability to monitor what is going on. International communications were traditionally so small in number that it was pretty easy to monitor all of them. Going back far enough even internal travel was sufficiently rare that vague descriptions of people were enough to get them caught because strangers really did stand out. For example in Elizabethan England plenty of Catholic priests were caught because someone was supplying descriptions of them from Rome. Whether we need surveillance or not, and if we do to what extent is a valid discussion. Don't try and bring some sort of golden past into it, you'll only undermine your case.

jomamaxx 10y ago

"But there was some oversight, and mis-steps." Meant to say 'lack of oversight and mis-steps. It's almost a pointless discussion here on HN, most readers are religious about the subject.

darpa_escapee 10y ago

> We need surveillance Source? We got by fine for thousands of years without the level of surveillance that's enabled today.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Arguable - history is not pretty. And today an individual can be a much greater threat than any time in the past. So yes I think our future will be one of constant Surveillance. We need to manage that, not deny it.
chatmasta 10y ago
The rapid speed of communication today is unprecedented, and it allows decentralized terrorist groups to form and morph at a very high pace and cause high levels of destruction. Surveillance, ideally, can act as a counterforce to that. I highly suggest reading "The Seventh Sense," which looks at the impact that high speed networking has and will have on the world. It frames it as the next era of power, where the last one was industrialization. It's a very good read with balanced viewpoints, and touches on subjects like terrorism and surveillance. Basically, the thesis is that networks are expanding into a great power, and we are completely unable to control them, especially with existing power structures.
- Zigurd 10y ago
  > "...unprecedented..." Every age has unprecedented circumstances. I suggest this reform: Anyone saying "But the founding fathers didn't have..." gets hit in the face with a shovel before they can get the next word out because they committed the crime of not thinking the obvious: that every fucking week there's something the founding fathers didn't have and they were not such dopes as to not foresee that. CRISPR/Cas9 will make the internet look like two cans and a string. How much surveillance will be enough for you then?
jomamaxx 10y ago
"> We need surveillance Source? " A) There is no need for 'source'? Asking for 'source' does not count as an argument. Where is your 'source' for 'we got by for thousands of years?' for example? B) We didn't 'get by for thousands of years' without surveillance. Spying has been part of statecraft for 5000 years. The very first textbook on any subject, written more than 2000 years ago - 'The Art of War' has a chapter dedicated to it. C) If you were ever exposed to what is actually going on in this and other countries, you'd immediately change your tune. It happens often. Here in Canada, we had a fuzzy new Prime Ministerial candidate who wanted to kill a new surveillance bill. Until he became PM and got his 'daily security briefings' as to the reality of the world. And 'poof' - his promise to overthrow the bill disappeared immediately as his naivte withered against the facts. I do not believe in a 'surveillance state' (i.e. arbitrary surveillance) and I generally believe that citizens should have the right to privacy as per other criminal issues. But I also believe that if you are building a bomb in your basement, and the Feds want to know why, they can get a court order and 'surveil' you.
- titzer 10y ago
  > But I also believe that if you are building a bomb in your basement, and the Feds want to know why, they can get a court order and 'surveil' you. I also don't think that mere suspicion of building a bomb in your basement gives the government scary powers over you. This is why there is such a thing as due process. Because you never know when you might be wrongfully accused.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    If the Feds thought I was building a bomb, they surveilled my email with a court order, found nothing and moved on, I could care less. It's when there's not process that's the problem. As far as 'accused', I'm not worried about that because I'm not building a bomb so there's no way they'd have evidence. They'd have to fabricate it, which is a whole other level of fraud. Again, a long as it's done rationally, then we'll be just fine. I suggest there are very, very few cases wherein people's live have been upended because of 'too much surveillance'. The 'no fly list' is one bad example, it's because we don't have ways to uniquely identify people, and there's no process for removal. So if you have the same name as a terrorist, you're out of luck. Or of you get on by accident - no process for saying 'hey, I'm a normal guy'. Again procedural failrues mostly. Or entrapment, or an accusation which turns out to be false that throws your life in a bind. But it's not that common, and usually the result of back decisions on the side of the Feds, not so much inherently bad nature of surveillance. One issue - and that is mass surveillance - LAPD has cameras to know where every license plate is going at all times ... that I don't like. They should not be able to record any licence plates unless there is 'cause' - for example. Same for facial recognition in NYC and London. I think we'll find the sweet spot on this.
cmdkeen 10y ago
We actually didn't. There are occasional periods where technology or general progress outstrips the state's historical ability to monitor what is going on. International communications were traditionally so small in number that it was pretty easy to monitor all of them. Going back far enough even internal travel was sufficiently rare that vague descriptions of people were enough to get them caught because strangers really did stand out. For example in Elizabethan England plenty of Catholic priests were caught because someone was supplying descriptions of them from Rome. Whether we need surveillance or not, and if we do to what extent is a valid discussion. Don't try and bring some sort of golden past into it, you'll only undermine your case.