3 ms·
Control, transparency and check-and-balance are all inconveniences though. Having to ask a judge for warrant is definitely inconvenient, same as proving beyond
by NhanH 10y ago
Control, transparency and check-and-balance are all inconveniences though. Having to ask a judge for warrant is definitely inconvenient, same as proving beyond reasonable doubt (instead of just, let's say probable doubt).
I didn't say that inefficiency should be the goal for the government. However, for certain scenarios, that's the trade off we have to make.
> Going the other way - allowing them full and uncontrolled access provided they just jump through a few arbitrary hoops to get the data
Fortunately, most of the time those "hoops" involves a human in it, hopefully being able to stop bad things from happening. Again, there is no silver bullet, and shitty paper stamping process won't be helping either.
- xg15 10y agoYes, most effective checks are inconvenient but not all inconveniences are effective checks. My worry is that but focusing on "it must be inconvenient" your setting the priorities wrong. This might just result in a heap of useless labour and frustrated employees - but wouldn't shed any light on which "attack scenarios" you actually defended against, if any. In some cases, it might make misuse actually easier if the inconveniences affect both agencies and their control instances. A nice example of a process that's apparently deliberately kept inefficient by lobby power is the US weapons "registry": http://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns http://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-man...