5 ms·

It's hard to put this into context. On one hand, we feel anxious if our government has more information about us than we believe they need. We feel that, in a

It's hard to put this into context. On one hand, we feel anxious if our government has more information about us than we believe they need. We feel that, in a truly free society, the government should keep its nose out of our day to day lives. On the other hand, we demand that our government somehow prevent crimes and catch criminals, ensure that people treat each other fairly in day to day life, business dealings, even personal relationships. And for-profit corporations have huge databases about our commercial (and other?) activities -- and we have few if any legal tools to force them to stop collecting data or to purge those databases.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
Yes. I know how you feel. As a libertarian, I'm extremely upset at the police and security state we've created. This has to stop. At the same time, if a major crime occurs and there were indications it was going to happen, police are not supposed to be caught flat-footed. So I would expect any professional police force to have files on groups and people that they believe could cause major crimes. I also think they should have contingency plans for when major threats happen. The problem is that computers have taken away any definition of "reasonable" If J. Edgar Hoover wanted to detail a platoon of FBI agents to monitor MLK I feel that it was a waste of time. Hell, it was probably also a travesty of justice. Hoover should have been fired for it. But he could only do that so many times before he ran out of agents. The physicality of the system made it self-limiting. Now we're living in an era where those limits are gone. There is no limiting factor any more. In the U.S., we need constitutional guidance here -- some agreement on the limits we expect the government to observe. I thought we were clear enough about that the first time around, but the courts seem to think that the plain language of our Constitution and Bill of Rights has so many loopholes and odd provisions that it doesn't actually do any of the things it was supposed to do. That's gotta be fixed. I don't see a solution outside of that.
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  Perhaps the solution is bilateral surveillance which is to say a database of all the interactions of everyone who works in government which can be consulted by people outside of government when they suspect the government employee may be engaged in criminal activity. I mention that because there is mounting evidence that police wearing always on body cams really curbs complaints about police brutality and excessive force. Now some of that is clearly people who realize that if their behavior is shown they won't be able to sustain the argument that the police action was unwarranted. However, evidence is accumulating that police are less likely to engage in risky or borderline unethical behavior when they know they are being monitored. The bottom line is better governance with fewer complaints and that is a good thing for everyone involved.
  - hx87 10y ago
    It's a good proposal, and needs to be extended to government contractors (and subcontractors, and sub-subcontractors, ...) and all those who work for them, otherwise it would just provide another excuse to contract everything out.
- talmand 10y ago
  Preventing crime is not a primary function of the police.
matt_wulfeck 10y ago
That dilemma is as old as our republic. At its founding we decided it's better to let guilty people go free than to put innocent people behind bars. In the beginning we valued Liberty above all else, as the ultimate virtue of our country. It appears now we value security more, or else these types of things wouldn't be tolerated. History tells us this is a mistake but maybe we haven't yet learned the lesson.
- throwanem 10y ago
  History isn't over, and I think it's worth considering the possibility that threat environments change, too. Perhaps there isn't a single, simple criterion that fits all cases.
- fixermark 10y ago
  I agree with the overall assessment of goals, but I don't think I agree that the surveillance tools are at odds with them. > At its founding we decided it's better to let guilty people go free than to put innocent people behind bars Ubiquitous surveillance record makes it easier to discern the facts of an event. It makes it less likely that the innocent will be put behind bars (relative to the alternative solutions of faulty witness memory and after-the-fact narrative construction).
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    Ubiquitous surveillance record makes it easier to discern the facts of an event. It makes it less likely that the innocent will be put behind bars (relative to the alternative solutions of faulty witness memory and after-the-fact narrative construction). That might be true IF the "ubiquitous surveillance record" was gathered, maintained, and monitored by a truly neutral party. But it's not. It's maintained by the State, who are your adversary if you are charged with a crime (and possibly at other times, but that's a different topic). Anyway, if the State owns the surveillance and they decide to target you, do you expect that - as a defendant - you will be given full and unfettered access to an unaltered record of events? History suggests that this is not the case.
hx87 10y ago
There is a way out of this dilemma--sacrifice privacy in favor of freedom by making all surveillance feeds and all data mining resources and link to them public. If the average person can't have privacy, then no one should have privacy.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

Yes. I know how you feel. As a libertarian, I'm extremely upset at the police and security state we've created. This has to stop. At the same time, if a major crime occurs and there were indications it was going to happen, police are not supposed to be caught flat-footed. So I would expect any professional police force to have files on groups and people that they believe could cause major crimes. I also think they should have contingency plans for when major threats happen. The problem is that computers have taken away any definition of "reasonable" If J. Edgar Hoover wanted to detail a platoon of FBI agents to monitor MLK I feel that it was a waste of time. Hell, it was probably also a travesty of justice. Hoover should have been fired for it. But he could only do that so many times before he ran out of agents. The physicality of the system made it self-limiting. Now we're living in an era where those limits are gone. There is no limiting factor any more. In the U.S., we need constitutional guidance here -- some agreement on the limits we expect the government to observe. I thought we were clear enough about that the first time around, but the courts seem to think that the plain language of our Constitution and Bill of Rights has so many loopholes and odd provisions that it doesn't actually do any of the things it was supposed to do. That's gotta be fixed. I don't see a solution outside of that.

ChuckMcM 10y ago
Perhaps the solution is bilateral surveillance which is to say a database of all the interactions of everyone who works in government which can be consulted by people outside of government when they suspect the government employee may be engaged in criminal activity. I mention that because there is mounting evidence that police wearing always on body cams really curbs complaints about police brutality and excessive force. Now some of that is clearly people who realize that if their behavior is shown they won't be able to sustain the argument that the police action was unwarranted. However, evidence is accumulating that police are less likely to engage in risky or borderline unethical behavior when they know they are being monitored. The bottom line is better governance with fewer complaints and that is a good thing for everyone involved.
- hx87 10y ago
  It's a good proposal, and needs to be extended to government contractors (and subcontractors, and sub-subcontractors, ...) and all those who work for them, otherwise it would just provide another excuse to contract everything out.
talmand 10y ago
Preventing crime is not a primary function of the police.

matt_wulfeck 10y ago

That dilemma is as old as our republic. At its founding we decided it's better to let guilty people go free than to put innocent people behind bars. In the beginning we valued Liberty above all else, as the ultimate virtue of our country. It appears now we value security more, or else these types of things wouldn't be tolerated. History tells us this is a mistake but maybe we haven't yet learned the lesson.

throwanem 10y ago
History isn't over, and I think it's worth considering the possibility that threat environments change, too. Perhaps there isn't a single, simple criterion that fits all cases.
fixermark 10y ago
I agree with the overall assessment of goals, but I don't think I agree that the surveillance tools are at odds with them. > At its founding we decided it's better to let guilty people go free than to put innocent people behind bars Ubiquitous surveillance record makes it easier to discern the facts of an event. It makes it less likely that the innocent will be put behind bars (relative to the alternative solutions of faulty witness memory and after-the-fact narrative construction).
- mindcrime 10y ago
  Ubiquitous surveillance record makes it easier to discern the facts of an event. It makes it less likely that the innocent will be put behind bars (relative to the alternative solutions of faulty witness memory and after-the-fact narrative construction). That might be true IF the "ubiquitous surveillance record" was gathered, maintained, and monitored by a truly neutral party. But it's not. It's maintained by the State, who are your adversary if you are charged with a crime (and possibly at other times, but that's a different topic). Anyway, if the State owns the surveillance and they decide to target you, do you expect that - as a defendant - you will be given full and unfettered access to an unaltered record of events? History suggests that this is not the case.

hx87 10y ago

There is a way out of this dilemma--sacrifice privacy in favor of freedom by making all surveillance feeds and all data mining resources and link to them public. If the average person can't have privacy, then no one should have privacy.