4 ms·

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 be

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.
- fixermark 10y ago
  Ah, I see the disconnect; I assumed I was the one doing the recording. ;)
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    Oh, OK. Well yeah, then definitely. :-)
matt_wulfeck 10y ago
I wish it were true, but in practice it turns out quite the opposite. With enough surveillance you can turn anybody into a criminal. I'm reminded of a quote that's also mentioned in this[0] article: > Alan Dershowitz discusses his time litigating cases in the old Soviet Union. He was always taken by the fact that they could prosecute anybody they wanted because some of the statutes were so vague. Dershowitz points out that this was a technique developed by Beria, the infamous sidekick of Stalin, who said, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.” With vague laws and arbitrary enforcement it's very easy to produce a society that lives in fear. [0] "The Criminalization of Almost Everything" http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2010/criminalization-almost-everything http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2010/crimi...
fucking_tragedy 10y ago
Inconvenient evidence gets mislabeled, misplaced, corrupted, deleted or, conveniently, was never recorded. See: CCTV, police dashboard and body camera footage. Eventually, selectively and taken out of context, a pretty ugly narrative can be constructed with full access to anyone's data.
- hga 10y ago
  Eventually, selectively and taken out of context, a pretty ugly narrative can be constructed with full access to anyone's data. If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. Attributed to Cardinal Richelieu but disputed (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu).

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.

fixermark 10y ago
Ah, I see the disconnect; I assumed I was the one doing the recording. ;)
- mindcrime 10y ago
  Oh, OK. Well yeah, then definitely. :-)

matt_wulfeck 10y ago

I wish it were true, but in practice it turns out quite the opposite. With enough surveillance you can turn anybody into a criminal. I'm reminded of a quote that's also mentioned in this[0] article: > Alan Dershowitz discusses his time litigating cases in the old Soviet Union. He was always taken by the fact that they could prosecute anybody they wanted because some of the statutes were so vague. Dershowitz points out that this was a technique developed by Beria, the infamous sidekick of Stalin, who said, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.” With vague laws and arbitrary enforcement it's very easy to produce a society that lives in fear. [0] "The Criminalization of Almost Everything" http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2010/criminalization-almost-everything http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2010/crimi...

fucking_tragedy 10y ago

Inconvenient evidence gets mislabeled, misplaced, corrupted, deleted or, conveniently, was never recorded. See: CCTV, police dashboard and body camera footage. Eventually, selectively and taken out of context, a pretty ugly narrative can be constructed with full access to anyone's data.

hga 10y ago
Eventually, selectively and taken out of context, a pretty ugly narrative can be constructed with full access to anyone's data. If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. Attributed to Cardinal Richelieu but disputed (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu).