4 ms·
> I don't really understand the threat. Do you view the government as benign? What if that were to change? Do you view all governments as benign? Foreign gove
by tocf 10y ago
> I don't really understand the threat.
Do you view the government as benign? What if that were to change?
Do you view all governments as benign? Foreign governments can further justify their actions by pointing at so called "free", and "democratic" nations and say if they can do it, so can we.
Do you trust these organizations (government or otherwise) to secure your data?
Governments change. Conditions change. Imagine another large criminal act in the US where thousands perish. The citizenry starts demanding more and more invasions of privacy, in futile attempts to stop further attacks. As each generation grows up with less and less privacy, they become even more accustomed to it. Is it possible to have a free society that's completely surveilled?
> And if it was warrantless then it's inadmissible anyhow, right?
In 2015, not a single one of the FISA applications for a warrant were rejected.
> If you don't want them "taking" your info, just don't speak to them.
GHCQ in the UK collects massive amounts of data on all internet users. You don't have any choice, if you're operating on anything but the dark web. The issues we're facing here have never been faced before. It's never been possible for the police/governments to just record and store everything, making it possible for them, or some future government, to use it against you.
I should also point out - when I say you, I don't mean you. Or me. We're just two idiots on the internet. I'm talking about people with power. Or journalists, who want to expose wrong doing. Judges, who are going to decide whether or not to put that person in jail (or let them off). Maybe even other police. Oh, this officer wants to report me for corruption? Find out what shit we have on him, make it stick. Nothing? Well, easy enough to add data, and problem solved.
If you're not convinced - think about it this way. This is the exact opposite of what should be happening. We should know what our governments are doing, what they're spending OUR money on. We should know when a corporation is planning to pollute the air so that they can sell more cars. We should know if a moral pillar of our community is a den of pedophiles. WE should have the information on THEM, not the other way around.
- hx87 10y ago> Is it possible to have a free society that's completely surveilled? It is, if a society's ethical and legal code and how its members actually behave are closely aligned (which prevents blackmail), surveillance is done by all to all, and the government has limited ability to arrest and prosecute.
- tocf 10y ago>> Is it possible to have a free society that's completely surveilled? >It is, if a society's ethical and legal code and how its members actually behave are closely aligned (which prevents blackmail), surveillance is done by all to all, and the government has limited ability to arrest and prosecute. Anonymity and privacy would still have to be respected for it to work. While I believe that this is possible (just finishing up first draft of my first novel, a scifi that looks at this) it's not going to be achieved by legislating our way to it (or that it'll even originate from our governments). The main thing I think to point out is that individuals shouldn't be the ones we're keeping eyes on. Governments, corporations, charities, religions, and unions - basically any group of people - is where we should be demanding complete transparency, and surveillance by all.
- RonanTheGrey 10y agoAny system based on trusting a government not to do something is bound to fail, usually in spectacularly explosive ways. This is why trust is not a cornerstone of the US Constitution.
- RonanTheGrey 10y agoI want to live in the world you propose. But.. I'm sad now.