6 ms·

I agree, but I'm talking about a scale even shorter than that. Roe v Wade was a clear and unambiguous advance for abortion rights, and the battle lines are now

I agree, but I'm talking about a scale even shorter than that. Roe v Wade was a clear and unambiguous advance for abortion rights, and the battle lines are now arrayed somewhere different than they were before Roe. The fight isn't over, but it's fairly clear who holds what. I'm talking about even knowing when you've made progress. If a federal directive came through tomorrow expansively forbidding the NSA from collecting data on US citizens, privacy advocates wouldn't even hope that bulk surveillance of citizens would stop. They know better, because it basically happened, and the definitions of words got rearranged until the program could continue unabated. Political issues aren't settled until they fade into consensus belief, but it's usually possible to make progress and then defend it. On surveillance and privacy, there's no law or court decision or whistleblower or even prosecution that can guarantee things aren't continuing exactly the way you didn't want them to.

marcosdumay 10y ago
On the current situation on the US, you'll know privacy advocates made progress when people start going to jail. No sooner.
yuhong 10y ago
I think part of the problem in the US is the culture where for example police departments compete for resources, basically to make their own department bigger. One of the ideas in the Ron Paul movement was that governments needs to be smaller. Of course, in the real world it probably should not go as far as Ron Paul suggests, but....
- lettergram 10y ago
  The current libertarian candidates are pretty moderate compared to Ron Paul (or either major party for that matter) I recommend looking into them.
gnarbarian 10y ago
Exactly. This is why the fight to maintain gun rights is a never ending battle as well. Arming yourself with a gun is the best defense against a violent attacker. Legally enshrining that right is important. But even if we didn't have that right, we could still defend ourselves clandestinely via illegal means and home made weapons. Similarly when it comes to security, privacy, and anonymity the best defense is to arm yourself with mathematical security.And to enshrine our right to those defenses in law. A subpoena only works if there is information that can be handed over in the first place. If strong and private encryption is made illegal then the best defense is still to use that technology clandestinely.
- gnarbarian 10y ago
  If someone made an argument that supports our right to strong encryption and doesn't also apply to gun rights I'd be impressed.
  - morninj 10y ago
    I feel safer when every private citizen I interact with uses strong encryption. I do not feel safer when every private citizen I interact with carries a gun.
    - gnarbarian 10y ago
      I genuinely appreciate your response but it is not an argument. fallacy [1] >I feel x isn't an argument. for example: I feel safer with a gun. fallacy [2] > ... when every private citizen I interact with carries a gun. Having the right to carry a gun or the right to encryption does not imply everyone will/must carry one or use it at all times. With encryption criminals around you can plan attacks, steal your identity, and trade child pornography without fear of the prying eyes of law enforcement ever being able to discover the evidence. That would probably make a large number of other people 'feel' unsafe as well. feeling a certain way isn't an argument. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
      - jacalata 10y ago
        Of course emotions are an argument. We're not Vulcans. Pretending that emotional impact is an irrelevant factor is a great way to win an argument without ever making anyone care what you said.
        gnarbarian 10y ago
        Thanks for the reply. I 'feel' safer with the right to carry a gun. I can feel safer when everyone has a gun. Therefore morninj's argument does in fact also apply to guns. Anyone can feel a certain way about anything, which is why it is invalid when trying to construct a logically sound objective argument. A subjective premise can not lead us all to an objective conclusion.
rtpg 10y ago
There have been countless times where courts have told three-letter agencies to stop doing things and they have stoppped. The judiciary has the power to protect us, much more than we give credit for. There's still rule of law, and the executive mostly listens to what the judiciary tells it to do. For all its flaws, some of our institutions work pretty well compared to most places. I cannot think of another country where judges are able to overtake heads of states in substantial policy outcomes.
- sroussey 10y ago
  They have not stopped. And you can't prove otherwise. Which strikes at the heart of the matter.
- techer 10y ago
  Agencies all the way down
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  I'd actually be interested to see examples. Most of the ones I know are of courts and Congress ordering three letter agencies to stop doing things, and being lied to and ignored. The infamous one: in its early days, the NSA was ordered to stop surveillance of US citizens. It went before the Church Committee and testified that the relevant sites had been closed for more than a year. This was a lie, bottom to top. The sites were actively operating as those words were spoken, and they weren't closed down until whistleblower James Bamford exposed the lie. https://theintercept.com/2014/10/02/the-nsa-and-me/ https://theintercept.com/2014/10/02/the-nsa-and-me/ There's a list a mile long of similar stories. Court decisions, executive orders, and acts of Congress have bounced off these agencies without result. I'd like to see examples, but I agree that you're not wrong in general. The agencies do respond to court decisions sometimes. My point is that when legal compliance is a coin flip and there's no way to check for results, you can't be sure that legal decision has changed anything at all.

marcosdumay 10y ago

On the current situation on the US, you'll know privacy advocates made progress when people start going to jail. No sooner.

yuhong 10y ago

I think part of the problem in the US is the culture where for example police departments compete for resources, basically to make their own department bigger. One of the ideas in the Ron Paul movement was that governments needs to be smaller. Of course, in the real world it probably should not go as far as Ron Paul suggests, but....

lettergram 10y ago
The current libertarian candidates are pretty moderate compared to Ron Paul (or either major party for that matter) I recommend looking into them.

gnarbarian 10y ago

Exactly. This is why the fight to maintain gun rights is a never ending battle as well. Arming yourself with a gun is the best defense against a violent attacker. Legally enshrining that right is important. But even if we didn't have that right, we could still defend ourselves clandestinely via illegal means and home made weapons. Similarly when it comes to security, privacy, and anonymity the best defense is to arm yourself with mathematical security.And to enshrine our right to those defenses in law. A subpoena only works if there is information that can be handed over in the first place. If strong and private encryption is made illegal then the best defense is still to use that technology clandestinely.

gnarbarian 10y ago
If someone made an argument that supports our right to strong encryption and doesn't also apply to gun rights I'd be impressed.
- morninj 10y ago
  I feel safer when every private citizen I interact with uses strong encryption. I do not feel safer when every private citizen I interact with carries a gun.
  - gnarbarian 10y ago
    I genuinely appreciate your response but it is not an argument. fallacy [1] >I feel x isn't an argument. for example: I feel safer with a gun. fallacy [2] > ... when every private citizen I interact with carries a gun. Having the right to carry a gun or the right to encryption does not imply everyone will/must carry one or use it at all times. With encryption criminals around you can plan attacks, steal your identity, and trade child pornography without fear of the prying eyes of law enforcement ever being able to discover the evidence. That would probably make a large number of other people 'feel' unsafe as well. feeling a certain way isn't an argument. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
    - jacalata 10y ago
      Of course emotions are an argument. We're not Vulcans. Pretending that emotional impact is an irrelevant factor is a great way to win an argument without ever making anyone care what you said.
      - gnarbarian 10y ago
        Thanks for the reply. I 'feel' safer with the right to carry a gun. I can feel safer when everyone has a gun. Therefore morninj's argument does in fact also apply to guns. Anyone can feel a certain way about anything, which is why it is invalid when trying to construct a logically sound objective argument. A subjective premise can not lead us all to an objective conclusion.

rtpg 10y ago

There have been countless times where courts have told three-letter agencies to stop doing things and they have stoppped. The judiciary has the power to protect us, much more than we give credit for. There's still rule of law, and the executive mostly listens to what the judiciary tells it to do. For all its flaws, some of our institutions work pretty well compared to most places. I cannot think of another country where judges are able to overtake heads of states in substantial policy outcomes.

sroussey 10y ago
They have not stopped. And you can't prove otherwise. Which strikes at the heart of the matter.
techer 10y ago
Agencies all the way down
Bartweiss 10y ago
I'd actually be interested to see examples. Most of the ones I know are of courts and Congress ordering three letter agencies to stop doing things, and being lied to and ignored. The infamous one: in its early days, the NSA was ordered to stop surveillance of US citizens. It went before the Church Committee and testified that the relevant sites had been closed for more than a year. This was a lie, bottom to top. The sites were actively operating as those words were spoken, and they weren't closed down until whistleblower James Bamford exposed the lie. https://theintercept.com/2014/10/02/the-nsa-and-me/ https://theintercept.com/2014/10/02/the-nsa-and-me/ There's a list a mile long of similar stories. Court decisions, executive orders, and acts of Congress have bounced off these agencies without result. I'd like to see examples, but I agree that you're not wrong in general. The agencies do respond to court decisions sometimes. My point is that when legal compliance is a coin flip and there's no way to check for results, you can't be sure that legal decision has changed anything at all.