5 ms·

In the managerial culture no one really cares about the rules, because they don't think the rules apply to them because they are not doing anything wrong and th

by devoply 10y ago

In the managerial culture no one really cares about the rules, because they don't think the rules apply to them because they are not doing anything wrong and they are privileged. They understand that some people in the country are not privileged and those rules are for "them", not for "us". The only way to make them change their minds is if a lot of them become targets of the control apparatus and in liberal democracies that never happens. Democrats are afraid that Republicans are going to use the apparatus on them and vice versa. No one cares about the rule of law. In fact privilege has nothing to do with your actions, it has to do with who you are in relation to the government and those in power. Privilege can't really be taken away by new laws. Privilege can't even be given by new laws. Because the laws don't apply to those with privilege. It's possible to get privilege by doing what those in power want you to do and that's mostly act as they want you to act on their terms. Privilege is about power and control. It's nothing to be guilty about, because it's not something you did. It was something that was done for you.

Semiapies 10y ago
Trump will make them worry about the power of the government...right up until a Democrat is in the White House again.
rayiner 10y ago
I know a lot of people who care deeply about the rule of law that don't care about surveillance. The Constitution doesn't categorically prohibit surveillance. The fact of the matter is that when the Framers were writing the fourth amendment, they were really thinking in terms of property rights, not information. But there are many modes of surveillance that can be accomplished without infringing property rights. Now, you can apply things like mosaic theory to conjure up rights against surveillance into existence. And maybe that would be the right thing to do. But that's not the only reasonable construction of the fourth amendment, and I'd argue not even the most reasonable one (doctrinally). But, it's certainly something we could do. The "right to privacy" that covers contraception and abortion was conjured into existence literally from "penumbras." Even most "living Constitution" types would concede that those aren't the most doctrinally strict concepts. But it took an enormous amount of political capital to make those stick (and even today it is tenuous.) The question is, are people willing to spend that kind of political capital on electronic privacy?
- DrScump 10y ago
  when the Framers were writing the fourth amendment, they were really thinking in terms of property rights, not information When they specifically enumerated privacy rights encompassing one's "papers and effects", I expect that they meant the information on said papers, not the raw value of paper stock itself.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Sure, the framers meant to protect the information, not the paper stock. But they gave a right against a particular way of accessing that information. They prohibited warrentless searching or seizing--i.e. infringing your property rights in--the paper, not a blanket right against the government collecting that information by any means. If the framers had intended to protect the information regardless of source, whether or not it was contained in your papers and effects, they would have done so. The framers did not have Facebook, but they would have understood the importance of sensitive information held by third parties. They were merchants, bankers, wealthy farmers, and lawyers. They would have been able to conceive of, for example, the government collecting manifests from a shipper to prosecute a merchant for evading taxes. Or subpoenaing books from an accountant. The fundamental legal question underlying a big chunk of the surveillance issue--can the government force Facebook to give it information Facebook has about a user--has been teed up ever since subpoenas and accountants existed (both a couple of hundred years prior to the founding). What the framers did not contemplate is that one day the government would not have to infringe your property rights to get all your personal information.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      Is it maybe an analogy problem? At the time of the framing, your accountant had your information, but he was also authorized to know it. Nobody at Google is authorized to read my email or even I expect look at who I'm corresponding with. It's all done by machine. And the whole concept of "property" as inside a machine is unusual. Is an email on a server like a letter on an accountant's desk, or is it like a letter on my desk in my apartment which I lease from someone else? Was the government in 1780 allowed to subpoena the Post Office for your mail?

by devoply 10y ago

Semiapies 10y ago

Trump will make them worry about the power of the government...right up until a Democrat is in the White House again.

rayiner 10y ago

I know a lot of people who care deeply about the rule of law that don't care about surveillance. The Constitution doesn't categorically prohibit surveillance. The fact of the matter is that when the Framers were writing the fourth amendment, they were really thinking in terms of property rights, not information. But there are many modes of surveillance that can be accomplished without infringing property rights. Now, you can apply things like mosaic theory to conjure up rights against surveillance into existence. And maybe that would be the right thing to do. But that's not the only reasonable construction of the fourth amendment, and I'd argue not even the most reasonable one (doctrinally). But, it's certainly something we could do. The "right to privacy" that covers contraception and abortion was conjured into existence literally from "penumbras." Even most "living Constitution" types would concede that those aren't the most doctrinally strict concepts. But it took an enormous amount of political capital to make those stick (and even today it is tenuous.) The question is, are people willing to spend that kind of political capital on electronic privacy?

DrScump 10y ago
when the Framers were writing the fourth amendment, they were really thinking in terms of property rights, not information When they specifically enumerated privacy rights encompassing one's "papers and effects", I expect that they meant the information on said papers, not the raw value of paper stock itself.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Sure, the framers meant to protect the information, not the paper stock. But they gave a right against a particular way of accessing that information. They prohibited warrentless searching or seizing--i.e. infringing your property rights in--the paper, not a blanket right against the government collecting that information by any means. If the framers had intended to protect the information regardless of source, whether or not it was contained in your papers and effects, they would have done so. The framers did not have Facebook, but they would have understood the importance of sensitive information held by third parties. They were merchants, bankers, wealthy farmers, and lawyers. They would have been able to conceive of, for example, the government collecting manifests from a shipper to prosecute a merchant for evading taxes. Or subpoenaing books from an accountant. The fundamental legal question underlying a big chunk of the surveillance issue--can the government force Facebook to give it information Facebook has about a user--has been teed up ever since subpoenas and accountants existed (both a couple of hundred years prior to the founding). What the framers did not contemplate is that one day the government would not have to infringe your property rights to get all your personal information.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    Is it maybe an analogy problem? At the time of the framing, your accountant had your information, but he was also authorized to know it. Nobody at Google is authorized to read my email or even I expect look at who I'm corresponding with. It's all done by machine. And the whole concept of "property" as inside a machine is unusual. Is an email on a server like a letter on an accountant's desk, or is it like a letter on my desk in my apartment which I lease from someone else? Was the government in 1780 allowed to subpoena the Post Office for your mail?