4 ms·

More likely they would say they want to do it because it would be "helping the police and security services to do their job" and be "protecting the people".

by daemin 10y ago

Silhouette 10y ago
For sure, but wouldn't it be nice if the interviewer at least challenged the assumption that such measures do protect people overall? Leaving aside the question of whether there would be any benefit in the case of attacks like the one we saw last week, which is debatable in itself, there's also the question of whether the reduced security would do more harm than good. The interviewer could explore the impact of online fraud or identity theft or cyber-bullying, and look at how fast these problems have been growing in recent years. Then challenge the advocate of weakened encryption or mass surveillance over why they want to require security vulnerabilities or create huge databases that will make great targets for criminals. If they claim everything would be securely held and strictly for police use or similar, go with Snowden and Wikileaks. If the advocate brings up their other favourite argument about protecting children, the interviewer could ask whether it's really a good idea to make it easier to intercept private picture messages between teenagers. They could ask why the government wants measures that would inevitably undermine investigative journalism that holds the government and the police and the security services to account. Then start listing past controversies relating to the behaviour of those groups to demonstrate why that public interest reporting matters. It's not as if privacy and security advocates only think these things are important because they don't like the government or something. There are real, serious consequences in play several different ways here.
- daemin 10y ago
  The media can't really challenge the government any more, unless the government has done something truly unpopular. If they do challenge on something which doesn't have strong public opinion then they [the media] risk losing interview and access rights to the politicians.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    On the other hand, if you're just being a free mouthpiece for whatever politician is on your show anyway because you're not allowed to actually interview them, you might as well tell them to take a hike and present real news and analysis instead, or go for satire. Heck, if the alternative was just letting politicians repeat whatever they want unchallenged, you could do a whole show presenting "alternative facts" and you still wouldn't be any worse off.

More likely they would say they want to do it because it would be "helping the police and security services to do their job" and be "protecting the people".

by daemin 10y ago

More likely they would say they want to do it because it would be "helping the police and security services to do their job" and be "protecting the people".

Silhouette 10y ago

For sure, but wouldn't it be nice if the interviewer at least challenged the assumption that such measures do protect people overall? Leaving aside the question of whether there would be any benefit in the case of attacks like the one we saw last week, which is debatable in itself, there's also the question of whether the reduced security would do more harm than good. The interviewer could explore the impact of online fraud or identity theft or cyber-bullying, and look at how fast these problems have been growing in recent years. Then challenge the advocate of weakened encryption or mass surveillance over why they want to require security vulnerabilities or create huge databases that will make great targets for criminals. If they claim everything would be securely held and strictly for police use or similar, go with Snowden and Wikileaks. If the advocate brings up their other favourite argument about protecting children, the interviewer could ask whether it's really a good idea to make it easier to intercept private picture messages between teenagers. They could ask why the government wants measures that would inevitably undermine investigative journalism that holds the government and the police and the security services to account. Then start listing past controversies relating to the behaviour of those groups to demonstrate why that public interest reporting matters. It's not as if privacy and security advocates only think these things are important because they don't like the government or something. There are real, serious consequences in play several different ways here.

daemin 10y ago
The media can't really challenge the government any more, unless the government has done something truly unpopular. If they do challenge on something which doesn't have strong public opinion then they [the media] risk losing interview and access rights to the politicians.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  On the other hand, if you're just being a free mouthpiece for whatever politician is on your show anyway because you're not allowed to actually interview them, you might as well tell them to take a hike and present real news and analysis instead, or go for satire. Heck, if the alternative was just letting politicians repeat whatever they want unchallenged, you could do a whole show presenting "alternative facts" and you still wouldn't be any worse off.