3 ms·

Do you really think that surveillance like this gives the government any more power than it already has over the common person? More than governments have alway

Do you really think that surveillance like this gives the government any more power than it already has over the common person? More than governments have always had over the common person? Let's concern ourselves with electing good governments, not the capabilities they develop to defend us from criminals.

vageli 9y ago
If it didn't give the government more power it would not be a pursued strategy. Reverse your comment: if it didn't give the government more power, then just why are they doing it?
- meri_dian 9y ago
  They're doing it because knowledge is power. And power in a dangerous world is necessary to keep us all safe. We need to worry about keeping the government focused on protecting us from the right things, not destroying its ability to protect us.
  - mcny 9y ago
    > They're doing it because knowledge is power. And power in a dangerous world is necessary to keep us all safe. But the world is safer than ever before. It isn't a dangerous world. It is the safest world we know of... I think we are at least partially at fault here. We demand action everytime the is a tragedy but perhaps sometimes the best course of action is to stay the course with no change in plan. I don't know. I'm just making assumptions tbh.
    - meri_dian 9y ago
      It is safe relative to some lawless past, but crime still occurs. You as a law abiding citizen just don't come in contact with it very often. The people defending you and the nation from criminals do. Don't be naive in thinking that just because you can't see it, it isn't there.
      - lovich 9y ago
        I wouldn't call the 80's some lawless past under anything but the most strict definition of past, and we're much safer now than we were then. The authorities are becoming more of a danger than any criminal as well. This is shown directly with assets stolen under civil forfeiture rules being greater than assets stolen by criminals in the US. Anecdotally, even in the bad neighborhoods I've lived in where I wouldn't go outside at night, the worst I would expect from a criminal is a mugging or beating. With cops I have to worry about that as well as being put in jail and possibly having my life ruined depending on what they decide to charge me with. I don't really see the cops or FBI as defending me or anyone else from criminals. At this point they are just one group of criminals fighting other groups of criminals for dominance
        meri_dian 9y ago
        You have a very misguided view then. Unless you're committing a crime or are associated with criminals you really don't have much of anything to fear
        lovich 9y ago
        I mean, that's provably false with all of the innocent people who end up in jail or things like civil forfeiture which are used to take money from anyone. How about the people who get attacked by cops who no knock raid the wrong house? Saying that cops only go after criminals and their associates is a view that can only exist in ignorance of the mountain of evidence showing the opposite
jancsika 9y ago
> Do you really think that surveillance like this gives the government any more power than it already has over the common person? That's a truism. If we play Battleship and you can see my battleships but I can't see yours, who is going to win? But your questioning of a truism makes me think you don't agree with a hidden premise of civic life: that there will be times where the citizenry will be rightfully at odds with law enforcement tasked with protecting it. Many stripes of civil disobedience depend on that hidden premise. > Let's concern ourselves with electing good governments, not the capabilities they develop to defend us from criminals. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. Trusting a future elected "good government" to keep the FBI honest with their black box capabilities-- capabilities which they reflexively claim are necessary as currently implemented to combat terrorism-- isn't a viable solution in a democracy. A "good" government itself includes a fearless press and a strong judicial branch which citizens can use to force the FBI to be more transparent about what it does. That strong judicial branch can also be used to revise the capabilities of LE if they are found to be ripe for abuse and corruption. Our ability to do this at all is itself a measure of how "good" our government is.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  But your analysis of the situation is wrong. When we talk about power we necessarily speak of relative power. While this represents an escalation of FBI intelligence gathering capabilities, the average civilian has more ways to discretely communicate and congregate now than ever before. Viewed in this light, the government improving its intelligence gathering capabilities is simply a response to the citizenry's increasing ability to avoid detection. And it goes without saying - or perhaps you need to be reminded - that bad actors' ability to work in the shadows increases in parallel with everyone else's.
King-Aaron 9y ago
> Let's concern ourselves with electing good governments Thus far, no population on Earth has truly succeeded with this.

vageli 9y ago

If it didn't give the government more power it would not be a pursued strategy. Reverse your comment: if it didn't give the government more power, then just why are they doing it?

meri_dian 9y ago
They're doing it because knowledge is power. And power in a dangerous world is necessary to keep us all safe. We need to worry about keeping the government focused on protecting us from the right things, not destroying its ability to protect us.
- mcny 9y ago
  > They're doing it because knowledge is power. And power in a dangerous world is necessary to keep us all safe. But the world is safer than ever before. It isn't a dangerous world. It is the safest world we know of... I think we are at least partially at fault here. We demand action everytime the is a tragedy but perhaps sometimes the best course of action is to stay the course with no change in plan. I don't know. I'm just making assumptions tbh.
  - meri_dian 9y ago
    It is safe relative to some lawless past, but crime still occurs. You as a law abiding citizen just don't come in contact with it very often. The people defending you and the nation from criminals do. Don't be naive in thinking that just because you can't see it, it isn't there.
    - lovich 9y ago
      I wouldn't call the 80's some lawless past under anything but the most strict definition of past, and we're much safer now than we were then. The authorities are becoming more of a danger than any criminal as well. This is shown directly with assets stolen under civil forfeiture rules being greater than assets stolen by criminals in the US. Anecdotally, even in the bad neighborhoods I've lived in where I wouldn't go outside at night, the worst I would expect from a criminal is a mugging or beating. With cops I have to worry about that as well as being put in jail and possibly having my life ruined depending on what they decide to charge me with. I don't really see the cops or FBI as defending me or anyone else from criminals. At this point they are just one group of criminals fighting other groups of criminals for dominance
      - meri_dian 9y ago
        You have a very misguided view then. Unless you're committing a crime or are associated with criminals you really don't have much of anything to fear
        lovich 9y ago
        I mean, that's provably false with all of the innocent people who end up in jail or things like civil forfeiture which are used to take money from anyone. How about the people who get attacked by cops who no knock raid the wrong house? Saying that cops only go after criminals and their associates is a view that can only exist in ignorance of the mountain of evidence showing the opposite

jancsika 9y ago

> Do you really think that surveillance like this gives the government any more power than it already has over the common person? That's a truism. If we play Battleship and you can see my battleships but I can't see yours, who is going to win? But your questioning of a truism makes me think you don't agree with a hidden premise of civic life: that there will be times where the citizenry will be rightfully at odds with law enforcement tasked with protecting it. Many stripes of civil disobedience depend on that hidden premise. > Let's concern ourselves with electing good governments, not the capabilities they develop to defend us from criminals. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. Trusting a future elected "good government" to keep the FBI honest with their black box capabilities-- capabilities which they reflexively claim are necessary as currently implemented to combat terrorism-- isn't a viable solution in a democracy. A "good" government itself includes a fearless press and a strong judicial branch which citizens can use to force the FBI to be more transparent about what it does. That strong judicial branch can also be used to revise the capabilities of LE if they are found to be ripe for abuse and corruption. Our ability to do this at all is itself a measure of how "good" our government is.

meri_dian 9y ago
But your analysis of the situation is wrong. When we talk about power we necessarily speak of relative power. While this represents an escalation of FBI intelligence gathering capabilities, the average civilian has more ways to discretely communicate and congregate now than ever before. Viewed in this light, the government improving its intelligence gathering capabilities is simply a response to the citizenry's increasing ability to avoid detection. And it goes without saying - or perhaps you need to be reminded - that bad actors' ability to work in the shadows increases in parallel with everyone else's.

King-Aaron 9y ago

> Let's concern ourselves with electing good governments Thus far, no population on Earth has truly succeeded with this.