3 ms·

I understand your desire to push back. Having "opted out" at TSA checkpoints for a year, I can tell you that the righteous feeling does little to counteract ann

by mLuby 9y ago

I understand your desire to push back. Having "opted out" at TSA checkpoints for a year, I can tell you that the righteous feeling does little to counteract annoyance from fellow travelers (especially those in my own party). Yes, en masse it would be effective, but until then it's not worth the individual effort IMO. Anyway, governments can't tolerate explicit affronts to their authority. The better course of action is for us to work together toto make it 1. trivial for everyone to hide their data, and 2. trivial for everyone to maintain vanilla data for plausible deniability. The end result is still a victory for privacy, but with far less friction with government at the individual level.

mulmen 9y ago
This is an argument against representative democracy and assumes that we are already essentially at war with our government. Civil disobedience has a long and successful history in this country. The rule of law still stands. Establishing privacy measures as tool of criminals operating outside the law does no good. TSA/DHS needs to be lobotomized/euthanized. Vote.
- mc32 9y ago
  The main problem for this is the vast majority of the population is totally okay with these procedures, so one cannot even argue against it nit being representative or it being repressive because if you put it to popular vote, you will not get the result you wish for.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    That's not how representative democracy works. We don't put every single issue up to a popular vote, we elect people to advance issues that we care about as voters. If you care about an issue then it's up to you to promote it in the public eye and work with your elected representatives to pass legislation. That may sound idealistic but it is the system we have and it does work. Vote. Support the ACLU. Support EFF.
- mLuby 9y ago
  It's just an argument in favor of a private sector solution. ;) War with our government is rather hyperbolic. Only nation-states can go to war—citizens are just traitors and terrorists. - The rule of law is only as good as the people's ability to hold each other accountable. Secret rulings and operations violate that contract. - Nobody's talking about doing anything criminal. Law enforcement operated just fine before encryption, and they'll keep us safe even when everyone has secure private communications (again). As for voting, - As a politician, voting for "security" over privacy bothers a few constituents and just annoys the rest. Voting the other way has a non-zero chance to ending your career when the next terrorist attack happens. - The national security agencies (and contractors) have a strong incentive to acquire power (funding/authority), which increases their ability to seek more power. The privacy charities seek to remove that power, which does not increase their ability to seek more power. In a fight between a self-reinforcing loop and a self-balancing one, I expect the former to win. - J Edgar Hoover wasn't a unique phenomenon. Power corrupts. But really, if everyone had unsearchable data, what's the worst that could happen (that couldn't already)?
  - mulmen 9y ago
    I'm all for privacy protections and private sector solutions. I think that's just a good idea in general even in the absence of government surveillance. The network is compromised, etc. I don't think we should throw up our arms and say that it is a waste of time to try and change the way DHS and TSA conduct themselves. If we do not protect our rights we will lose them. There is nothing new here. You seem to believe that citizens of the United States have no power to influence their government. I reject this belief.
    - mLuby 9y ago
      Not that we can't influence, but that we just have one lever when modern society calls for a whole control panel. I generally agree with you. Didn't mean to come off so pessimistic. :)
vlod 9y ago
>I can tell you that the righteous feeling does little to counteract annoyance from fellow travelers (especially those in my own party). Phuu.. then tell them up front you'll meet them at the gate. I great excuse (I have read this somewhere) is that you've heard they keep screwing the calibration of the of the ray-machine and over zapping people and don't want to trust your life to some min wager who really don't care if you lose 10 years or not. I've always opted out.

by mLuby 9y ago

mulmen 9y ago

This is an argument against representative democracy and assumes that we are already essentially at war with our government. Civil disobedience has a long and successful history in this country. The rule of law still stands. Establishing privacy measures as tool of criminals operating outside the law does no good. TSA/DHS needs to be lobotomized/euthanized. Vote.

mc32 9y ago
The main problem for this is the vast majority of the population is totally okay with these procedures, so one cannot even argue against it nit being representative or it being repressive because if you put it to popular vote, you will not get the result you wish for.
- mulmen 9y ago
  That's not how representative democracy works. We don't put every single issue up to a popular vote, we elect people to advance issues that we care about as voters. If you care about an issue then it's up to you to promote it in the public eye and work with your elected representatives to pass legislation. That may sound idealistic but it is the system we have and it does work. Vote. Support the ACLU. Support EFF.
mLuby 9y ago
It's just an argument in favor of a private sector solution. ;) War with our government is rather hyperbolic. Only nation-states can go to war—citizens are just traitors and terrorists. - The rule of law is only as good as the people's ability to hold each other accountable. Secret rulings and operations violate that contract. - Nobody's talking about doing anything criminal. Law enforcement operated just fine before encryption, and they'll keep us safe even when everyone has secure private communications (again). As for voting, - As a politician, voting for "security" over privacy bothers a few constituents and just annoys the rest. Voting the other way has a non-zero chance to ending your career when the next terrorist attack happens. - The national security agencies (and contractors) have a strong incentive to acquire power (funding/authority), which increases their ability to seek more power. The privacy charities seek to remove that power, which does not increase their ability to seek more power. In a fight between a self-reinforcing loop and a self-balancing one, I expect the former to win. - J Edgar Hoover wasn't a unique phenomenon. Power corrupts. But really, if everyone had unsearchable data, what's the worst that could happen (that couldn't already)?
- mulmen 9y ago
  I'm all for privacy protections and private sector solutions. I think that's just a good idea in general even in the absence of government surveillance. The network is compromised, etc. I don't think we should throw up our arms and say that it is a waste of time to try and change the way DHS and TSA conduct themselves. If we do not protect our rights we will lose them. There is nothing new here. You seem to believe that citizens of the United States have no power to influence their government. I reject this belief.
  - mLuby 9y ago
    Not that we can't influence, but that we just have one lever when modern society calls for a whole control panel. I generally agree with you. Didn't mean to come off so pessimistic. :)

vlod 9y ago

>I can tell you that the righteous feeling does little to counteract annoyance from fellow travelers (especially those in my own party). Phuu.. then tell them up front you'll meet them at the gate. I great excuse (I have read this somewhere) is that you've heard they keep screwing the calibration of the of the ray-machine and over zapping people and don't want to trust your life to some min wager who really don't care if you lose 10 years or not. I've always opted out.