4 ms·

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 jus

by 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. :)

by mLuby 9y ago

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. :)