3 ms·

That’s clearly not how the US (or anywhere) operates: the constitution itself negotiates terms between privacy and security — privacy is not and never has been

That’s clearly not how the US (or anywhere) operates: the constitution itself negotiates terms between privacy and security — privacy is not and never has been an absolute right. Further, I’m actually trying to increase privacy, by negotiating a compromise that’s workable for society as a way to remove the excuses bad actors are using, and shift the legal framework around the topic. That’s not an absolute ideological position, by any definition. By contrast, you do adopt such an absolutist position — which isn’t grounded in law, and fails to provide for other societal needs. Such stances lead to failure, because of their absolutism. Your stance is why Australia passed an internet wiretapping law, not mine — because you refused to acknowledge a societal need until they employed force. If your approach worked, we wouldn’t have the state of things we do now.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ric2b 8y ago
> Further, I’m actually trying to increase privacy, by negotiating a compromise that’s workable for society as a way to remove the excuses bad actors are using, and shift the legal framework around the topic. That’s not an absolute ideological position, by any definition. I appreciate the motivation but it's very naive. Sure, you give them access after 1 month. Next they'll say 1 month is too long, they need to be able to do it within hours to be able to catch criminals before they run to another city. Then it'll be minutes so they can stop crimes while they're happening. Then it'll be real-time on everyone so they can use machine learning to predict crimes minutes before they happen. > Your stance is why Australia passed an internet wiretapping law, not mine — because you refused to acknowledge a societal need until they employed force. > If your approach worked, we wouldn’t have the state of things we do now. They would still have done, and more. You think police and intelligence agencies will one day just say "yeah, that's enough, we're good"? No, they'll want anything that makes their job easier and gives them more power, always.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ric2b 8y ago

> Further, I’m actually trying to increase privacy, by negotiating a compromise that’s workable for society as a way to remove the excuses bad actors are using, and shift the legal framework around the topic. That’s not an absolute ideological position, by any definition. I appreciate the motivation but it's very naive. Sure, you give them access after 1 month. Next they'll say 1 month is too long, they need to be able to do it within hours to be able to catch criminals before they run to another city. Then it'll be minutes so they can stop crimes while they're happening. Then it'll be real-time on everyone so they can use machine learning to predict crimes minutes before they happen. > Your stance is why Australia passed an internet wiretapping law, not mine — because you refused to acknowledge a societal need until they employed force. > If your approach worked, we wouldn’t have the state of things we do now. They would still have done, and more. You think police and intelligence agencies will one day just say "yeah, that's enough, we're good"? No, they'll want anything that makes their job easier and gives them more power, always.