4 ms·

Your response illuminates the exact boiling frog / slippery slope problem AP was referring to. None of what you mentioned should have been granted to the polic

by lugg 8y ago

Your response illuminates the exact boiling frog / slippery slope problem AP was referring to. None of what you mentioned should have been granted to the police but because of similar apathetic non argument whataboutism tactics like yours it was. The only one I see there that even holds water as an acceptable invasion of privacy is witnesses but that's only because people still have a right to tell the police to get lost provided they're not a damn fool [1]. The rest are just as bad if not worse invasions of privacy. None of which have valid arguments for existing themselves. Their current use doesn't really give much more of an argument for allowing this new encroachment. If anything they give a reason to push back even more. 1. https://youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

bicubic 8y ago
I upvoted the gp post just so it and your reply can be kept visible. This dismissive attitude towards the slow but steady incremental erosion of privacy and authoritarian creep terrifies me. It's like people have completely forgotten about not-so-distant history, and are not just tolerating, but welcoming the mechanisms of oppression rolling out once again. In the name of catching a dozen or so criminals - just like every other time in the recorded history of oppressive regimes. This has all happened before. For centuries. The same dismissive arguments have been used to defend the Gestapo and KGB. If there's a crime, why wouldn't you interrogate the family of everyone who was reported to be near the scene? Why wouldn't you force a confession and tick off the case if none of the leads are working out? It takes only a few minutes of empirical thought to realize that not every crime must be solved, especially when that doctrine creates an incentive to 'solve' crimes with easy targets rather than the real perpetrator. You hit diminishing returns really hard really fast by investing extra resources into solving crimes with statistically negligible incidence rates. The only entity that stands to benefit is the proto authoritarian regime and its ability to target arbitrary population segments and continue expanding. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin knew better.
nabla9 8y ago
> None of what you mentioned should have been granted to the police Not even questioning the witnesses, or stopping people in the area? Please describe the alternative method for police investigation? Someone is killed in the street, now what?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lugg 8y ago
  I mentioned witness testimony as somewhat legitimate simply because it is opt in in nature. The rest is assuredly not opt in. This is the very basic argument: if I don't opt in, you do not have a right to my private affairs, details, papers, movements or discussions with others. If you want to argue we live in an imperfect world full of grey areas and need to sometimes give up some general privacy for the greater good and safety of the people then do so, and I will likely agree with you on a lot of the justifications to concede that privacy. Just don't for a second think that those individual concessions instantly justify all others. That like your original position is just far too many logical fallacies to even begin to unpack.

by lugg 8y ago

bicubic 8y ago

I upvoted the gp post just so it and your reply can be kept visible. This dismissive attitude towards the slow but steady incremental erosion of privacy and authoritarian creep terrifies me. It's like people have completely forgotten about not-so-distant history, and are not just tolerating, but welcoming the mechanisms of oppression rolling out once again. In the name of catching a dozen or so criminals - just like every other time in the recorded history of oppressive regimes. This has all happened before. For centuries. The same dismissive arguments have been used to defend the Gestapo and KGB. If there's a crime, why wouldn't you interrogate the family of everyone who was reported to be near the scene? Why wouldn't you force a confession and tick off the case if none of the leads are working out? It takes only a few minutes of empirical thought to realize that not every crime must be solved, especially when that doctrine creates an incentive to 'solve' crimes with easy targets rather than the real perpetrator. You hit diminishing returns really hard really fast by investing extra resources into solving crimes with statistically negligible incidence rates. The only entity that stands to benefit is the proto authoritarian regime and its ability to target arbitrary population segments and continue expanding. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin knew better.

nabla9 8y ago

> None of what you mentioned should have been granted to the police Not even questioning the witnesses, or stopping people in the area? Please describe the alternative method for police investigation? Someone is killed in the street, now what?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lugg 8y ago
I mentioned witness testimony as somewhat legitimate simply because it is opt in in nature. The rest is assuredly not opt in. This is the very basic argument: if I don't opt in, you do not have a right to my private affairs, details, papers, movements or discussions with others. If you want to argue we live in an imperfect world full of grey areas and need to sometimes give up some general privacy for the greater good and safety of the people then do so, and I will likely agree with you on a lot of the justifications to concede that privacy. Just don't for a second think that those individual concessions instantly justify all others. That like your original position is just far too many logical fallacies to even begin to unpack.