3 ms·

People who refuse all government intrusion on privacy, including search warrants, regardless of circumstances, altogether, have logically consistent position. P

People who refuse all government intrusion on privacy, including search warrants, regardless of circumstances, altogether, have logically consistent position. People who accept that government can overrule any privacy that you might have for the purposes of investigation also have logically consistent position. But people who, on one hand, don't have any problem with things like search warrants to go through suspect's home, but at the same time treat any intrusion to suspect's digital privacy as a violation - this viewpoint I find very weird and contradictory.

DannyBee 8y ago
"this viewpoint I find very weird and contradictory" There are very few things at the intersection of society and justice (like law is) that are logically consistent. This is by design, because people are not logically consistent in how they operate (provably so, in fact). Maybe in a few million years depending on how we evolve. But for now, I'm not sure why you would expect anything else. This is similar to the old saying of "in nature, the optimum is rarely at the extremes" The extremes tend to be the most logically consistent positions.
mindslight 8y ago
Contemplate computing devices as direct extensions of one's mind. There's a long held philosophical right to not incriminate oneself that even extends to spouses. The justification for this paradigm is so that technology augments human intelligence (functioning as agents for each of us individually), as opposed to islands of human intelligence being left at the mercy of technology. Imagine if that devices you interacted with for a significant part of the day were all bona fide agents of the state, and you could never actually trust them with your raw thoughts. I know with the deluge of proprietary apps and pervasive surveillance it can still effectively feel that way for the technologically illiterate, but that's a temporary condition and far from calcifying it as uniform policy. And sure, the same argument could be applied to paper records (bookkeeping) or other close personal possessions, yet hasn't been. But what's forcing the issue now is the sheer level of advancement of computational intelligence.

DannyBee 8y ago

"this viewpoint I find very weird and contradictory" There are very few things at the intersection of society and justice (like law is) that are logically consistent. This is by design, because people are not logically consistent in how they operate (provably so, in fact). Maybe in a few million years depending on how we evolve. But for now, I'm not sure why you would expect anything else. This is similar to the old saying of "in nature, the optimum is rarely at the extremes" The extremes tend to be the most logically consistent positions.

mindslight 8y ago

Contemplate computing devices as direct extensions of one's mind. There's a long held philosophical right to not incriminate oneself that even extends to spouses. The justification for this paradigm is so that technology augments human intelligence (functioning as agents for each of us individually), as opposed to islands of human intelligence being left at the mercy of technology. Imagine if that devices you interacted with for a significant part of the day were all bona fide agents of the state, and you could never actually trust them with your raw thoughts. I know with the deluge of proprietary apps and pervasive surveillance it can still effectively feel that way for the technologically illiterate, but that's a temporary condition and far from calcifying it as uniform policy. And sure, the same argument could be applied to paper records (bookkeeping) or other close personal possessions, yet hasn't been. But what's forcing the issue now is the sheer level of advancement of computational intelligence.