3 ms·

Or maybe no? What if this isn't primarily about terrorism; instead, what if the lawmakers and government people want more and more power to themselves, by gradu

Or maybe no? What if this isn't primarily about terrorism; instead, what if the lawmakers and government people want more and more power to themselves, by gradually getting access to more and more private conversations, step by step turning the US into sth like Russia and China? Then they would use the same arguments about terrorism, as they do now, wouldn't they.

dllthomas 7y ago
"They"'re not a single individual with coherent motivation. It's a bunch of people that want a bunch of different things. I fully expect quite a few aren't terribly interested in a police state. We need to be sure our arguments make sense and we're not willfully blind to concerns that, on their face (if narrowly) make sense. "But terrorists will just ignore the law" is a bad argument. It ignores the fact that the ban still increases the power of the government to act against terrorists. The problem with the law isn't that it's useless against terrorists. The problem is that it also increases the power of the government against the innocent, and possibly the power of some non-governmental criminals as well (depending on implementation).
- HappyDreamer 7y ago
  Ok that's a good point. A problem could be that people in general don't care about: "increases the power of the government against the innocent" -- because that's a theoretical problem in the "distant" future? Personally I think the US gov getting too much power and gradually in small steps get access to "everyone's" communication, is like 1000 times more dangerous than "encrypted terrorism messages", and, what can be a good way to make people in general better understand the risks & dangers with small steps towards a dictatorship? Maybe if everyone reads 1984 :- / or if everyone was better educated about what happens if you're in China an critizise the government there? I didn't mean literally all lawmakers etc (although that's what I wrote). The next time I can try to write "some of them" instead.
  - dllthomas 7y ago
    One part of the solution is probably to raise awareness of the ways that systems justified in these ways are already being abused. For instance, spying on romantic interests at the NSA was apparently common enough that they had a cutesy name for it.

dllthomas 7y ago

"They"'re not a single individual with coherent motivation. It's a bunch of people that want a bunch of different things. I fully expect quite a few aren't terribly interested in a police state. We need to be sure our arguments make sense and we're not willfully blind to concerns that, on their face (if narrowly) make sense. "But terrorists will just ignore the law" is a bad argument. It ignores the fact that the ban still increases the power of the government to act against terrorists. The problem with the law isn't that it's useless against terrorists. The problem is that it also increases the power of the government against the innocent, and possibly the power of some non-governmental criminals as well (depending on implementation).

HappyDreamer 7y ago
Ok that's a good point. A problem could be that people in general don't care about: "increases the power of the government against the innocent" -- because that's a theoretical problem in the "distant" future? Personally I think the US gov getting too much power and gradually in small steps get access to "everyone's" communication, is like 1000 times more dangerous than "encrypted terrorism messages", and, what can be a good way to make people in general better understand the risks & dangers with small steps towards a dictatorship? Maybe if everyone reads 1984 :- / or if everyone was better educated about what happens if you're in China an critizise the government there? I didn't mean literally all lawmakers etc (although that's what I wrote). The next time I can try to write "some of them" instead.
- dllthomas 7y ago
  One part of the solution is probably to raise awareness of the ways that systems justified in these ways are already being abused. For instance, spying on romantic interests at the NSA was apparently common enough that they had a cutesy name for it.