4 ms·

No, I want locating those members to be hard. I understand human nature and we know that no one will watch the watchers. There are lots of avenues for tracking

No, I want locating those members to be hard. I understand human nature and we know that no one will watch the watchers. There are lots of avenues for tracking these groups but it requires real work. You have to infiltrate and investigate. You are also missing something. It is really about civilians being harmed? How many people died last year from terrorism in the US or the UK? How many died because people were texting and driving? Or drunk driving? Should we track when you text and drive the same way? Should we have police sit outside of every bar testing people to prevent harm? I think we all prefer to have the presumption of innocence and to face consequences for our mistakes and crimes, not to be tracked in case we do.

shadowgovt 7y ago
I think the UK is providing a very useful example of how one watches the watchers. The government is accountable via elections and their power seems held in check pretty well. > I want locating those members to be hard I respect your opinion, but the people who have lost loved ones to "random" attacks don't generally share that view. Hell, part of the purpose of building a society and a government is to minimize that kind of personal violence against people.
- snarf21 7y ago
  I understand what you are saying but are the people who lost loved ones to drunk driving or text driving any more understanding? You could argue it is even more senseless violence. We could easily make car connected breathalyzers mandatory in all cars. This would save 10K lives in the US alone. Are those thousands of lives not worth it in your mind? I agree that government has a role in protecting people. We are both free to vote for representatives that are either for spying on citizens or against spying on citizens. We can also move if the other side wins.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Are we arguing financial cost or privacy cost? I personally think the financial burden of retrofitting all US cars with breathalyzers is burdensome. If they already had such equipment, I'd 100% be in favor of gating starting the car on their use, especially if it was a completely passive, foolproof system. You're right on the number of deaths to drunk driving in the US; it's atrocious. This wouldn't even be the first time in US history a policy change to improve safety and corresponding enforcement occurred; seatbelt laws exist, and enforcement of such laws allows the police to glance in your window to see if you're wearing one and fine you if you aren't. We aren't too far away from cars refusing to be driven if the seatbelt is unclipped. To swing us back around from this analogous hypothetical to the UK's situation: the cameras are already sunk cost and the question on the table is to improve their utility via software. We aren't talking installing breathalyzers; we're talking about upgrading the existing breathalyzers' firmware to work better at the task they were intended for, so to speak. We can argue whether the software will technically work (separate question, and I'm not in favor of installing something that just doesn't work), but if it does work I'm in favor of passive mass surveillance of public spaces to find persons of interest. It bothers basically nobody and greatly improves the utility of a system that is already installed for the purpose of aiding in stopping crime.
- Lio 7y ago
  The problem is that neither the government or police are really accountable for abuse of these powers. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the police have admitted previously they’ve abused surveillance powers to blacklist innocent people from construction jobs simply for being members of trade unions. [1] No body went to prison for that or lost their job and no governments were brought down because of it. A few companies paid compensation but some are still fighting it in court. Until we can point to examples members of the police or security service being in someway sanctioned for privacy abuses I don’t think anyone can say that the system is working. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/06/trade-unionist-refused-job-after-police-passed-details-to-blacklist https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/06/trade-unioni...
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Sibling to this thread, it was noted that HUDOC has oversight and can fine a government for human rights violations. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/uk-surveillance-regime-violated-human-rights https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/uk-surveillance-regime...
    - Lio 7y ago
      Leaving aside any fallout from Brexit, there’s a world of difference between “can” and “has”. Until safeguards are proven to work and we have examples where they actually haven’t been applied then they effectively don’t exist.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        """ Holds, by six votes to one, (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) to the applicants in the first of the joined cases: EUR 150,000 (one hundred and fifty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; (ii) to the applicants in the second of the joined cases: EUR 35,000 (thirty-five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; """ https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_Toc524359882 https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_Toc524359882 One can debate how effective a EUR 185,000 fine is in restraining the UK, but it strongly indicates the behavior was unacceptable and will be considered unacceptable moving forward. Seems safeguards work.

shadowgovt 7y ago

I think the UK is providing a very useful example of how one watches the watchers. The government is accountable via elections and their power seems held in check pretty well. > I want locating those members to be hard I respect your opinion, but the people who have lost loved ones to "random" attacks don't generally share that view. Hell, part of the purpose of building a society and a government is to minimize that kind of personal violence against people.

snarf21 7y ago
I understand what you are saying but are the people who lost loved ones to drunk driving or text driving any more understanding? You could argue it is even more senseless violence. We could easily make car connected breathalyzers mandatory in all cars. This would save 10K lives in the US alone. Are those thousands of lives not worth it in your mind? I agree that government has a role in protecting people. We are both free to vote for representatives that are either for spying on citizens or against spying on citizens. We can also move if the other side wins.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Are we arguing financial cost or privacy cost? I personally think the financial burden of retrofitting all US cars with breathalyzers is burdensome. If they already had such equipment, I'd 100% be in favor of gating starting the car on their use, especially if it was a completely passive, foolproof system. You're right on the number of deaths to drunk driving in the US; it's atrocious. This wouldn't even be the first time in US history a policy change to improve safety and corresponding enforcement occurred; seatbelt laws exist, and enforcement of such laws allows the police to glance in your window to see if you're wearing one and fine you if you aren't. We aren't too far away from cars refusing to be driven if the seatbelt is unclipped. To swing us back around from this analogous hypothetical to the UK's situation: the cameras are already sunk cost and the question on the table is to improve their utility via software. We aren't talking installing breathalyzers; we're talking about upgrading the existing breathalyzers' firmware to work better at the task they were intended for, so to speak. We can argue whether the software will technically work (separate question, and I'm not in favor of installing something that just doesn't work), but if it does work I'm in favor of passive mass surveillance of public spaces to find persons of interest. It bothers basically nobody and greatly improves the utility of a system that is already installed for the purpose of aiding in stopping crime.
Lio 7y ago
The problem is that neither the government or police are really accountable for abuse of these powers. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the police have admitted previously they’ve abused surveillance powers to blacklist innocent people from construction jobs simply for being members of trade unions. [1] No body went to prison for that or lost their job and no governments were brought down because of it. A few companies paid compensation but some are still fighting it in court. Until we can point to examples members of the police or security service being in someway sanctioned for privacy abuses I don’t think anyone can say that the system is working. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/06/trade-unionist-refused-job-after-police-passed-details-to-blacklist https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/06/trade-unioni...
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Sibling to this thread, it was noted that HUDOC has oversight and can fine a government for human rights violations. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/uk-surveillance-regime-violated-human-rights https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/uk-surveillance-regime...
  - Lio 7y ago
    Leaving aside any fallout from Brexit, there’s a world of difference between “can” and “has”. Until safeguards are proven to work and we have examples where they actually haven’t been applied then they effectively don’t exist.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      """ Holds, by six votes to one, (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) to the applicants in the first of the joined cases: EUR 150,000 (one hundred and fifty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; (ii) to the applicants in the second of the joined cases: EUR 35,000 (thirty-five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; """ https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_Toc524359882 https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_Toc524359882 One can debate how effective a EUR 185,000 fine is in restraining the UK, but it strongly indicates the behavior was unacceptable and will be considered unacceptable moving forward. Seems safeguards work.