3 ms·

I don't get the hostility towards requiring a warrant to spy on election candidates. Even if the goal is similar protections for everybody, it's obvious that me

I don't get the hostility towards requiring a warrant to spy on election candidates. Even if the goal is similar protections for everybody, it's obvious that measures designed to prevent parties from abusing the surveillance apparatus for political ends is a good thing. It's difficult to imagine a better tool for ensuring one side gets muck raked harder than the other.

javajosh 6y ago
It violates the core principle of equal justice. What if we only required search or arrest warrants for those with more than $10M in assets? Your comment would still apply, and would be more obviously unjust.
- ueu33hyrdd 6y ago
  Whether it harmonizes perfectly with the spirit of equal justice or not is irrelevant to whether or not it still represents an improvement over the status quo. Your hypothetical is similarly asanine and works mainly as a straw man because, as far as the integrity of the democratic process, there's a clear difference between shielding individuals competing in a public election and random rich people on the street. You're literally arguing against something that would improve the integrity of the system.
  - stallmanite 6y ago
    Is formalizing a two-tier surveillance regime an improvement over the status quo?
  - danShumway 6y ago
    If you have a broken system, and you allow people in power to fix it in targeted ways that only affect them, then it will never get fixed for ordinary people. Your point might hold true if the people being exempted from surveillance weren't also the people deciding who can be exempted from surveillance. But since they are, it is counterproductive to the privacy cause to allow Congress to give itself these kinds of special rules. Force everyone in society to play by the same rules, and everyone in society will get the benefits. Allow Congress to get into the habit of exempting themselves from social systems or problems, and those problems will continue to exist. In other words, when setting up incentives you have to think pragmatically about the entire system in the long term; you can't always just focus on short-term goals to the exclusion of everything else. Local optimums[0] aren't just a problem in AI, they're also a problem in real life. Because of the long term consequences, we're not interested in forming privacy castes in scenarios where doing so will make it harder for us to improve the system in the future. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_optimum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_optimum
    - croon 6y ago
      Small correction, but these amendments originate in the Senate, not Congress.
      - dredmorbius 6y ago
        The US Senate is a proper subset of Congress, comprising one of its coequal houses, the other being the House of Representatives. Collectively the two are Congress.
Spooky23 6y ago
For one, we have a POTUS that may have benefited knowingly or unknowingly by means of a foreign intelligence influence campaign. This gives those entities a free pass to influence campaigns or to hide other types of spying relating to an incumbent who is running for re-election. Seems like a bad time to make such a change in the law. There’s also the whole equal protection under law issue — a core tenant of American law is that everyone is nominally the same. Declaring a vague category of citizen out of bounds of the law is absurd.
- ueu33hyrdd 6y ago
  You could literally say the same thing about the Steele Dossier sponsored by the Clinton Campaign, Steele was identified as connected to a foreign government influence campaign as well. A candidate literally cooperated with a foreign actor with undisclosed Russian ties to generate evidence against their opponent which they knew would be disseminated by the American IC. Not having these protections just incentivizes whoever currently controls the apparatus to strategically investigate their party's opposition. Edit: Putting this here since I've reached my reply cap. There was a request for citations. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/report-footnotes-show-fbi-knew-russians-had-early-knowledge-of-steele-material/ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/report-footnotes-show-fbi-k...
  - skoskie 6y ago
    > Steele was identified as connected to a foreign government influence campaign as well. Maybe I’m just out of the loop, but this needs a source.
    - GauntletWizard 6y ago
      Steele is very publically a former MI6 agent, and while the British are our allies, that counts in and of itself. However, it's also fact that Steele himself was well known to Russian intelligence, and while it's clear he was no friend to them he was a known enemy - They were specifically trying to feed him disinformation[1][2] Did he bite bad bait? That's the question that doubters bring up. The "pee tape" thing is so bizarre I think it's likely true, but on the other hand I think that at this point Trump could just own it. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/16/politics/christopher-steele-footnotes-russian-disinformation/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/16/politics/christopher-steele-f... [2]https://www.wsj.com/articles/steele-dossier-disinformation-update-11586897258 https://www.wsj.com/articles/steele-dossier-disinformation-u...
stormbrew 6y ago
Aside from the blatantly obvious issue of equal protection of the law, if the people who would have to pass a broader law are already protected by one that is narrowly focused on them, they're less incentivized to pass the broader law. Letting the narrow law pass creates a barrier to passing the broader law.
- dsfyu404ed 6y ago
  It goes even further than that. If the politicians are protected by their own special law they are much more likely to write laws that violate the privacy and rights of everyone else because they do not feel threatened by it.
kristopolous 6y ago
It's no different than medieval monarchies giving Kings special protections. If you're tasked with the public welfare you should get greater scrutiny, not be granted special privileges from it. It's the classic case of those writing the law carving out an exception for themselves. Someone's borrowing history at a public library has strong federal protections. Shouldn't someone's browsing history get the same treatment?

javajosh 6y ago

It violates the core principle of equal justice. What if we only required search or arrest warrants for those with more than $10M in assets? Your comment would still apply, and would be more obviously unjust.

ueu33hyrdd 6y ago
Whether it harmonizes perfectly with the spirit of equal justice or not is irrelevant to whether or not it still represents an improvement over the status quo. Your hypothetical is similarly asanine and works mainly as a straw man because, as far as the integrity of the democratic process, there's a clear difference between shielding individuals competing in a public election and random rich people on the street. You're literally arguing against something that would improve the integrity of the system.
- stallmanite 6y ago
  Is formalizing a two-tier surveillance regime an improvement over the status quo?
- danShumway 6y ago
  If you have a broken system, and you allow people in power to fix it in targeted ways that only affect them, then it will never get fixed for ordinary people. Your point might hold true if the people being exempted from surveillance weren't also the people deciding who can be exempted from surveillance. But since they are, it is counterproductive to the privacy cause to allow Congress to give itself these kinds of special rules. Force everyone in society to play by the same rules, and everyone in society will get the benefits. Allow Congress to get into the habit of exempting themselves from social systems or problems, and those problems will continue to exist. In other words, when setting up incentives you have to think pragmatically about the entire system in the long term; you can't always just focus on short-term goals to the exclusion of everything else. Local optimums[0] aren't just a problem in AI, they're also a problem in real life. Because of the long term consequences, we're not interested in forming privacy castes in scenarios where doing so will make it harder for us to improve the system in the future. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_optimum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_optimum
  - croon 6y ago
    Small correction, but these amendments originate in the Senate, not Congress.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      The US Senate is a proper subset of Congress, comprising one of its coequal houses, the other being the House of Representatives. Collectively the two are Congress.

Spooky23 6y ago

For one, we have a POTUS that may have benefited knowingly or unknowingly by means of a foreign intelligence influence campaign. This gives those entities a free pass to influence campaigns or to hide other types of spying relating to an incumbent who is running for re-election. Seems like a bad time to make such a change in the law. There’s also the whole equal protection under law issue — a core tenant of American law is that everyone is nominally the same. Declaring a vague category of citizen out of bounds of the law is absurd.

ueu33hyrdd 6y ago
You could literally say the same thing about the Steele Dossier sponsored by the Clinton Campaign, Steele was identified as connected to a foreign government influence campaign as well. A candidate literally cooperated with a foreign actor with undisclosed Russian ties to generate evidence against their opponent which they knew would be disseminated by the American IC. Not having these protections just incentivizes whoever currently controls the apparatus to strategically investigate their party's opposition. Edit: Putting this here since I've reached my reply cap. There was a request for citations. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/report-footnotes-show-fbi-knew-russians-had-early-knowledge-of-steele-material/ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/report-footnotes-show-fbi-k...
- skoskie 6y ago
  > Steele was identified as connected to a foreign government influence campaign as well. Maybe I’m just out of the loop, but this needs a source.
  - GauntletWizard 6y ago
    Steele is very publically a former MI6 agent, and while the British are our allies, that counts in and of itself. However, it's also fact that Steele himself was well known to Russian intelligence, and while it's clear he was no friend to them he was a known enemy - They were specifically trying to feed him disinformation[1][2] Did he bite bad bait? That's the question that doubters bring up. The "pee tape" thing is so bizarre I think it's likely true, but on the other hand I think that at this point Trump could just own it. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/16/politics/christopher-steele-footnotes-russian-disinformation/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/16/politics/christopher-steele-f... [2]https://www.wsj.com/articles/steele-dossier-disinformation-update-11586897258 https://www.wsj.com/articles/steele-dossier-disinformation-u...

stormbrew 6y ago

Aside from the blatantly obvious issue of equal protection of the law, if the people who would have to pass a broader law are already protected by one that is narrowly focused on them, they're less incentivized to pass the broader law. Letting the narrow law pass creates a barrier to passing the broader law.

dsfyu404ed 6y ago
It goes even further than that. If the politicians are protected by their own special law they are much more likely to write laws that violate the privacy and rights of everyone else because they do not feel threatened by it.

kristopolous 6y ago

It's no different than medieval monarchies giving Kings special protections. If you're tasked with the public welfare you should get greater scrutiny, not be granted special privileges from it. It's the classic case of those writing the law carving out an exception for themselves. Someone's borrowing history at a public library has strong federal protections. Shouldn't someone's browsing history get the same treatment?