3 ms·

Does it need to be acknowledged? I consider it to be a priori knowledge. The distinction is between targeted and untargeted surveillance. Digital communicatio

Does it need to be acknowledged? I consider it to be a priori knowledge. The distinction is between targeted and untargeted surveillance. Digital communication is so easy to monitor, particularly by a state-level actor, that if it's unencrypted, it's pretty much all being hoovered up by someone by definition. That's not the case for physical security, even if everyone leaves their doors unlocked, their windows open, and their notes on the kitchen table; everyone is not automatically a suspect, so most people aren't being put under the microscope. The government likely has the ability to know, instantly, within milliseconds, everything I've ever done on the Internet that's unencrypted. By contrast, they will likely never see the contents of the love note on my kitchen table. Well, if that pinhole camera isn't there, anyway. ;) All of the approaches applicable to physical communications apply to digital communications too. It's just that the _additional_ level, which in the physical world would be equivalent to knowing the contents of all of the conversations/interactions that people are having in person, is something that people wish to fight against and prevent from becoming normalised.

everdrive 6y ago
> Does it need to be acknowledged? I consider it to be a priori knowledge. I think you have a good point. The reason I'd like to see it acknowledged is because the two sides of the argument often talk past each other. Police power should not be unlimited, and it's clear that our constitution intended for the power of the state to be limited, with the intent of maximizing liberty. However, for years people made the claim that the "liberty vs. security" argument was a false premise. ie, that ultimate liberty and ultimate security are both possible. I don't believe this is correct. (Broadly I think liberty is more important than security, but everyone has their set of exceptions to this rule) I might just be dating myself. People had this debate constantly in the years after 9/11. Maybe this argument is not getting made any longer? In either case, I often hear these two sides talking past each other. I wish instead that both sides were more overt. Digital information can make police work more broad and effective, but we should treat it with quite a bit of cautious. We don't want police effectiveness to encroach on liberty in most cases.

everdrive 6y ago

> Does it need to be acknowledged? I consider it to be a priori knowledge. I think you have a good point. The reason I'd like to see it acknowledged is because the two sides of the argument often talk past each other. Police power should not be unlimited, and it's clear that our constitution intended for the power of the state to be limited, with the intent of maximizing liberty. However, for years people made the claim that the "liberty vs. security" argument was a false premise. ie, that ultimate liberty and ultimate security are both possible. I don't believe this is correct. (Broadly I think liberty is more important than security, but everyone has their set of exceptions to this rule) I might just be dating myself. People had this debate constantly in the years after 9/11. Maybe this argument is not getting made any longer? In either case, I often hear these two sides talking past each other. I wish instead that both sides were more overt. Digital information can make police work more broad and effective, but we should treat it with quite a bit of cautious. We don't want police effectiveness to encroach on liberty in most cases.