3 ms·

You put it in quotes, but I didn't say "right people". Powerful tools can be misused. This is also true of encryption, but I'm still in favor of easy access to

You put it in quotes, but I didn't say "right people". Powerful tools can be misused. This is also true of encryption, but I'm still in favor of easy access to strong encryption. In both cases (data collection and encryption), I think there are good arguments on both sides, but in both cases I think the benefits of the new technology outweigh the potential harm. In general I'm just not opposed to new technologies until I see specific reasons why we should be afraid of them, and weigh those reasons against the potential harm and cost.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
"With reasonable oversight and regulation" seems to me to be "the right people controlling it". Imagine your "reasonable oversight" board. Now imagine a Trump appointee running it. Or appointees by Xi or Putin or Orban or Erdogan.
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  A trump appointee would likely be replaced in 4 years. If I lived in an autocracy, I'd be less likely to support government surveillance.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    > A trump appointee would likely be replaced in 4 years. Depends on how you interpret January 6th. And a Trump-appointed surveillance board could have been used to make January 6th more successful...
    - mgraczyk 5y ago
      They could have also used the military or nuclear weapons... To be clear we're not talking about a board that performs surveillance. We're talking about government responsibility to set rules, and to investigate and prosecute violations of those rules. I agree that bad things can be done by bad people. The more interesting question to me is whether or not the potential badness is outweighed by the benefits. In this specific case, I think better surveillance would have done more to prevent January 6 than to exacerbate it. Clearly in retrospect, social media data was instrumental in prosecuting those who physically entered the capitol. So in this case I think more surveillance would have improved the situation.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

"With reasonable oversight and regulation" seems to me to be "the right people controlling it". Imagine your "reasonable oversight" board. Now imagine a Trump appointee running it. Or appointees by Xi or Putin or Orban or Erdogan.

mgraczyk 5y ago
A trump appointee would likely be replaced in 4 years. If I lived in an autocracy, I'd be less likely to support government surveillance.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > A trump appointee would likely be replaced in 4 years. Depends on how you interpret January 6th. And a Trump-appointed surveillance board could have been used to make January 6th more successful...
  - mgraczyk 5y ago
    They could have also used the military or nuclear weapons... To be clear we're not talking about a board that performs surveillance. We're talking about government responsibility to set rules, and to investigate and prosecute violations of those rules. I agree that bad things can be done by bad people. The more interesting question to me is whether or not the potential badness is outweighed by the benefits. In this specific case, I think better surveillance would have done more to prevent January 6 than to exacerbate it. Clearly in retrospect, social media data was instrumental in prosecuting those who physically entered the capitol. So in this case I think more surveillance would have improved the situation.