4 ms·

If the police have a warrant to watch you, then, no. But that is as it should be. As long as there is correct judicial oversight of these capabilities, then thi

If the police have a warrant to watch you, then, no. But that is as it should be. As long as there is correct judicial oversight of these capabilities, then this is the correct way for things to be. Nobody should have an expectation of being able to conduct criminal business without surveillance. The issue comes in when the justice system is not providing correct oversight for this capability. That is wrong and should be vigorously opposed. The capabilities themselves I have no problem with.

MontagFTB 5y ago
Would this philosophy extend to phones then, too? Assuming a phone is being used for criminal business. A Ring camera, assuming the house is being used for criminal conduct? I’m playing devil’s advocate, and am interested in a stance arrived at reasonably.
- mLuby 5y ago
  Yes, it would. Wouldn't detectives watching through your windows as you type on your phone be functionally the same as having your phone surveilled? Warranted, targeted surveillance is less bad than surveilling everyone to see if they are committing crimes, which less bad than recording what everyone did so they can be charged with crimes retroactively, which is less bad than charging people for crimes they're only predicted to commit.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  > Phones Sure. Wire-tapping has been a thing almost as long as phones themselves. With a warrant, it is best that the police should be able to surveil your phone calls. > Ring camera With a warrant? Absolutely.
elric 5y ago
> If the police have a warrant to watch you, then, no. But that is as it should be. Is it? Any government could make $thing illegal tomorrow. Anyone associated with $thing could then be watched and imprisoned. With judicial oversight. Some possible values from $thing taken from history: being gay, (not) being christian, being a pacifist, being poor/homeless The above have all been persecuted in the past. Sometimes in the present. All quite legally. With judicial oversight. With political (and often popular) support. Edit: formatting, HN doesn't seem to like lists
- crowbahr 5y ago
  Yes because societies are built on rules and enforcement of the societal contract has always come, in some measure, by the government's ability to enforce the basically decent behavior that the majority wants. The fact that the majority has often historically been in the wrong doesn't mean that we throw the baby out with the bathwater and get rid of enforcement of the laws: Anarchy is not preferable to a well ordered peaceful society.
  - citruscomputing 5y ago
    Anarchy is not opposed to a well ordered peaceful society!
    - powerslacker 5y ago
      How so?
      - xboxnolifes 5y ago
        Anarchy just implies no ruling authority. It may lead to chaos and disorder, but that only follows if you prove (or believe) that ruling authority is necessary to prevent chaos and disorder.
  - elric 5y ago
    Hmm, I don't think I'm advocating for anarchy. I find it hard to put this into words in a coherent way; but I think it's preferable that the state's capabilities are somewhat matched by the populace's. Not just the legalities of checks & balances. The people need to be able to watch the state if the state is watching them. This capability is currently very much lacking. We (by which I broadly mean western countries in general) are seeing less and less government transparency. Trade deals are brokered in secret, surveillance bills are rushed through parliaments, terrorism and child abuse are being used as blanket excuses for pretty much everything. Journalists get less and less access. In some countries (Italy comes to mind) there are very strong ties between the government and the media. And sure, we have some form of representative democracy, but it seems like governments in many cases don't represent their people, but rather their own interests. The people are often unaware of what their governments get up to (various atrocities in the Middle East come to mind). By the time the next election comes up, the damage is already done, with zero accountability. Long story short: it's good for governments to be able to enforce laws that benefit (all? most?) people, but the people need to be able to stick it to the government if need be. And with all this government surveillance, that's become virtually impossible.
handoflixue 5y ago
You confuse legality with morality. Privacy is, in part, the right to act on our own convictions. Breaking the law is a critical part of protest ("civil disobedience"). Besides which, the state has done just fine without such invasive measures before. Even with perfect oversight, the goals themselves can still be horribly corrupt, and no one should consider it "correct" to go about enforcing clearly immoral laws.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  > You confuse legality with morality. I did not confuse anything. You may be confused about what I mean, and if so, I'm sorry for any unclear communication on my part that led to that state of affairs. Feel free to ask for clarification of my position if you're curious. > Besides which, the state has done just fine without such invasive measures before. That is not obviously true to me. For most of the period of time during which the people have had the capability to communicate remotely, the state has also had the capability to surveil that communication when warranted. And it seems plausible to me that the lack of that capability before permitted much criminality that since has been prevented.

MontagFTB 5y ago

Would this philosophy extend to phones then, too? Assuming a phone is being used for criminal business. A Ring camera, assuming the house is being used for criminal conduct? I’m playing devil’s advocate, and am interested in a stance arrived at reasonably.

mLuby 5y ago
Yes, it would. Wouldn't detectives watching through your windows as you type on your phone be functionally the same as having your phone surveilled? Warranted, targeted surveillance is less bad than surveilling everyone to see if they are committing crimes, which less bad than recording what everyone did so they can be charged with crimes retroactively, which is less bad than charging people for crimes they're only predicted to commit.
asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
> Phones Sure. Wire-tapping has been a thing almost as long as phones themselves. With a warrant, it is best that the police should be able to surveil your phone calls. > Ring camera With a warrant? Absolutely.

elric 5y ago

> If the police have a warrant to watch you, then, no. But that is as it should be. Is it? Any government could make $thing illegal tomorrow. Anyone associated with $thing could then be watched and imprisoned. With judicial oversight. Some possible values from $thing taken from history: being gay, (not) being christian, being a pacifist, being poor/homeless The above have all been persecuted in the past. Sometimes in the present. All quite legally. With judicial oversight. With political (and often popular) support. Edit: formatting, HN doesn't seem to like lists

crowbahr 5y ago
Yes because societies are built on rules and enforcement of the societal contract has always come, in some measure, by the government's ability to enforce the basically decent behavior that the majority wants. The fact that the majority has often historically been in the wrong doesn't mean that we throw the baby out with the bathwater and get rid of enforcement of the laws: Anarchy is not preferable to a well ordered peaceful society.
- citruscomputing 5y ago
  Anarchy is not opposed to a well ordered peaceful society!
  - powerslacker 5y ago
    How so?
    - xboxnolifes 5y ago
      Anarchy just implies no ruling authority. It may lead to chaos and disorder, but that only follows if you prove (or believe) that ruling authority is necessary to prevent chaos and disorder.
- elric 5y ago
  Hmm, I don't think I'm advocating for anarchy. I find it hard to put this into words in a coherent way; but I think it's preferable that the state's capabilities are somewhat matched by the populace's. Not just the legalities of checks & balances. The people need to be able to watch the state if the state is watching them. This capability is currently very much lacking. We (by which I broadly mean western countries in general) are seeing less and less government transparency. Trade deals are brokered in secret, surveillance bills are rushed through parliaments, terrorism and child abuse are being used as blanket excuses for pretty much everything. Journalists get less and less access. In some countries (Italy comes to mind) there are very strong ties between the government and the media. And sure, we have some form of representative democracy, but it seems like governments in many cases don't represent their people, but rather their own interests. The people are often unaware of what their governments get up to (various atrocities in the Middle East come to mind). By the time the next election comes up, the damage is already done, with zero accountability. Long story short: it's good for governments to be able to enforce laws that benefit (all? most?) people, but the people need to be able to stick it to the government if need be. And with all this government surveillance, that's become virtually impossible.

handoflixue 5y ago

You confuse legality with morality. Privacy is, in part, the right to act on our own convictions. Breaking the law is a critical part of protest ("civil disobedience"). Besides which, the state has done just fine without such invasive measures before. Even with perfect oversight, the goals themselves can still be horribly corrupt, and no one should consider it "correct" to go about enforcing clearly immoral laws.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
> You confuse legality with morality. I did not confuse anything. You may be confused about what I mean, and if so, I'm sorry for any unclear communication on my part that led to that state of affairs. Feel free to ask for clarification of my position if you're curious. > Besides which, the state has done just fine without such invasive measures before. That is not obviously true to me. For most of the period of time during which the people have had the capability to communicate remotely, the state has also had the capability to surveil that communication when warranted. And it seems plausible to me that the lack of that capability before permitted much criminality that since has been prevented.