6 ms·

Wait, the GP is claiming expanded new surveillance behaviors should be normalized. This is like Fox news.

arcticbull 5y ago
It seems like GP is claiming that this is not new, and also does not represent meaningfully expanded surveillance.
robbedpeter 5y ago
Yeah. Why is trusting government supposed to be the default? Any organization with power should be continually distrusted, required to constantly and endlessly prove itself. In a democratic situation, the price of power is the responsibility to prove yourself trustworthy and competent enough to hold it. The whole point is that power is granted contingent to the will of a people for the good of the people. You should never trust government. If your democracy is working, you can sometimes trust that government actions were good and competent after the fact. Trusting up front is abdication of your responsibility to guard against abuses as a citizen. Every tiny step towards surveillance and acquisition of data that can be abused should be resisted and assumed to be motivated by the worst possible incentive. It's up to the agency or bureau to prove, up front, to the satisfaction of representatives and citizenry that a tool or power is necessary. "But it's not illegal" is a weasel move, and heads should roll.
- Retric 5y ago
  If your government is untrustworthy the correct action is to replace the government not simply accept this as normal.
  - inkblotuniverse 5y ago
    I'd like to know how we can vote out the NSA.
    - ls15 5y ago
      Same. Also, I am not a US citizen that is not living in the USA. How can I affect US policy that is affecting me?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- caenorst 5y ago
  Despite downvotes this comment is very true. A modern constitution (the foundation of a country) is all about citizen rights to counter power, if you think government should just be trusted without actions to require more safeguard and transparency then you are pretty much waving your rights, and you probably don't deserve them.
tremon 5y ago
How did you come to that conclusion? The GP only states that the public health agency used already-available information, I don't see where they express any opinion on whether the availability of that data is a good thing or not.

It seems like GP is claiming that this is not new, and also does not represent meaningfully expanded surveillance.

Yeah. Why is trusting government supposed to be the default? Any organization with power should be continually distrusted, required to constantly and endlessly prove itself. In a democratic situation, the price of power is the responsibility to prove yourself trustworthy and competent enough to hold it. The whole point is that power is granted contingent to the will of a people for the good of the people. You should never trust government. If your democracy is working, you can sometimes trust that government actions were good and competent after the fact. Trusting up front is abdication of your responsibility to guard against abuses as a citizen. Every tiny step towards surveillance and acquisition of data that can be abused should be resisted and assumed to be motivated by the worst possible incentive. It's up to the agency or bureau to prove, up front, to the satisfaction of representatives and citizenry that a tool or power is necessary. "But it's not illegal" is a weasel move, and heads should roll.

Retric 5y ago
If your government is untrustworthy the correct action is to replace the government not simply accept this as normal.
- inkblotuniverse 5y ago
  I'd like to know how we can vote out the NSA.
  - ls15 5y ago
    Same. Also, I am not a US citizen that is not living in the USA. How can I affect US policy that is affecting me?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
caenorst 5y ago
Despite downvotes this comment is very true. A modern constitution (the foundation of a country) is all about citizen rights to counter power, if you think government should just be trusted without actions to require more safeguard and transparency then you are pretty much waving your rights, and you probably don't deserve them.

tremon 5y ago

How did you come to that conclusion? The GP only states that the public health agency used already-available information, I don't see where they express any opinion on whether the availability of that data is a good thing or not.