4 ms·

Lots of people are subservient to authority so I absolutely understand why you and a lot of people have this opinion and I can see there are pros to doing such

Lots of people are subservient to authority so I absolutely understand why you and a lot of people have this opinion and I can see there are pros to doing such things. Do you accept that there are people who place value on privacy from government and believe that governments can abuse their powers, and that they have a valid opinion so a balance which takes that into account should be found, including the possibility that existing surveillance might already be too much?

rich_sasha 5y ago
I sort of agree in principle, but with some practical caveats that bother me. I agree privacy is a good thing. I care about my privacy. However, it must be balanced against other things too. I care about my health as well, and won’t keep secrets from my doctors, or prohibit them from sharing information, as strictly necessary. So there’s a balance, nothing is absolute. Even my right to live isn’t absolute, if I threaten someone or am called by my country to fight in a war, that right is trumped by something larger. Two, I’d argue the problem is more with the government than in the privacy. We form societies, with customs and governments, because somehow being together is better than in your own. In a democracy, the government is supposed to be for the people, not an enemy. I’m not a starry-eyed optimist, I’d just rather focus on “how do I fix government trust”, rather than “how do I better keep secrets from the government about a mundane daily activity such as driving”. Finally, I’ve been tailgated, ran off the road, intimidated by too many morons on the road. Never had an accident bout could have done many times, possibly killing me and people I care about. Again, I prefer a right to get morons off the road to the illusory privacy - I’m already traceable to the government. I’d rather focus on privacy safeguards. For example, if my data is accessed, it needs a court warrant, and if the investigation doesn’t lead to conviction, I am told about it, with a right to pursue unlawful use. I believe that’s how phone taps work in Europe - is this fundamentally different?
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Interesting comment, just so I understand a little better -- do you have a dash cam and have you used it to get footage of any of the many road rage incidents you find yourself in to give to the police? If so, did the police achieve any result, and if not do you expect the police and courts would be inclined to get the morons of the road for you if you were able to furnish them with such evidence?
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    I don't have a dash cam, as for a variety of reasons it's impractical. For example, to capture someone tailgating me, I'd need a read- and forward-facing cam, remember to switch it on every time, and ideally also remove from the car each and every time, due to theft considerations. I know police reception of such evidence varies a lot by locale. I'd hope a black box would effectively serve a few purposes: - Aggressive drivers would know that, should they cause any accident, their whole (recent?) driving history will also be scrutinised, deterring them from such behaviour in the first place. - Should they cause a serious accident, their fault would be more obvious; road accidents often don't have great evidence for fault (few quality eye-witnesses etc.), either inspiring caution, or otherwise eliminating them from driving. - Finally, as a standardised device, it would be far more effective at providing evidence than ad hoc cameras.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      Okay. I don't think this type of black box surveillance will be used for what you're hoping for. Do you really expect them to get a warrant and pull the private data for everyone who complains about every fender bender and road rage incident and does not result in major crash or injury? I doubt it. And I'm not sure that it would provide better evidence than cameras for this type of incident. You could get yourself a dash cam (which are not the massive headache you think they are) and reflect on your own driving too (not saying you're at fault but if you're attentive and courteous and de-escalate incidents, it can really avoid most incidents). That will get you much better results.
      - rich_sasha 5y ago
        I suspect knowing that, should you cause even a minor infraction, your whole driving history will be assessed, will be a major deterrent. It’s not like companies go with a fine comb through employee activity logs, but just knowing every http request and email is logged is enough to put most people off bad behaviour. Not all, but most.
- salawat 5y ago
  >if I threaten someone or am called by my country to fight in a war, that right is trumped by something larger. So how do you feel about conscription? Would you be alright if say, the government in question were capable of disabling your vehicle for draft dodging? How about protest attendance getting you on a no-drive list? In the intelligence world, one does not assess an enemy based on their current motivations, but on their capabilities. No one can know another's true intent, but you can plan for what they'll do when they decide to throw principles to the wind and pull out all the stops. A government should fear its people. Not the other way around.
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    I never said I don't want accountability, I totally do. I want courts to be in control of this, oversight, etc. But with those things in place, I do want this. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. I don't see the government as fundamentally against me. Yes, it has serious agency issues, and goes wrong from time to time, but essentially the government is "us", not "them". The opposing sentiment seems to be particularly popular in the US, perhaps that's part of the divide. I want the society, through appropriate representatives, to be in control of people abusing the roads, and I value that more than individual's illusory rights to road privacy (since if the government wants to track them, they'll do it anyway with barely more difficulty). This breaks down in oppressive states, but that's not what we're talking about here.

rich_sasha 5y ago

I sort of agree in principle, but with some practical caveats that bother me. I agree privacy is a good thing. I care about my privacy. However, it must be balanced against other things too. I care about my health as well, and won’t keep secrets from my doctors, or prohibit them from sharing information, as strictly necessary. So there’s a balance, nothing is absolute. Even my right to live isn’t absolute, if I threaten someone or am called by my country to fight in a war, that right is trumped by something larger. Two, I’d argue the problem is more with the government than in the privacy. We form societies, with customs and governments, because somehow being together is better than in your own. In a democracy, the government is supposed to be for the people, not an enemy. I’m not a starry-eyed optimist, I’d just rather focus on “how do I fix government trust”, rather than “how do I better keep secrets from the government about a mundane daily activity such as driving”. Finally, I’ve been tailgated, ran off the road, intimidated by too many morons on the road. Never had an accident bout could have done many times, possibly killing me and people I care about. Again, I prefer a right to get morons off the road to the illusory privacy - I’m already traceable to the government. I’d rather focus on privacy safeguards. For example, if my data is accessed, it needs a court warrant, and if the investigation doesn’t lead to conviction, I am told about it, with a right to pursue unlawful use. I believe that’s how phone taps work in Europe - is this fundamentally different?

throwawaylinux 5y ago
Interesting comment, just so I understand a little better -- do you have a dash cam and have you used it to get footage of any of the many road rage incidents you find yourself in to give to the police? If so, did the police achieve any result, and if not do you expect the police and courts would be inclined to get the morons of the road for you if you were able to furnish them with such evidence?
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  I don't have a dash cam, as for a variety of reasons it's impractical. For example, to capture someone tailgating me, I'd need a read- and forward-facing cam, remember to switch it on every time, and ideally also remove from the car each and every time, due to theft considerations. I know police reception of such evidence varies a lot by locale. I'd hope a black box would effectively serve a few purposes: - Aggressive drivers would know that, should they cause any accident, their whole (recent?) driving history will also be scrutinised, deterring them from such behaviour in the first place. - Should they cause a serious accident, their fault would be more obvious; road accidents often don't have great evidence for fault (few quality eye-witnesses etc.), either inspiring caution, or otherwise eliminating them from driving. - Finally, as a standardised device, it would be far more effective at providing evidence than ad hoc cameras.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Okay. I don't think this type of black box surveillance will be used for what you're hoping for. Do you really expect them to get a warrant and pull the private data for everyone who complains about every fender bender and road rage incident and does not result in major crash or injury? I doubt it. And I'm not sure that it would provide better evidence than cameras for this type of incident. You could get yourself a dash cam (which are not the massive headache you think they are) and reflect on your own driving too (not saying you're at fault but if you're attentive and courteous and de-escalate incidents, it can really avoid most incidents). That will get you much better results.
    - rich_sasha 5y ago
      I suspect knowing that, should you cause even a minor infraction, your whole driving history will be assessed, will be a major deterrent. It’s not like companies go with a fine comb through employee activity logs, but just knowing every http request and email is logged is enough to put most people off bad behaviour. Not all, but most.
salawat 5y ago
>if I threaten someone or am called by my country to fight in a war, that right is trumped by something larger. So how do you feel about conscription? Would you be alright if say, the government in question were capable of disabling your vehicle for draft dodging? How about protest attendance getting you on a no-drive list? In the intelligence world, one does not assess an enemy based on their current motivations, but on their capabilities. No one can know another's true intent, but you can plan for what they'll do when they decide to throw principles to the wind and pull out all the stops. A government should fear its people. Not the other way around.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  I never said I don't want accountability, I totally do. I want courts to be in control of this, oversight, etc. But with those things in place, I do want this. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. I don't see the government as fundamentally against me. Yes, it has serious agency issues, and goes wrong from time to time, but essentially the government is "us", not "them". The opposing sentiment seems to be particularly popular in the US, perhaps that's part of the divide. I want the society, through appropriate representatives, to be in control of people abusing the roads, and I value that more than individual's illusory rights to road privacy (since if the government wants to track them, they'll do it anyway with barely more difficulty). This breaks down in oppressive states, but that's not what we're talking about here.