5 ms·
IMO, that's super myopic. When intelligence agencies do something visible to the American public that causes any sort of discussion, it forces what they are doi
by antics 15y ago
IMO, that's super myopic. When intelligence agencies do something visible to the American public that causes any sort of discussion, it forces what they are doing (which is usually supposed to be secret) into the spotlight, which makes them generally more accountable. They do not like to do their job with people looking over their shoulder; they typically avoid this wherever possible. Besides that:
* Even on a very good day, the government is demonstrably bad at deploying new technology, especially at scale.
* Especially when that scale involves training any personnel at all.
* Especially when people are wary of that technology anyway.
* Especially when they are deploying suspicious technology in a visible arena.
* Especially when this technology will be observing US persons.
It doesn't look like it from the outside, but there is a lot of politics and bureaucracy in deploying a system like this, not just internally, but also from places like politicians.
In my experience, people who have never been around an organization like the FBI seem to have a naive view of what is possible. My recommendation is to critically evaluate anything that anyone tells you about what goes on in such places.
- suking 15y agoLike The Patriot Act? Yah - that hasn't been abused at all - nope.
- esrauch 15y agoThe patriot act hasn't been applied at scale though. It's easy to abuse your power at small scales, it's difficult at large scales just because you are relying on many potentially inept people.
- throwawayday 15y agoat least until you disarm the populace, then it's 'free play' all day long
- esrauch 15y agoHm, so you really think that people with hunting rifles are keeping the government in line?
- throwawayday 15y agoyep, cause so long as they have to worry about an uprising of an armed populace they will at least show a little restraint.
- nextparadigms 15y agoI think that's being a little too naive. Let's face it. The trend is turning USA into a police state. How isn't that not clear by now? Every other day they add new stuff like this, or breach more privacy or expand TSA in other areas, and so on.
- antics 15y agoFUD, [edit:] IMHO. [not trying to be a dick.] The TSA is not an intelligence organization. Its job is not to secretly develop intelligence. It does not have the same problem of needing to not be accountable to the public as, say, the FBI or the NSA. Second, that claim is a lot stronger than you're pretending it is. If you're going to throw around a term like "police state", you will need a lot more proof than hand-wavy "every day they add new stuff like this". Everything in your argument is attributable to selection bias, and if you're going to level a convincing point, you will need to do more than appeal to the fact that people seem to want to believe this stuff. TBH when you say that, it makes me wonder if you really know what a police state even is. Third, my point is not that there is no abuse or that the government is incapable of doing bad things, it's that we should be evaluating pie-in-the-sky predictions with actual evidence. "We are becoming a police state, DUH" is not evidence. And neither is the ridiculous claim that tomorrow the OWS people will be barred from flying.
- sp332 15y agoThe TSA maintains a secret watchlist and black list. The fact that this list seems to be arbitrary and disconnected from intelligence agencies doesn't make it better.
- antics 15y agoI totally agree.
- throwawayday 15y agoit actually makes it worse: you now have at least 2 agencies you have to watch
- mahyarm 15y agoUS Airports don't seem especially bad at deploying xray scanners.
- grout 15y ago"US persons" is a term of art. Who do you work for?
- antics 15y agoI'm a student, and I'm an RA at my University. I don't work for the government in any way, shape, or form, either directly, or via secondary means (like a contractor), if that's what you're asking. Anyway, that's bad form to ask. :( Edit: Also, for those not in the know, "US Person" is a legal term that covers not just US citizens, but also legal aliens and citizens of certain countries like the UK that we hold close ties with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_person