26 ms·
> Can we somehow effectively, assuredly, in a way that citizens can trust, limit the surveillance activities to legitimate national security and lifesaving acti
by noir_lord 4y ago
> Can we somehow effectively, assuredly, in a way that citizens can trust, limit the surveillance activities to legitimate national security and lifesaving actions?
Unlikely, every system of checks and balances requires someone to set up and enforce those checks and balances so that person can then circumvent them.
It's the classic "How do you protect yourself from a rogue admin"
There are steps you can take (use a quorum etc) but against a malicious actor with sufficient power there isn't much of a defence.
- iasay 4y agoIndeed. You actually can't protect yourself from a rogue administrator. The rogue administrator or quorum is subject to a unitary instruction from above which can override that. Which is ultimately everything from management to the government which can use everything up to the threat of violence against the person to comply. The best situation to be in is never put yourself in a position where you can be made to do this or have it normalised. If people refuse to work for surveillance and tracking companies then they would not exist. But some people are attracted to power. And they are the people who shouldn't be allowed to work for them.