7 ms·

This is true, what we know of the government's use of technology is rather inefficient, but it misses the point. Inefficient does not equal non-invasive. My tak

This is true, what we know of the government's use of technology is rather inefficient, but it misses the point. Inefficient does not equal non-invasive. My takeaways from both, 1984 and this article, were not that of an efficient government, but a totalitarian government. Further, I'm less concerned about the things we know about than the things we don't. Here is one of the edges of reality I'm concerned about (specifically their interaction with AT&T): https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying

dennisgorelik 15y ago
Why wiretapping by government is such a concern? My concern is about government needlessly restricting freedom of people (long lines in airports, unreasonable restrictions of what can be taken on board, interrogations, arrests, shutting down information resources, etc). Wiretapping by itself does not restrict freedom of people. Government can be totalitarian without wiretapping. Total wiretapping can be not totalitarian at all.
- dpark 15y ago
  Because privacy is a form of freedom. It's freedom from prying eyes, freedom to live without worrying about Big Brother's watchful gaze.
  - dennisgorelik 15y ago
    Why worry about Big Brother watching me in the first place? Big Brother watching me actually adds safety to me and adds safety to people doing business with me. Please don't confuse watching with restricting my actions though. I know quite well why it's bad when government restricts my actions.
    - noarchy 15y ago
      Why is it bad? I'm interesting in hearing you defend a specific freedom, after seeing you completely disregard the importance of privacy.
      - dennisgorelik 15y ago
        If I'm not able to do what I want then I cannot accomplish what I want. That makes my life worse. Another reason: certain people's actions keep government in check (e.g. speech). If government punish for delivering speech then it removes checks that prevent government from turning into dictatorship. Privacy works in the opposite direction. Privacy adds barriers to the information flow and decreases our awareness, which causes less informed and less efficient decisions.
        dpark 15y ago
        This only makes sense if information flows both ways. When one party has significant information about another party, and the second party doesn't have similar information about the first, an imbalance is created that gives the first party power over the second. When I know your secrets, I have power over you. You fear my knowledge, perhaps rightfully so, because your secrets might be enough to destroy your life, or at least cause you significant embarrassment. When the government engages in widespread privacy violations, they are creating this same kind of power imbalance. You know nothing new about the government, but the government may know many things about you. They may have information tha could greatly embarrass you. They might have information they could use to arrest you, even if you've done nothing wrong or illegal. This is not an increase in awareness or information flow or efficiency. It is merely an increase in government power.
        dennisgorelik 15y ago
        That's a valid argument. The solution - making government more open. Including being open about what kind of information government does collect. Including creating another government agencies that oversee government agencies that collect information about citizens. As usual there are budget constraints on that system, so even though government would not be limited legally too much about the amount of information it can collect, it still would be pretty limited by the budget, because it's expensive to maintain red tape and keep collected information secure. In any case, legal system should mostly limit government in how much it can restrict citizens, not in how much information government can collect.
    - dpark 15y ago
      Why do you suppose that the government might want to watch you, if not to restrict your actions?
      - dennisgorelik 15y ago
        There could be 1000 and one reasons for government to watch a person. I'll give you two: 1) Government may consider to give that person a job, but want to verify first that the person is ok for that. 2) Government may suspect that person is doing something bad, so government may want to find out what's really the case.
        dpark 15y ago
        1) In what world is this acceptable? Is it okay if I install a keylogger on your machine as part of a job application process? 2) Like watching your search history for terms like "homemade bomb" and putting you on the no-fly list if they find them? Remember that when you say, "it's okay for the government to do X", you're saying "it's okay for people to do X", because the government is people. And the government is a lot of people, many of whom are good, but some of whom are bad, and others of whom are just plain douchebags.
        dennisgorelik 15y ago
        1) That would depend on the job. For almost all jobs it's not ok. Besides, keylogger is an extreme thing here, because it's direct way to steal identity (which is very bad). Let me remind you, that original fiction story implies that information was already available to Google, and Google shared part of that information with Government. Keyloggers weren't part of that picture. Please also restrain yourself from slippery slope argument. The slope is not slippery. In my view we have more privacy than we really need. That does not mean that privacy is not needed at all. But if we lose a little bit of privacy we are likely to gain more than we would lose. Now freedom of speech and freedom of flying is a very different story. There is almost no benefit from limiting it, and there is lots to lose. 2) You are mixing up "watching" and "limiting freedom to fly" - something that I explicitly asked not to do. Unreasonable placing on no-fly list is bad. Watching for "risky" search queries is not nearly as bad by itself. Regarding leaks of collected information from government agencies into hands of bad people - that can be fixed by suing government agencies in case if such leak did happen and it hurt innocent people. Then government agencies should pay for the leak. A lot. And perhaps being dissolved if while losing tax payers money they did not provide enough benefit for the society.

dennisgorelik 15y ago

Why wiretapping by government is such a concern? My concern is about government needlessly restricting freedom of people (long lines in airports, unreasonable restrictions of what can be taken on board, interrogations, arrests, shutting down information resources, etc). Wiretapping by itself does not restrict freedom of people. Government can be totalitarian without wiretapping. Total wiretapping can be not totalitarian at all.

dpark 15y ago
Because privacy is a form of freedom. It's freedom from prying eyes, freedom to live without worrying about Big Brother's watchful gaze.
- dennisgorelik 15y ago
  Why worry about Big Brother watching me in the first place? Big Brother watching me actually adds safety to me and adds safety to people doing business with me. Please don't confuse watching with restricting my actions though. I know quite well why it's bad when government restricts my actions.
  - noarchy 15y ago
    Why is it bad? I'm interesting in hearing you defend a specific freedom, after seeing you completely disregard the importance of privacy.
    - dennisgorelik 15y ago
      If I'm not able to do what I want then I cannot accomplish what I want. That makes my life worse. Another reason: certain people's actions keep government in check (e.g. speech). If government punish for delivering speech then it removes checks that prevent government from turning into dictatorship. Privacy works in the opposite direction. Privacy adds barriers to the information flow and decreases our awareness, which causes less informed and less efficient decisions.
      - dpark 15y ago
        This only makes sense if information flows both ways. When one party has significant information about another party, and the second party doesn't have similar information about the first, an imbalance is created that gives the first party power over the second. When I know your secrets, I have power over you. You fear my knowledge, perhaps rightfully so, because your secrets might be enough to destroy your life, or at least cause you significant embarrassment. When the government engages in widespread privacy violations, they are creating this same kind of power imbalance. You know nothing new about the government, but the government may know many things about you. They may have information tha could greatly embarrass you. They might have information they could use to arrest you, even if you've done nothing wrong or illegal. This is not an increase in awareness or information flow or efficiency. It is merely an increase in government power.
        dennisgorelik 15y ago
        That's a valid argument. The solution - making government more open. Including being open about what kind of information government does collect. Including creating another government agencies that oversee government agencies that collect information about citizens. As usual there are budget constraints on that system, so even though government would not be limited legally too much about the amount of information it can collect, it still would be pretty limited by the budget, because it's expensive to maintain red tape and keep collected information secure. In any case, legal system should mostly limit government in how much it can restrict citizens, not in how much information government can collect.
  - dpark 15y ago
    Why do you suppose that the government might want to watch you, if not to restrict your actions?
    - dennisgorelik 15y ago
      There could be 1000 and one reasons for government to watch a person. I'll give you two: 1) Government may consider to give that person a job, but want to verify first that the person is ok for that. 2) Government may suspect that person is doing something bad, so government may want to find out what's really the case.
      - dpark 15y ago
        1) In what world is this acceptable? Is it okay if I install a keylogger on your machine as part of a job application process? 2) Like watching your search history for terms like "homemade bomb" and putting you on the no-fly list if they find them? Remember that when you say, "it's okay for the government to do X", you're saying "it's okay for people to do X", because the government is people. And the government is a lot of people, many of whom are good, but some of whom are bad, and others of whom are just plain douchebags.
        dennisgorelik 15y ago
        1) That would depend on the job. For almost all jobs it's not ok. Besides, keylogger is an extreme thing here, because it's direct way to steal identity (which is very bad). Let me remind you, that original fiction story implies that information was already available to Google, and Google shared part of that information with Government. Keyloggers weren't part of that picture. Please also restrain yourself from slippery slope argument. The slope is not slippery. In my view we have more privacy than we really need. That does not mean that privacy is not needed at all. But if we lose a little bit of privacy we are likely to gain more than we would lose. Now freedom of speech and freedom of flying is a very different story. There is almost no benefit from limiting it, and there is lots to lose. 2) You are mixing up "watching" and "limiting freedom to fly" - something that I explicitly asked not to do. Unreasonable placing on no-fly list is bad. Watching for "risky" search queries is not nearly as bad by itself. Regarding leaks of collected information from government agencies into hands of bad people - that can be fixed by suing government agencies in case if such leak did happen and it hurt innocent people. Then government agencies should pay for the leak. A lot. And perhaps being dissolved if while losing tax payers money they did not provide enough benefit for the society.