5 ms·

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

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.

dpark 15y ago
1) The distinction between keyloggers and wiretaps is nearly moot. Would you allow me to run a wiretap instead? When the government can wiretap at will, there is basically no privacy. And I agree that the slope is not slippery, because there is no slope at the bottom. Unfettered government snooping as you seem to support is the bottom. There's no way to have less privacy than none. 2) I dispute your distinction because it's meaningless. Do you believe that the government is or should be unable to act on the intelligence it gathers? If so, why would you support such a pointless waste of money? If not, why do you suppose that you could not be the target of such action? As for suing, that's missing the point. The damage doesn't go away when you sue. Nor does it stop bad people from being bad. Abused of the system will always happen. Besides, in your world, what grounds would there be for a suit? You said that free flow of information is a good thing. Why would it be good for someone's private info to flow to the government but not the public?
- dennisgorelik 15y ago
  1) Where did you even get that idea of unfettered government snooping? Did anybody suggest it to you? 2) Government agency should be able to act on the intelligence it gathers. But if that act limits people's freedom without good reason - that agency should be punished for that (cut funding, fire abusing government employee, disassemble agency, send responsible agents to jail - depending on the severity of the violation). If I'm the only watched, then I would probably lose more than gain. But if everyone is watched then I would probably gain more than lose. 3) I now see where the root of your mistake is. You are assuming, that by giving government more watching power government would become more powerful. But that does not have to be that way. Let assume that governments need X amount of power to be efficient in law enforcement. Where X = WatchingPower + ActingPower. That means that if we keep government power at X and increase WatchingPower, then ActingPower of government would decrease. That's what I'd like to see happen: government watches more and acts less (avoiding awkward actions). Would you prefer to take WatchingPower away from government and replace it with dumb ActingPower?
  - dpark 15y ago
    >1) Where did you even get that idea of unfettered government snooping? From you: "Why wiretapping by government is such a concern?" "Wiretapping by itself does not restrict freedom of people" "Why worry about Big Brother watching me in the first place?" >2) Government agency should be able to act on the intelligence it gathers. But if that act limits people's freedom without good reason - that agency should be punished for that (cut funding, fire abusing government employee, disassemble agency, send responsible agents to jail - depending on the severity of the violation). And who's going to do all this monitoring and punishing? The current system is already abused and there's basically no punishment. Why do you suppose that would change in the face of broader wiretapping? >If I'm the only watched, then I would probably lose more than gain. But if everyone is watched then I would probably gain more than lose. This is rather doubtful, since you've lost all of your privacy and gained basically nothing. The likelihood of being killed in a terrorist attack is extremely low. You're probably more likely to choke to death on a piece of chicken. >I now see where the root of your mistake is. You are assuming, that by giving government more watching power government would become more powerful. But that does not have to be that way. Yes, it does. The government does not readily give up its powers. History has demonstrated that government power almost invariably grows over time. There's no reason to believe that giving the government broader surveillance powers would limit its enforcement powers. Moreover, there's no reason to believe that these are exchangeable. A pound of surveillance does not equal 16 oz of enforcement. >Would you prefer to take WatchingPower away from government and replace it with dumb ActingPower? I'd prefer to see less of both.

dpark 15y ago

1) The distinction between keyloggers and wiretaps is nearly moot. Would you allow me to run a wiretap instead? When the government can wiretap at will, there is basically no privacy. And I agree that the slope is not slippery, because there is no slope at the bottom. Unfettered government snooping as you seem to support is the bottom. There's no way to have less privacy than none. 2) I dispute your distinction because it's meaningless. Do you believe that the government is or should be unable to act on the intelligence it gathers? If so, why would you support such a pointless waste of money? If not, why do you suppose that you could not be the target of such action? As for suing, that's missing the point. The damage doesn't go away when you sue. Nor does it stop bad people from being bad. Abused of the system will always happen. Besides, in your world, what grounds would there be for a suit? You said that free flow of information is a good thing. Why would it be good for someone's private info to flow to the government but not the public?

dennisgorelik 15y ago
1) Where did you even get that idea of unfettered government snooping? Did anybody suggest it to you? 2) Government agency should be able to act on the intelligence it gathers. But if that act limits people's freedom without good reason - that agency should be punished for that (cut funding, fire abusing government employee, disassemble agency, send responsible agents to jail - depending on the severity of the violation). If I'm the only watched, then I would probably lose more than gain. But if everyone is watched then I would probably gain more than lose. 3) I now see where the root of your mistake is. You are assuming, that by giving government more watching power government would become more powerful. But that does not have to be that way. Let assume that governments need X amount of power to be efficient in law enforcement. Where X = WatchingPower + ActingPower. That means that if we keep government power at X and increase WatchingPower, then ActingPower of government would decrease. That's what I'd like to see happen: government watches more and acts less (avoiding awkward actions). Would you prefer to take WatchingPower away from government and replace it with dumb ActingPower?
- dpark 15y ago
  >1) Where did you even get that idea of unfettered government snooping? From you: "Why wiretapping by government is such a concern?" "Wiretapping by itself does not restrict freedom of people" "Why worry about Big Brother watching me in the first place?" >2) Government agency should be able to act on the intelligence it gathers. But if that act limits people's freedom without good reason - that agency should be punished for that (cut funding, fire abusing government employee, disassemble agency, send responsible agents to jail - depending on the severity of the violation). And who's going to do all this monitoring and punishing? The current system is already abused and there's basically no punishment. Why do you suppose that would change in the face of broader wiretapping? >If I'm the only watched, then I would probably lose more than gain. But if everyone is watched then I would probably gain more than lose. This is rather doubtful, since you've lost all of your privacy and gained basically nothing. The likelihood of being killed in a terrorist attack is extremely low. You're probably more likely to choke to death on a piece of chicken. >I now see where the root of your mistake is. You are assuming, that by giving government more watching power government would become more powerful. But that does not have to be that way. Yes, it does. The government does not readily give up its powers. History has demonstrated that government power almost invariably grows over time. There's no reason to believe that giving the government broader surveillance powers would limit its enforcement powers. Moreover, there's no reason to believe that these are exchangeable. A pound of surveillance does not equal 16 oz of enforcement. >Would you prefer to take WatchingPower away from government and replace it with dumb ActingPower? I'd prefer to see less of both.