6 ms·

That's a valid argument. The solution - making government more open. Including being open about what kind of information government does collect. Including crea

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
> Including creating another government agencies that oversee government agencies that collect information about citizens. Because the solution to government overstepping is government oversight? > In any case, legal system should mostly limit government in how much it can restrict citizens, not in how much information government can collect. I don't understand how you can hold this belief. Do you believe that information holds no value, or that it doesn't give the government power to hold the secrets of its populace? Or do you believe that the government cannot be too strong? I'm seriously confused how you can believe that government snooping has no downside.
- dennisgorelik 15y ago
  > Because the solution to government overstepping is government oversight? Yes. + Budget limitations. + Oversight from the press. Every action has downside (including watching), but relatively to restricting freedom to act, downside of watching is small. In addition to that there are significant benefits of efficient watching. Imagine that there is watching device that clearly identifies people who are planning terrorist attack. That significantly simplifies security check in airports and saves everyone time and effort in the process.
  - noarchy 15y ago
    I think that you grossly overestimate both journalism and government, where it regards their respective ethics. Mainstream journalists, the ones most likely to have access to government officials and processes, are also the ones most co-opted by that system. It is all about access, and the ones who rock the boat too much risk losing it. As for government, there is a reason why surveillance has always featured prominently in dystopian novels: it is understood by those who have studied the way governments work that they will almost always abuse their power. The power to put a population under surveillance is a kind of control, proportional to the amount it is being done; people understand that when a government is watching them, it is also monitoring potential dissidents and related opinions, organizing, etc. In short, I'm surprised that anyone would be so willing to trust any government with complete and unhindered powers of surveillance. I wouldn't trust a single non-government entity with that, as it happens.
    - dennisgorelik 15y ago
      I wonder if anybody here proposed to grant any government "complete and unhindered powers of surveillance". It's a straw man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
      - noarchy 15y ago
        You said that government monitoring would make you safer, and that privacy was a barrier to the free flow of information. If you don't favour unhindered powers of surveillance, where are you drawing the line, and why should a line be drawn?
        dennisgorelik 15y ago
        Government monitoring might make me safer (if done right). I would prefer to see a pitch from a government agency with the clear promise of delivery something tangible (lowering agency spending, lowering fraud, improving safety, lowering the rate of false arrests) in exchange for more surveillance. Then evaluate the pitch and decide. Then evaluate agency performance in new environment, and decide whether to keep surveillance power (if it was worth it) or take it back (if resulting abuse did not worth the positive outcome) or even dissolving the agency (if it was pure lie). That can be done incrementally, until increasing surveillance stops producing worthwhile benefits. No need to draw the line years ahead.

dpark 15y ago

> Including creating another government agencies that oversee government agencies that collect information about citizens. Because the solution to government overstepping is government oversight? > In any case, legal system should mostly limit government in how much it can restrict citizens, not in how much information government can collect. I don't understand how you can hold this belief. Do you believe that information holds no value, or that it doesn't give the government power to hold the secrets of its populace? Or do you believe that the government cannot be too strong? I'm seriously confused how you can believe that government snooping has no downside.

dennisgorelik 15y ago
> Because the solution to government overstepping is government oversight? Yes. + Budget limitations. + Oversight from the press. Every action has downside (including watching), but relatively to restricting freedom to act, downside of watching is small. In addition to that there are significant benefits of efficient watching. Imagine that there is watching device that clearly identifies people who are planning terrorist attack. That significantly simplifies security check in airports and saves everyone time and effort in the process.
- noarchy 15y ago
  I think that you grossly overestimate both journalism and government, where it regards their respective ethics. Mainstream journalists, the ones most likely to have access to government officials and processes, are also the ones most co-opted by that system. It is all about access, and the ones who rock the boat too much risk losing it. As for government, there is a reason why surveillance has always featured prominently in dystopian novels: it is understood by those who have studied the way governments work that they will almost always abuse their power. The power to put a population under surveillance is a kind of control, proportional to the amount it is being done; people understand that when a government is watching them, it is also monitoring potential dissidents and related opinions, organizing, etc. In short, I'm surprised that anyone would be so willing to trust any government with complete and unhindered powers of surveillance. I wouldn't trust a single non-government entity with that, as it happens.
  - dennisgorelik 15y ago
    I wonder if anybody here proposed to grant any government "complete and unhindered powers of surveillance". It's a straw man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
    - noarchy 15y ago
      You said that government monitoring would make you safer, and that privacy was a barrier to the free flow of information. If you don't favour unhindered powers of surveillance, where are you drawing the line, and why should a line be drawn?
      - dennisgorelik 15y ago
        Government monitoring might make me safer (if done right). I would prefer to see a pitch from a government agency with the clear promise of delivery something tangible (lowering agency spending, lowering fraud, improving safety, lowering the rate of false arrests) in exchange for more surveillance. Then evaluate the pitch and decide. Then evaluate agency performance in new environment, and decide whether to keep surveillance power (if it was worth it) or take it back (if resulting abuse did not worth the positive outcome) or even dissolving the agency (if it was pure lie). That can be done incrementally, until increasing surveillance stops producing worthwhile benefits. No need to draw the line years ahead.