3 ms·

> Because the solution to government overstepping is government oversight? Yes. + Budget limitations. + Oversight from the press. Every action has downside

> 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.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
dpark 15y ago
Budget is a pretty weak limiting factor when it comes to automated wiretapping. It may limit the usefulness (can't watch all the "bad guys") without limiting the abuses (creepy fed employee can watch you). Depending on the press assumes that they have both interest and visibility into the government's wiretapping, the former of which may not be true and the latter of which definitely is not. Do you imagine that we have the ability to clearly identify terrorists via wiretaps? Why would we allow such people to walk around freely in the first place? The idea that we would simply stop them from flying is bizarre. There are also significant drawbacks to efficient watching. Sure, it might catch a real terrorist. Or it might just watch to see if you're in a "dangerous" group: anarchist, revolutionary, extreme libertarian, etc. As a member of one of these groups, you might need to be interrogated. Meanwhile some creepy FBI agent is listening in on your wife because it gets him off, and your neighbor is being blackmailed by a DHS agent who's threatening to put him on the No Fly list and publicly reveal that he visits prostitutes.
- dennisgorelik 15y ago
  The idea that we would simply stop them from flying is bizarre. Last time I checked blackmailing is illegal by itself. There is no need to increase privacy in order to prevent blackmailing. The same with other things that you mention. But in any case, the real choice is between "decrease privacy and decrease government power to act" and "increase privacy and increase government power to act". I choose former. Are you choosing later?
  - dpark 15y ago
    Last time I checked, warrantless wiretaps were illegal. Yet the government has done a lot of that with no apparent reprisal. And again, I disagree with your assessment. The government gains nothing useful by snooping on its average citizen. It average citizen is not committing crimes. The government can snoop on suspected criminals by getting a warrant. They do not need further freedom to snoop in order to do their jobs.
    - dennisgorelik 15y ago

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.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

dpark 15y ago

Budget is a pretty weak limiting factor when it comes to automated wiretapping. It may limit the usefulness (can't watch all the "bad guys") without limiting the abuses (creepy fed employee can watch you). Depending on the press assumes that they have both interest and visibility into the government's wiretapping, the former of which may not be true and the latter of which definitely is not. Do you imagine that we have the ability to clearly identify terrorists via wiretaps? Why would we allow such people to walk around freely in the first place? The idea that we would simply stop them from flying is bizarre. There are also significant drawbacks to efficient watching. Sure, it might catch a real terrorist. Or it might just watch to see if you're in a "dangerous" group: anarchist, revolutionary, extreme libertarian, etc. As a member of one of these groups, you might need to be interrogated. Meanwhile some creepy FBI agent is listening in on your wife because it gets him off, and your neighbor is being blackmailed by a DHS agent who's threatening to put him on the No Fly list and publicly reveal that he visits prostitutes.

dennisgorelik 15y ago
The idea that we would simply stop them from flying is bizarre. Last time I checked blackmailing is illegal by itself. There is no need to increase privacy in order to prevent blackmailing. The same with other things that you mention. But in any case, the real choice is between "decrease privacy and decrease government power to act" and "increase privacy and increase government power to act". I choose former. Are you choosing later?
- dpark 15y ago
  Last time I checked, warrantless wiretaps were illegal. Yet the government has done a lot of that with no apparent reprisal. And again, I disagree with your assessment. The government gains nothing useful by snooping on its average citizen. It average citizen is not committing crimes. The government can snoop on suspected criminals by getting a warrant. They do not need further freedom to snoop in order to do their jobs.
  - dennisgorelik 15y ago