3 ms·

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 intell

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.
- dennisgorelik 15y ago
  If I drink 5 gallons of water at once I would die. Does it mean I have to constantly think about dangers of water? Same with privacy. We are nowhere near the levels of government surveillance which are seriously dangerous. I'd prefer to see less of both. And I prefer to be rich and work less, not to work a lot and be poor. So what? The amount of power that people grant to the government depends on the level of results people expect government to achieve. The more power people give to the government, the better results government can achieve. But with power comes an abuse. So eventually public opinion settles on certain level of government power. You cannot really change that level overall (because crime would go up and public does not want that). But you can change what kind of power government has. You can give government more surveillance power and take away some power to limit people's actions. The reason why it's possible is that more informed government would be able to accomplish the same positive effect by arresting 1 suspect instead of arresting 10. Arresting 1 suspect requires 10 times less government ability to limit the freedom of our life. Therefore we may grant government 10 times less power to mess with our lives by substituting it with better informational awareness of government agencies. So within that model what would be your choice? Cut surveillance and increase ability of government to interfere with our lives?
  - dpark 15y ago
    >We are nowhere near the levels of government surveillance which are seriously dangerous We'll have to agree to disagree. Abuses of power have happened already. It's already dangerous. >And I prefer to be rich and work less, not to work a lot and be poor. So what? So you posed a false dichotomy. Don't get snarky when I don't answer your unsound question the way you hoped. >The amount of power that people grant to the government depends on the level of results people expect government to achieve. >The more power people give to the government, the better results government can achieve. No, the government takes the level of power that it can. The government regularly does things that the populace does not support. Don't pretend that all government powers are granted by the people. Or if you want to believe that, please explain how you would take a power away from the government. And no, more powerful does not imply more effective. Totalitarian states are basically all-powerful (in terms of powers we've been dscussing) yet most of them have historically also been ineffective (except perhaps at retaining power). >The reason why it's possible is that more informed government would be able to accomplish the same positive effect by arresting 1 suspect instead of arresting 10. You're just making things up now. On what basis to you make this claim? I say that an "informed" government arrests more people, because they can find more "probable causes" to do so. > So within that model what would be your choice? Cut surveillance and increase ability of government to interfere with our lives? I choose less of both. I will not concede to your fantasy that the government has a fixed amount of power or that it's powers are somehow interchangeable.

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.

dennisgorelik 15y ago
If I drink 5 gallons of water at once I would die. Does it mean I have to constantly think about dangers of water? Same with privacy. We are nowhere near the levels of government surveillance which are seriously dangerous. I'd prefer to see less of both. And I prefer to be rich and work less, not to work a lot and be poor. So what? The amount of power that people grant to the government depends on the level of results people expect government to achieve. The more power people give to the government, the better results government can achieve. But with power comes an abuse. So eventually public opinion settles on certain level of government power. You cannot really change that level overall (because crime would go up and public does not want that). But you can change what kind of power government has. You can give government more surveillance power and take away some power to limit people's actions. The reason why it's possible is that more informed government would be able to accomplish the same positive effect by arresting 1 suspect instead of arresting 10. Arresting 1 suspect requires 10 times less government ability to limit the freedom of our life. Therefore we may grant government 10 times less power to mess with our lives by substituting it with better informational awareness of government agencies. So within that model what would be your choice? Cut surveillance and increase ability of government to interfere with our lives?
- dpark 15y ago
  >We are nowhere near the levels of government surveillance which are seriously dangerous We'll have to agree to disagree. Abuses of power have happened already. It's already dangerous. >And I prefer to be rich and work less, not to work a lot and be poor. So what? So you posed a false dichotomy. Don't get snarky when I don't answer your unsound question the way you hoped. >The amount of power that people grant to the government depends on the level of results people expect government to achieve. >The more power people give to the government, the better results government can achieve. No, the government takes the level of power that it can. The government regularly does things that the populace does not support. Don't pretend that all government powers are granted by the people. Or if you want to believe that, please explain how you would take a power away from the government. And no, more powerful does not imply more effective. Totalitarian states are basically all-powerful (in terms of powers we've been dscussing) yet most of them have historically also been ineffective (except perhaps at retaining power). >The reason why it's possible is that more informed government would be able to accomplish the same positive effect by arresting 1 suspect instead of arresting 10. You're just making things up now. On what basis to you make this claim? I say that an "informed" government arrests more people, because they can find more "probable causes" to do so. > So within that model what would be your choice? Cut surveillance and increase ability of government to interfere with our lives? I choose less of both. I will not concede to your fantasy that the government has a fixed amount of power or that it's powers are somehow interchangeable.