3 ms·

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

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
  So instead of enforcing prosecution of illegal wiretaps you are suggesting to make grey-area wiretaps illegal? And then not enforce it either, I assume? That reminds me alcohol prohibition campaign.
  - dpark 15y ago
    Are you serious? You equate limiting warrantless wiretaps with alcohol prohibition? In your mind limiting the government's power is the same as limiting citizens' freedom? How about we just enforce the existing wiretap laws instead of making them even looser as you suggest? Sure, if you loosen the laws, there's less illegal activity. Tha doesn't mean there's less activity, though. How can you think we'd do a better job of prosecuting illegal wiretaps if there were more wiretaps in general? If there are more wiretaps, then there will be less oversight on each individual wiretap. That makes it easier to hide illegal ones, because they get lost among the masses (which is already a problem). Why don't you come up with a way to decrease abuse our existing surveillance systems before you propose expanding them?
    - dennisgorelik 15y ago
      1) Your idea of replacing law enforcement [of illegal wiretaps] with even stricter laws without enforcing them - that's what reminds me about alcohol prohibition. 2) You again are attacking a straw man. I'm not suggesting increasing surveillance. I'm suggesting not to pay much attention to it and focus our very limited resources on what's really important: - Freedom of law-abiding citizens from government persecution. - Reducing legal restrictions on citizens. - Freedom of speech. Government surveillance abuse is not nearly as important as these three principles above. If you insist that limiting government surveillance is more important, then please name what item in my list you consider less important.
      - dpark 15y ago
        1) Prohibition had nothing to do with replacing enforcement of laws with stricter laws. It was about passing a new law where none existed before, to take away a freedom. Your comparison makes no sense. And I'm not saying we shouldn't enforce the law. I'm saying that the range of the allowed wiretaps should be narrow so that enforcement is feasible. And indeed, the range of legal wiretaps is actually not that broad. If we enforced the existing law, there would be fewer. 2) You have repeatedly said that we shouldn't be concerned about government privacy violations, that wiretaps are not a problem, that we have more privacy than we need, that we should trade privacy for other freedoms, that the government is efficient with less privacy. You may not have explicitly said "I want more wiretaps", but you've been arguing in favor of it quite clearly. This is not a straw man. If you don't like where your arguments lead, then maybe you should ask why you're making those arguments. Your attempt to separate privacy from other freedoms and present them as a tradeoff is still unsound. I could likewise ask you whether you'd rather have freedom of speech or freedom from false arrest, and pretend that this is a legitimate tradeoff and that we need "not to pay much attention to it and focus our very limited resources on what's really important".
        dennisgorelik 15y ago
        1) If wiretapping X is illegal, then law enforcement needs to prevent only wiretapping X. If wiretapping X and wiretapping Y are illegal, then law enforcement needs to prevent both of them, which makes law enforcement harder (not easier as you are saying). 2) Of course there is no point in blindly giving government more surveillance power and hope for improvement. But if government agency claims that with more surveillance power it can significantly reduce spending and significantly reduce number of false arrests while maintaining low crime level - then it might worth to try. If government agency fails to deliver on that promise, then the head of that agency should be replaced, budget shrunk anyway, and wiretapping grant revoked. 3) The difference between "government surveillance" and "limiting freedom of speech"/"false arrests" is that "government surveillance" has much smaller downsides and much higher upsides, while both "limiting freedom of speech"/"false arrests" have almost no upside and very painful downsides.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

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
So instead of enforcing prosecution of illegal wiretaps you are suggesting to make grey-area wiretaps illegal? And then not enforce it either, I assume? That reminds me alcohol prohibition campaign.
- dpark 15y ago
  Are you serious? You equate limiting warrantless wiretaps with alcohol prohibition? In your mind limiting the government's power is the same as limiting citizens' freedom? How about we just enforce the existing wiretap laws instead of making them even looser as you suggest? Sure, if you loosen the laws, there's less illegal activity. Tha doesn't mean there's less activity, though. How can you think we'd do a better job of prosecuting illegal wiretaps if there were more wiretaps in general? If there are more wiretaps, then there will be less oversight on each individual wiretap. That makes it easier to hide illegal ones, because they get lost among the masses (which is already a problem). Why don't you come up with a way to decrease abuse our existing surveillance systems before you propose expanding them?
  - dennisgorelik 15y ago
    1) Your idea of replacing law enforcement [of illegal wiretaps] with even stricter laws without enforcing them - that's what reminds me about alcohol prohibition. 2) You again are attacking a straw man. I'm not suggesting increasing surveillance. I'm suggesting not to pay much attention to it and focus our very limited resources on what's really important: - Freedom of law-abiding citizens from government persecution. - Reducing legal restrictions on citizens. - Freedom of speech. Government surveillance abuse is not nearly as important as these three principles above. If you insist that limiting government surveillance is more important, then please name what item in my list you consider less important.
    - dpark 15y ago
      1) Prohibition had nothing to do with replacing enforcement of laws with stricter laws. It was about passing a new law where none existed before, to take away a freedom. Your comparison makes no sense. And I'm not saying we shouldn't enforce the law. I'm saying that the range of the allowed wiretaps should be narrow so that enforcement is feasible. And indeed, the range of legal wiretaps is actually not that broad. If we enforced the existing law, there would be fewer. 2) You have repeatedly said that we shouldn't be concerned about government privacy violations, that wiretaps are not a problem, that we have more privacy than we need, that we should trade privacy for other freedoms, that the government is efficient with less privacy. You may not have explicitly said "I want more wiretaps", but you've been arguing in favor of it quite clearly. This is not a straw man. If you don't like where your arguments lead, then maybe you should ask why you're making those arguments. Your attempt to separate privacy from other freedoms and present them as a tradeoff is still unsound. I could likewise ask you whether you'd rather have freedom of speech or freedom from false arrest, and pretend that this is a legitimate tradeoff and that we need "not to pay much attention to it and focus our very limited resources on what's really important".
      - dennisgorelik 15y ago
        1) If wiretapping X is illegal, then law enforcement needs to prevent only wiretapping X. If wiretapping X and wiretapping Y are illegal, then law enforcement needs to prevent both of them, which makes law enforcement harder (not easier as you are saying). 2) Of course there is no point in blindly giving government more surveillance power and hope for improvement. But if government agency claims that with more surveillance power it can significantly reduce spending and significantly reduce number of false arrests while maintaining low crime level - then it might worth to try. If government agency fails to deliver on that promise, then the head of that agency should be replaced, budget shrunk anyway, and wiretapping grant revoked. 3) The difference between "government surveillance" and "limiting freedom of speech"/"false arrests" is that "government surveillance" has much smaller downsides and much higher upsides, while both "limiting freedom of speech"/"false arrests" have almost no upside and very painful downsides.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]