9 ms·

You are assuming "public health" is the actual goal, which is obviously wrong. Any government which lets the NSA spy on its citizens obviously wants social cont

You are assuming "public health" is the actual goal, which is obviously wrong. Any government which lets the NSA spy on its citizens obviously wants social control via knowledge over the digital lives of their citizens. It may be hard to accept but "covid conspiracy theorists" were obviously right when they claimed that the push for digitized health measures was partially due to the government wanting to collect that data for themselves. I find it somewhat funny and quite unnerving to see "this once the government actually needs our data" messaging.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Governments are not a monolith and different actors within them can (and often do) have competing goals. To focus on the US: the NSA's goal is protection via knowledge, and (personal opinion) we've done a poor job of constraining the means by which they achieve it. The CDC's goal is public health protection via tracking and mitigation of disease outbreak. Data collection is definitely a part of it (before the pandemic, you would sometimes get a call from the CDC if, for example, you were at a major public event where there was a norovirus outbreak). But the CDC's goals aren't the same as the NSA's goals except in the broadest "public protection" sense, and it could be considered a failing of the executive and legislative systems that there isn't a strong firewall between the data (or perhaps not... Such firewalls were cited as a major stumbling block that prevented identification of the 9/11 threat, so these things really are trade-offs). But all those details aside, the meta issue of "If you abuse information given to you by the public, as per their perception, they'll stop giving it to you" is real.
- constantcrying 4y ago
  Government agencies all are nominally centrally controlled by the elected goverenment. Any sustained abuse by those agencies is either severe neglect by that government or intended.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Or, third option, a democratically elected system elected by a populace that disagrees on what "abuse" means in this context.
    - constantcrying 4y ago
      The difference between that and "intended" is just word games.
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        That assumes voters are rational actors, which we have mountains of counter-evidence for.
        constantcrying 4y ago
        It does not actually assume that. If the government believes no abuse takes place, then the abusive behaviour is intended. Of course you can gaslight voters that, actually the NSA should be spying on American citizens, but that still means the behaviour is intended.
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        "The government" doesn't "believe" anything. It's not a monolith. You don't have to look at more than one Congressional oversight hearing to conclude independent agents in the government have conflicting beliefs.

shadowgovt 4y ago

Governments are not a monolith and different actors within them can (and often do) have competing goals. To focus on the US: the NSA's goal is protection via knowledge, and (personal opinion) we've done a poor job of constraining the means by which they achieve it. The CDC's goal is public health protection via tracking and mitigation of disease outbreak. Data collection is definitely a part of it (before the pandemic, you would sometimes get a call from the CDC if, for example, you were at a major public event where there was a norovirus outbreak). But the CDC's goals aren't the same as the NSA's goals except in the broadest "public protection" sense, and it could be considered a failing of the executive and legislative systems that there isn't a strong firewall between the data (or perhaps not... Such firewalls were cited as a major stumbling block that prevented identification of the 9/11 threat, so these things really are trade-offs). But all those details aside, the meta issue of "If you abuse information given to you by the public, as per their perception, they'll stop giving it to you" is real.

constantcrying 4y ago
Government agencies all are nominally centrally controlled by the elected goverenment. Any sustained abuse by those agencies is either severe neglect by that government or intended.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Or, third option, a democratically elected system elected by a populace that disagrees on what "abuse" means in this context.
  - constantcrying 4y ago
    The difference between that and "intended" is just word games.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      That assumes voters are rational actors, which we have mountains of counter-evidence for.
      - constantcrying 4y ago
        It does not actually assume that. If the government believes no abuse takes place, then the abusive behaviour is intended. Of course you can gaslight voters that, actually the NSA should be spying on American citizens, but that still means the behaviour is intended.
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        "The government" doesn't "believe" anything. It's not a monolith. You don't have to look at more than one Congressional oversight hearing to conclude independent agents in the government have conflicting beliefs.