4 ms·

It's good to see here that one part of the government is calling another part to account. But I have to think that's unusual, and I'd love to see a better balan

It's good to see here that one part of the government is calling another part to account. But I have to think that's unusual, and I'd love to see a better balance of responsibilities here. In Greg Bear's novel "Queen of Angels", set in 2047, their solution to the conflicting needs of privacy and crime prevention was a separate organization called "Citizen Oversight". All the digital-trail data (cameras, financial records, etc) flowed into Citizen Oversight. If law enforcement wanted data, they had to ask for it and demonstrate need on a case-by-case basis. In that world it wasn't a perfect solution; if I recall rightly, part of the novel is driven by Citizen Oversight's swing from a too-loose era to a very stingy one. But I liked the idea of there being specific, named people responsible for protecting privacy.

ttyprintk 4y ago
Using civilian oversight of police as a metaphor, the high-profile civilian killings lately have come from police departments with civilian oversight. Less than 1% have it, which means an even smaller fraction have civilian discipline.
- wpietri 4y ago
  The US has a long history of dubious police killings. That some are now high profile seems like a step forward to me. Yes, civilian oversight of police in many places is weak. But to me that's an argument for stronger oversight.
  - ttyprintk 4y ago
    I should have picked a milder example. If in the future, civilian oversight has burgeoned to be powerful-enough that it impedes what law-enforcement feels it’s entitled to, then civilian oversight will have passed traditional American powers. Your metaphor is begging the question, how do we get there from here? America has the institution of juries and grand juries, and in a very small number of police departments, long-term officials with regular contact with the department. I suppose juries and grand juries are the path toward overpowered civilian roles rather than today’s meager civilian oversight boards.
bradleyjg 4y ago
How is the leadership of this other organization selected? It sounds like a government agency by another name.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Why not randomly? And that's randomly without jury strikes. There's a reason corporate and government interests have tried to keep more and more matters out of a jury trial -- the outcomes are unpredictable. Which is exactly as it should be. If the people's will were predictable, democracy would be unnecessary. And if a bad investigation is allowed, or a good investigation is stopped... that's a fair price to pay for, on the whole, having greater civil control.
- wpietri 4y ago
  There are a number of ways to approach it. But even if it's just a different set of elected officials, you'd get inter-agency competition.
  - bradleyjg 4y ago
    The Progressives thought they would eliminate government corruption by making everything, including the proverbial dog catcher, an elected position. It has not gone well. It turns out the voters can’t be bothered to learn about more than a few top line races. Anything under that is either straight party line or random.
IncRnd 4y ago
> It's good to see here that one part of the government is calling another part to account. But I have to think that's unusual, and I'd love to see a better balance of responsibilities here. This is the very reason and design for the three branches of government and the origin of the term, "checks and balances."
- HaZeust 4y ago
  The idea of "Checks and Balances" was coined by Montesquieu in his "The Spirit of the Laws" treatise, where it is justified as "balanced forces of equal leverage amongst one another having an embedded tension against each other". The problem is, despite the Founding Fathers' near-fetishization of Montesquieu's work, and the fact that Checks and Balances are a genuinely good idea, the Founding Fathers weren't true to it. In a country of three branches (Legislative, Executive, Judiciary), it is absolutely paramount that the installment of each branch's authority is independent from the actions of another. Obviously, this didn't happen: Congress itself is THE delegate to assigning the President of the Executive - of whom decides his cabinet (which is also meant to be a Check and Balance to Congress), and Congress (and the President it chooses) not only votes on the Supreme Justices of the Judiciary - but Congress also has the power to ordain any court inferior to the Supreme Court. This creates a system where Congress seats its utmost authorities intended to act as its checks and balances, and it doesn't work.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    > Congress itself is THE delegate to assigning the President of the Executive Subject to the certification only procedure outlined in the Constitution, as was recently vividly demonstrated. (Originally, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; since 1804, under the 12th Amendment) There's a reason the states transmit their electors' votes to Congress, rather than meeting in DC. Furthermore, current case law is that states have virtually unlimited rights, subject only to US constitutional protections, to run their elections as they see fit. > and Congress (and the President it chooses) not only votes on the Supreme Justices of the Judiciary As above, Congress does not choose the President. Ergo, the President nominating and Congress confirming a Supreme Court justice are two independent branches. > but Congress also has the power to ordain any court inferior to the Supreme Court. Which may then be overruled by the Supreme Court. All in all, a surprisingly flexible arrangement that maintains superiority of the explicitly authorized and described Supreme Court.
giantg2 4y ago
Any group who becomes part of the system will then act to protect the system. I mean, judges are supposed to grant warrants for things already, yet we continually see stories of them just rubber stamping requests, or police lying to obtain them. I assume that system would suffer similar issues.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  That's why you have limited terms of service and randomly turn over membership.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    Like politicians?
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      At least in Congress and many executive positions, they are neither term-limited nor randomly selected.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        Sure, term limits can be good in many ways, and random selection can reduce the people chosing it for the wrong reasons. But who is going to give up their career to be a citizen watcher for just a few years? Likewise, random selection may not yield a cohort with the correct capacity to properly administer the system. I'd almost think the better solution is to use mini-juries to evaluate warrants so the judges aren't just rubber stamping. At least then the judge has to explain the situation and points of law, and aren't the only one making the decision.
        ethbr0 4y ago
        > But who is going to give up their career to be a citizen watcher for just a few years? A Citizen. Rights and responsibilities, etc. > Likewise, random selection may not yield a cohort with the correct capacity to properly administer the system. Of course. That's the downside of random cohorts. But compared to the alternatives (that we actively gripe about), occasional lack of ability is the lesser of two evils. This would also be lessened if there weren't a way to get out of it. Don't want to serve when your number is called? Feel free to be a citizen of another country.
TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
Equip all public officials and bureaucrats with camera vests, and livestream their duty hours. Immediately fire anyone who's gear malfunctions, nullify their pensions. Make public office publicly accountable.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
That is insufficient. An institution can be subverted and that isn't even too difficult. No, people need to control their own information and need to be empowered to do so. Such indirection might make sense for data that must be collected anyway. But it should only be collected if necessary in the first place.

ttyprintk 4y ago

Using civilian oversight of police as a metaphor, the high-profile civilian killings lately have come from police departments with civilian oversight. Less than 1% have it, which means an even smaller fraction have civilian discipline.

wpietri 4y ago
The US has a long history of dubious police killings. That some are now high profile seems like a step forward to me. Yes, civilian oversight of police in many places is weak. But to me that's an argument for stronger oversight.
- ttyprintk 4y ago
  I should have picked a milder example. If in the future, civilian oversight has burgeoned to be powerful-enough that it impedes what law-enforcement feels it’s entitled to, then civilian oversight will have passed traditional American powers. Your metaphor is begging the question, how do we get there from here? America has the institution of juries and grand juries, and in a very small number of police departments, long-term officials with regular contact with the department. I suppose juries and grand juries are the path toward overpowered civilian roles rather than today’s meager civilian oversight boards.

bradleyjg 4y ago

How is the leadership of this other organization selected? It sounds like a government agency by another name.

ethbr0 4y ago
Why not randomly? And that's randomly without jury strikes. There's a reason corporate and government interests have tried to keep more and more matters out of a jury trial -- the outcomes are unpredictable. Which is exactly as it should be. If the people's will were predictable, democracy would be unnecessary. And if a bad investigation is allowed, or a good investigation is stopped... that's a fair price to pay for, on the whole, having greater civil control.
wpietri 4y ago
There are a number of ways to approach it. But even if it's just a different set of elected officials, you'd get inter-agency competition.
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  The Progressives thought they would eliminate government corruption by making everything, including the proverbial dog catcher, an elected position. It has not gone well. It turns out the voters can’t be bothered to learn about more than a few top line races. Anything under that is either straight party line or random.

IncRnd 4y ago

> It's good to see here that one part of the government is calling another part to account. But I have to think that's unusual, and I'd love to see a better balance of responsibilities here. This is the very reason and design for the three branches of government and the origin of the term, "checks and balances."

HaZeust 4y ago
The idea of "Checks and Balances" was coined by Montesquieu in his "The Spirit of the Laws" treatise, where it is justified as "balanced forces of equal leverage amongst one another having an embedded tension against each other". The problem is, despite the Founding Fathers' near-fetishization of Montesquieu's work, and the fact that Checks and Balances are a genuinely good idea, the Founding Fathers weren't true to it. In a country of three branches (Legislative, Executive, Judiciary), it is absolutely paramount that the installment of each branch's authority is independent from the actions of another. Obviously, this didn't happen: Congress itself is THE delegate to assigning the President of the Executive - of whom decides his cabinet (which is also meant to be a Check and Balance to Congress), and Congress (and the President it chooses) not only votes on the Supreme Justices of the Judiciary - but Congress also has the power to ordain any court inferior to the Supreme Court. This creates a system where Congress seats its utmost authorities intended to act as its checks and balances, and it doesn't work.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ethbr0 4y ago
  > Congress itself is THE delegate to assigning the President of the Executive Subject to the certification only procedure outlined in the Constitution, as was recently vividly demonstrated. (Originally, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; since 1804, under the 12th Amendment) There's a reason the states transmit their electors' votes to Congress, rather than meeting in DC. Furthermore, current case law is that states have virtually unlimited rights, subject only to US constitutional protections, to run their elections as they see fit. > and Congress (and the President it chooses) not only votes on the Supreme Justices of the Judiciary As above, Congress does not choose the President. Ergo, the President nominating and Congress confirming a Supreme Court justice are two independent branches. > but Congress also has the power to ordain any court inferior to the Supreme Court. Which may then be overruled by the Supreme Court. All in all, a surprisingly flexible arrangement that maintains superiority of the explicitly authorized and described Supreme Court.

giantg2 4y ago

Any group who becomes part of the system will then act to protect the system. I mean, judges are supposed to grant warrants for things already, yet we continually see stories of them just rubber stamping requests, or police lying to obtain them. I assume that system would suffer similar issues.

ethbr0 4y ago
That's why you have limited terms of service and randomly turn over membership.
- teddyh 4y ago
  Like politicians?
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    At least in Congress and many executive positions, they are neither term-limited nor randomly selected.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Sure, term limits can be good in many ways, and random selection can reduce the people chosing it for the wrong reasons. But who is going to give up their career to be a citizen watcher for just a few years? Likewise, random selection may not yield a cohort with the correct capacity to properly administer the system. I'd almost think the better solution is to use mini-juries to evaluate warrants so the judges aren't just rubber stamping. At least then the judge has to explain the situation and points of law, and aren't the only one making the decision.
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        > But who is going to give up their career to be a citizen watcher for just a few years? A Citizen. Rights and responsibilities, etc. > Likewise, random selection may not yield a cohort with the correct capacity to properly administer the system. Of course. That's the downside of random cohorts. But compared to the alternatives (that we actively gripe about), occasional lack of ability is the lesser of two evils. This would also be lessened if there weren't a way to get out of it. Don't want to serve when your number is called? Feel free to be a citizen of another country.

TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago

Equip all public officials and bureaucrats with camera vests, and livestream their duty hours. Immediately fire anyone who's gear malfunctions, nullify their pensions. Make public office publicly accountable.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

That is insufficient. An institution can be subverted and that isn't even too difficult. No, people need to control their own information and need to be empowered to do so. Such indirection might make sense for data that must be collected anyway. But it should only be collected if necessary in the first place.