4 ms·
That's the thing; for someone who thinks "eye of Sauron" is acceptable, they don't think it means "writ large surveillance of everyone", they think it means "ta
by Zetice 3y ago
That's the thing; for someone who thinks "eye of Sauron" is acceptable, they don't think it means "writ large surveillance of everyone", they think it means "targeted surveillance via warrant of a credible threat to American interests domestic and abroad."
So you really have a disagreement on terms, not on merits.
- bee_rider 3y agoI’ve presented one possible rebuttal to the “I’m not interesting, so I don’t need to encrypt my communications” position. “It is OK to spy on some people sometimes” is a different position, so a different rebuttal would be necessary. It isn’t really clear to me if you are actually trying to make these arguments in and of themselves, or if you think they add light to the first point. So, I’m not sure how to respond, sorry.
- Zetice 3y agoI don't think you're being clear about what "eye of Sauron" means, but I think that's on purpose, as the argument in favor of the concept of using surveillance via warrants undermines your larger "right to privacy" point.
- bee_rider 3y agoOk. I guarantee I’m not that clever. I’ll avoid that particular phrase in the future. I was just being informal, but yes, I can see that it is misleading. I think we should have lots of encrypted communication out there, to make it a normalized day-to-day thing, and to make bulk surveillance more difficult. You are right that “eye of Sauron” evokes a different idea, which is more like investigating a specific known target. If done correctly that could be OK in some cases.