3 ms·

If you have reasonable evidence, wiretapping a suspect to gain more evidence is fine. On the other hand wiretapping everyone in hope of finding some initial evi

If you have reasonable evidence, wiretapping a suspect to gain more evidence is fine. On the other hand wiretapping everyone in hope of finding some initial evidence, that is not okay at all.

figlett 3y ago
Why is it not okay at all? That's what our intelligence agencies do with their bulk data collection capabilities, and they have an immense positive impact on society.
- danbruc 3y ago
  [...] and they have an immense positive impact on society. For this I need proof.
- jtbayly 3y ago
  If you want to argue that they can scan people outside the country and not US citizens, and that that has a benefit, go ahead and make that argument. You might even convince me. But it’s just begging the question to say there’s immense benefit to them searching US citizens’ communications without a reason. That’s the whole question. Show me why we should change the constitution which guarantees us freedom from this sort of government oppression.
  - figlett 3y ago
    I'm writing from a UK perspective so there's no underlying constitutional issue here like there might be in the US. Bulk data collection is restricted by specific laws and this mandates regular operational oversight by an independent body, to ensure that both the collection and each individual use of the data is necessary and proportionate. Some of this will include data of British citizens, but the thing is, we have a significant home-grown terrorism problem and serious organised criminal gang activity, happening within the country. If intelligence analysts need to look at, for example, which phone number contacted which other phone number on a specific date in the recent past, there's no other way to do this other than bulk collect all phone call metadata from the various telecom operators, and store it ready for searching. The vast majority of that data will never be seen by human eyes, only indexed and searched by automated systems. All my phone calls and internet activity will be in there somewhere, I'm sure, but I don't consider that in itself to be government oppression. Only if it's used for oppressive purposes, would it become oppressive.
- omniglottal 3y ago
  s/positive/negative/
flir 3y ago
But that's just a restatement of the OP's position ("Mass surveillance is never an appropriate solution"). You're not attempting to justify that position.
- danbruc 3y ago
  That's just an axiom for me, no justification needed. My life is my life and it is not the business of the state to watch every step I do as long as I am not affecting others in any relevant way. You convince me that I or society as a whole would be better off if I allowed the state to constantly keep an eye on me, then I might change my opinion and grant the state the permission to violate my privacy.
  - flir 3y ago
    > That's just an axiom for me, no justification needed Congrats, you've got a religion.
    - danbruc 3y ago
      That's nonsense, every worldview must be grounded in some axioms, that does not make it a religion. I can break it down somewhat more for you. The state has no powers besides the ones granted by its citizens. I value my privacy highly and need very good reasons to grant the state permission to violate it. Catching criminals does not clear the bar, there are other ways to do this that do not violate my privacy.
    - troupo 3y ago
      [flagged]
- jtbayly 3y ago
  It’s guaranteed by our constitution, among other reasons. Search of my communications for no reason is, by definition “unreasonable search.”
  - flir 3y ago

If you have reasonable evidence, wiretapping a suspect to gain more evidence is fine. On the other hand wiretapping everyone in hope of finding some initial evidence, that is not okay at all.

figlett 3y ago

Why is it not okay at all? That's what our intelligence agencies do with their bulk data collection capabilities, and they have an immense positive impact on society.

danbruc 3y ago
[...] and they have an immense positive impact on society. For this I need proof.
jtbayly 3y ago
If you want to argue that they can scan people outside the country and not US citizens, and that that has a benefit, go ahead and make that argument. You might even convince me. But it’s just begging the question to say there’s immense benefit to them searching US citizens’ communications without a reason. That’s the whole question. Show me why we should change the constitution which guarantees us freedom from this sort of government oppression.
- figlett 3y ago
  I'm writing from a UK perspective so there's no underlying constitutional issue here like there might be in the US. Bulk data collection is restricted by specific laws and this mandates regular operational oversight by an independent body, to ensure that both the collection and each individual use of the data is necessary and proportionate. Some of this will include data of British citizens, but the thing is, we have a significant home-grown terrorism problem and serious organised criminal gang activity, happening within the country. If intelligence analysts need to look at, for example, which phone number contacted which other phone number on a specific date in the recent past, there's no other way to do this other than bulk collect all phone call metadata from the various telecom operators, and store it ready for searching. The vast majority of that data will never be seen by human eyes, only indexed and searched by automated systems. All my phone calls and internet activity will be in there somewhere, I'm sure, but I don't consider that in itself to be government oppression. Only if it's used for oppressive purposes, would it become oppressive.
omniglottal 3y ago
s/positive/negative/

flir 3y ago

But that's just a restatement of the OP's position ("Mass surveillance is never an appropriate solution"). You're not attempting to justify that position.

danbruc 3y ago
That's just an axiom for me, no justification needed. My life is my life and it is not the business of the state to watch every step I do as long as I am not affecting others in any relevant way. You convince me that I or society as a whole would be better off if I allowed the state to constantly keep an eye on me, then I might change my opinion and grant the state the permission to violate my privacy.
- flir 3y ago
  > That's just an axiom for me, no justification needed Congrats, you've got a religion.
  - danbruc 3y ago
    That's nonsense, every worldview must be grounded in some axioms, that does not make it a religion. I can break it down somewhat more for you. The state has no powers besides the ones granted by its citizens. I value my privacy highly and need very good reasons to grant the state permission to violate it. Catching criminals does not clear the bar, there are other ways to do this that do not violate my privacy.
  - troupo 3y ago
    [flagged]
jtbayly 3y ago
It’s guaranteed by our constitution, among other reasons. Search of my communications for no reason is, by definition “unreasonable search.”
- flir 3y ago