3 ms·

Leaving aside your guesses at the demographics and sociographics inside intelligence services: who do you think should do the job?

iinnPP 3y ago
Not the person you're replying to but: It seems clear to me that protections designed to prevent corruption have been circumvented and need to be re-established. Likely by force, unfortunately.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Do you think intelligence services worked differently in the past? Why would it need force instead of legislation, change in personnel, different oversight, etc.?
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    I know they worked differently in the past. The abilities are different, just as Facebook is different from the telephone. The force piece is more of a Canadian perspective. Freedom of expression, association, and movement are not so much under attack as they are available only to those "who hold acceptable views." The volume of support needed to see change is high and clearing the volume goal involves going unnoticed by the people with more monitoring power than ever before. It also involves risking your ability to feed and house yourself. Those risks are shared with your entire group, who also have to accept those risks. Then you must factor in who is capable of such risks. Those people are generally well off enough that the basic human necessities threat is removed. They are also overwhelming likely to be benefiting from the current state of affairs (which you see a a LOT of on HN.) Force creates a new risk for any forceful partipants, but we are closing in closer and closer on the risks of force being less than the risk involved in doing nothing. That is when force can, and will, be used imho. I also don't think it's something you can predict unless you can actively relate to the poor.
jongjong 3y ago
People who are intelligent but can entertain contradictory ideas, respect differences of opinions and aren't very power hungry or status-oriented. Also they need to be highly self-aware and altruistic. There probably needs to be a mix of different people but I suspect there should be a lot more of the kinds of people I described.

iinnPP 3y ago

Not the person you're replying to but: It seems clear to me that protections designed to prevent corruption have been circumvented and need to be re-established. Likely by force, unfortunately.

RandomLensman 3y ago
Do you think intelligence services worked differently in the past? Why would it need force instead of legislation, change in personnel, different oversight, etc.?
- iinnPP 3y ago
  I know they worked differently in the past. The abilities are different, just as Facebook is different from the telephone. The force piece is more of a Canadian perspective. Freedom of expression, association, and movement are not so much under attack as they are available only to those "who hold acceptable views." The volume of support needed to see change is high and clearing the volume goal involves going unnoticed by the people with more monitoring power than ever before. It also involves risking your ability to feed and house yourself. Those risks are shared with your entire group, who also have to accept those risks. Then you must factor in who is capable of such risks. Those people are generally well off enough that the basic human necessities threat is removed. They are also overwhelming likely to be benefiting from the current state of affairs (which you see a a LOT of on HN.) Force creates a new risk for any forceful partipants, but we are closing in closer and closer on the risks of force being less than the risk involved in doing nothing. That is when force can, and will, be used imho. I also don't think it's something you can predict unless you can actively relate to the poor.

jongjong 3y ago

People who are intelligent but can entertain contradictory ideas, respect differences of opinions and aren't very power hungry or status-oriented. Also they need to be highly self-aware and altruistic. There probably needs to be a mix of different people but I suspect there should be a lot more of the kinds of people I described.