3 ms·

But if Western countries really had liberal principles of democracy and freedom why do we not already have these protections?

mlyle 3y ago
Because slow moving legal precedent and interpretation of constitutional documents is important. But sometimes, underlying facts change in ways that break the analogies used in past reasoning, and we need to catch up. The problem has only been super significant for 15-20 years, which is a blink of an eye in this sense; not even enough time for the populace to really understand and appreciate the issue. It is, of course, still broken.
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  Right but why should “the populace” even need to be aware of the problem? If the people with political power believe in these principles themselves shouldn't they just draft some new legislation to fix it? When Russia invaded Ukraine our leaders jumped into action to help them defend their country even on another continent, but when what is supposedly one of the founding principles of the US is totally broken you think its consistent with the assumption that our leaders share these values with us for them to drag their feet for multiple decades?
  - mlyle 3y ago
    Legislation doesn't affect the interpretation of the constitution. And in this case, judicial precedent follows evolving (both popular and legal) ideas of what the words in the constitution mean. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." "Persons, houses, papers, and effects" has been interpreted in terms of what things a person had, excluding things that they had given someone else to hold. It was a pretty reasonable interpretation and compromise, until it was the governing case law that covered the cloud.
    - goodSteveramos 3y ago
      > Legislation doesn't affect the interpretation of the constitution. Legislation can limit what Federal agents are allowed to do totally irrespectively of whether those things would separately violate the constitution.
      - mlyle 3y ago
        Sure, but we're not really talking about federal agents for the most part. We're talking about local police forces in states sending subpoenas to Ring.
        goodSteveramos 3y ago
        I cant believe you are making me say this but… s/federal agents/local police/g
        mlyle 3y ago
        Federal law's ability to enjoin local police activity is limited. And in any case: the law is a blunt instrument. It's (usually) better as a slowly changing representation of conventions and social consensus instead of something that we make sweeping changes in (whether legislatively or judicially).
        goodSteveramos 3y ago
        What limits it?
graemep 3y ago
I think we are moving away from some of those principles, particularly with regard to privacy and the balance between individual rights vs society/government. Attitudes have changed a lot.There is an episode of Yes Minister where the minister does not want to push a shared govt database law because of privacy concerns. Another where the idea of ID cards is called political suicide. Absolutely true at the time, but the former is happening, and the latter is still not with us the UK but its no longer unacceptable to push the idea. Kids are growing up expecting to be tracked (a lot of parents use "apps" to track what their kids do) so it will become even more normalised. People are used to being tracked as the tradeoff for map apps. There is a lot of surveillance anyway (CCTV and face recognition, number plate recognition, paying by card) so its already normal
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  If western leaders today believed in individual rights they could ban facial recognition, license plate readers and require businesses to take cash right now. Why do you think they don’t?
  - graemep 3y ago
    Because politicians and bureaucrats want to centralise power. They may very well sincerely believe they need that power for everyone's good. Someone goes into politics because they want the power to run things. Bureaucrats and agencies of the government want the power to run things for similar reasons, and it makes their jobs easier. Will the police ever say they do not want more powers to investigate crimes, or catch criminals? Will social services either? There are all kinds of things that can be better enforced with more information. On top of all that they are part of the same cultural change that puts a lower value on individual liberties. It means politicians are a lot less inclined to refuse. There has also been a political drift to following expert advice with less scepticism, and the experts on these issues are the police, intelligence agencies, etc. One cause close to my heart is that in the UK a number of local authorities keep hassling home educators (trying to bully them into sending their kids to school) even though their kids tend to do better than school going kids (their are studies showing better outcomes) because it seems inconceivable to them that people can do a better job than they do. I know people affected by this. A lot of them are utterly opposed to the idea that parents can make this decision at all.
scrps 3y ago
Is there a country or a system of government that doesn't have this class of problems? I sure can't find one and I've been to quite a few.

mlyle 3y ago

Because slow moving legal precedent and interpretation of constitutional documents is important. But sometimes, underlying facts change in ways that break the analogies used in past reasoning, and we need to catch up. The problem has only been super significant for 15-20 years, which is a blink of an eye in this sense; not even enough time for the populace to really understand and appreciate the issue. It is, of course, still broken.

goodSteveramos 3y ago
Right but why should “the populace” even need to be aware of the problem? If the people with political power believe in these principles themselves shouldn't they just draft some new legislation to fix it? When Russia invaded Ukraine our leaders jumped into action to help them defend their country even on another continent, but when what is supposedly one of the founding principles of the US is totally broken you think its consistent with the assumption that our leaders share these values with us for them to drag their feet for multiple decades?
- mlyle 3y ago
  Legislation doesn't affect the interpretation of the constitution. And in this case, judicial precedent follows evolving (both popular and legal) ideas of what the words in the constitution mean. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." "Persons, houses, papers, and effects" has been interpreted in terms of what things a person had, excluding things that they had given someone else to hold. It was a pretty reasonable interpretation and compromise, until it was the governing case law that covered the cloud.
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    > Legislation doesn't affect the interpretation of the constitution. Legislation can limit what Federal agents are allowed to do totally irrespectively of whether those things would separately violate the constitution.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      Sure, but we're not really talking about federal agents for the most part. We're talking about local police forces in states sending subpoenas to Ring.
      - goodSteveramos 3y ago
        I cant believe you are making me say this but… s/federal agents/local police/g
        mlyle 3y ago
        Federal law's ability to enjoin local police activity is limited. And in any case: the law is a blunt instrument. It's (usually) better as a slowly changing representation of conventions and social consensus instead of something that we make sweeping changes in (whether legislatively or judicially).
        goodSteveramos 3y ago
        What limits it?

graemep 3y ago

I think we are moving away from some of those principles, particularly with regard to privacy and the balance between individual rights vs society/government. Attitudes have changed a lot.There is an episode of Yes Minister where the minister does not want to push a shared govt database law because of privacy concerns. Another where the idea of ID cards is called political suicide. Absolutely true at the time, but the former is happening, and the latter is still not with us the UK but its no longer unacceptable to push the idea. Kids are growing up expecting to be tracked (a lot of parents use "apps" to track what their kids do) so it will become even more normalised. People are used to being tracked as the tradeoff for map apps. There is a lot of surveillance anyway (CCTV and face recognition, number plate recognition, paying by card) so its already normal

goodSteveramos 3y ago
If western leaders today believed in individual rights they could ban facial recognition, license plate readers and require businesses to take cash right now. Why do you think they don’t?
- graemep 3y ago
  Because politicians and bureaucrats want to centralise power. They may very well sincerely believe they need that power for everyone's good. Someone goes into politics because they want the power to run things. Bureaucrats and agencies of the government want the power to run things for similar reasons, and it makes their jobs easier. Will the police ever say they do not want more powers to investigate crimes, or catch criminals? Will social services either? There are all kinds of things that can be better enforced with more information. On top of all that they are part of the same cultural change that puts a lower value on individual liberties. It means politicians are a lot less inclined to refuse. There has also been a political drift to following expert advice with less scepticism, and the experts on these issues are the police, intelligence agencies, etc. One cause close to my heart is that in the UK a number of local authorities keep hassling home educators (trying to bully them into sending their kids to school) even though their kids tend to do better than school going kids (their are studies showing better outcomes) because it seems inconceivable to them that people can do a better job than they do. I know people affected by this. A lot of them are utterly opposed to the idea that parents can make this decision at all.

scrps 3y ago

Is there a country or a system of government that doesn't have this class of problems? I sure can't find one and I've been to quite a few.