5 ms·

I'm a student at the University of Pittsburgh. From that point of view, this seems like a perfectly fine action to take. The FBI agents may have disrupted ser

I'm a student at the University of Pittsburgh. From that point of view, this seems like a perfectly fine action to take. The FBI agents may have disrupted service to a few hundred users, but these threats were affecting thousands of people. I don't know if these anonymous email threats were unprecedented or not, but they certainly present a huge challenge to law enforcement. What would have happened if the people responsible didn't just stop? Of course, you could subscribe to the view of the conspiracy theorists among us who feel that the FBI did actually catch the people responsible and are now employing them. :P

BryanB55 14y ago
I pretty much agree, they talked about "innocent peoples privacy" but if they are truly innocent then it shouldn't matter if the FBI sees their information. If my data were on that server and I was doing nothing wrong I really don't think I would mind handing it over to the FBI to help find even the smallest threat to our country.
- RyanMBoland 14y ago
  But, was anyone's personal data really on that server? If it's an anonymous emailing service I would think that just the service was disrupted.
  - BryanB55 14y ago
    Could be. I'm curious to hear why my comment was down voted though, regardless of whether there was information on the server or not. It seems a lot of people are always screaming "privacy!" and when I mention I'm willing to give up some privacy to protect the safety of other people and our country others do not agree with me. What is it you think will happen if the FBI gets a hold of your data on a server? This of course is just my opinion and I respect everyone else's opinion but I would like to hear a counter argument.
    - AkThhhpppt 14y ago
      You're getting downvoted because you've just rephrased the "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" argument. Here, have a counterargument: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565&#38 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565&#3...;
      - BryanB55 14y ago
        Thanks. I'll look it over.
    - DanBC 14y ago
      Gathering, pre-processing, entering, and storing information costs time and money. Having more data about more people increases the risks of false positives ("Innocent Bob is a terrorist!") and false negatives ("Terrorist Ann is innocent!"); and raises the risks of faulty data being gathered, processed and entered. So, having data about innocent people just increases costs and decreases quality.
- sopooneo 14y ago
  Right to privacy is fundamental in the United States. People should never have to respond to the argument that if they are truly innocent they won't mind some breach.
CWuestefeld 14y ago
Up-vote because many people feel this way, so it's important to discuss. But I strongly disagree. From that point of view, this seems like a perfectly fine action to take. There's certainly an argument to be made in support of your statement. If we were to work in a purely utilitarian manner, there would be little room for argument. But the design of the structure of civil rights we have in America doesn't work that way. We recognize that people have certain inherent, inalienable right. Even if stripping someone's rights would save tremendous tragedy, our philosophical underpinnings prevent it. We don't condone torture (unless you're the current President or his predecessor), even when we might be able to extract information that could save many. We could save many thousand people who are sick, and destined to die, waiting in vain for organ transplants. Just pick somebody's name out of a hat, and divide up his organs -- a liver, a heart, a couple of kidneys. For each life we took, we could save four or more others (not to mention improving others with cornea transplants, etc.). But despite the fact that utilitarian balance says that the net benefit to society would be positive, our system will not even contemplate such an action. Those examples are extreme, but they illustrate the point that we don't take actions that injure innocent people (and remember, everyone is innocent until proven guilty) even when they can save many others.
- RyanMBoland 14y ago
  I think that you've taken this too far. We can't make blanket statements about peoples rights and expect them to be applicable in every situation. In this case, a legal authority made the decision to interrupt a service for a small period of time in order to investigate a terrorist act that was disrupting the lives of thousands of people daily. If this was, say, a service that was providing medical assistance to elderly people, I don't think the same decision would have been made.
  - BryanB55 14y ago
    I agree... In one case you're talking about killing someone and taking their organs to give to others and in the other we're talking about disrupting someones email usage to prevent bomb detonation. Can we see the difference here? I still don't see any reason that I would not give up my private information on a server in order to protect our country and thousands of lives... looking up some counter arguments though. I can't think of any good ones off the top of my head.

BryanB55 14y ago

I pretty much agree, they talked about "innocent peoples privacy" but if they are truly innocent then it shouldn't matter if the FBI sees their information. If my data were on that server and I was doing nothing wrong I really don't think I would mind handing it over to the FBI to help find even the smallest threat to our country.

RyanMBoland 14y ago
But, was anyone's personal data really on that server? If it's an anonymous emailing service I would think that just the service was disrupted.
- BryanB55 14y ago
  Could be. I'm curious to hear why my comment was down voted though, regardless of whether there was information on the server or not. It seems a lot of people are always screaming "privacy!" and when I mention I'm willing to give up some privacy to protect the safety of other people and our country others do not agree with me. What is it you think will happen if the FBI gets a hold of your data on a server? This of course is just my opinion and I respect everyone else's opinion but I would like to hear a counter argument.
  - AkThhhpppt 14y ago
    You're getting downvoted because you've just rephrased the "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" argument. Here, have a counterargument: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565&#38 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565&#3...;
    - BryanB55 14y ago
      Thanks. I'll look it over.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    Gathering, pre-processing, entering, and storing information costs time and money. Having more data about more people increases the risks of false positives ("Innocent Bob is a terrorist!") and false negatives ("Terrorist Ann is innocent!"); and raises the risks of faulty data being gathered, processed and entered. So, having data about innocent people just increases costs and decreases quality.
sopooneo 14y ago
Right to privacy is fundamental in the United States. People should never have to respond to the argument that if they are truly innocent they won't mind some breach.

CWuestefeld 14y ago

Up-vote because many people feel this way, so it's important to discuss. But I strongly disagree. From that point of view, this seems like a perfectly fine action to take. There's certainly an argument to be made in support of your statement. If we were to work in a purely utilitarian manner, there would be little room for argument. But the design of the structure of civil rights we have in America doesn't work that way. We recognize that people have certain inherent, inalienable right. Even if stripping someone's rights would save tremendous tragedy, our philosophical underpinnings prevent it. We don't condone torture (unless you're the current President or his predecessor), even when we might be able to extract information that could save many. We could save many thousand people who are sick, and destined to die, waiting in vain for organ transplants. Just pick somebody's name out of a hat, and divide up his organs -- a liver, a heart, a couple of kidneys. For each life we took, we could save four or more others (not to mention improving others with cornea transplants, etc.). But despite the fact that utilitarian balance says that the net benefit to society would be positive, our system will not even contemplate such an action. Those examples are extreme, but they illustrate the point that we don't take actions that injure innocent people (and remember, everyone is innocent until proven guilty) even when they can save many others.

RyanMBoland 14y ago
I think that you've taken this too far. We can't make blanket statements about peoples rights and expect them to be applicable in every situation. In this case, a legal authority made the decision to interrupt a service for a small period of time in order to investigate a terrorist act that was disrupting the lives of thousands of people daily. If this was, say, a service that was providing medical assistance to elderly people, I don't think the same decision would have been made.
- BryanB55 14y ago
  I agree... In one case you're talking about killing someone and taking their organs to give to others and in the other we're talking about disrupting someones email usage to prevent bomb detonation. Can we see the difference here? I still don't see any reason that I would not give up my private information on a server in order to protect our country and thousands of lives... looking up some counter arguments though. I can't think of any good ones off the top of my head.