3 ms·

Because it’s unethical or because it’s inefficient to do this manually as opposed to algorithmically?

by avs733 2y ago

lazide 2y ago
Because too many stories like this started to get them bad PR, which is a liability, so they put processes in place. Every large company ends up with these types of situations. The Snowden dumps showed a widespread culture of the NSA doing this on girlfriends, ex’s, and ‘potential love interests’. Among many other things. Why do you think he got hunted to the ends of the earth?
- bigbacaloa 2y ago
  Better to make it law and enforce the law than to trust large companies to do anything ethical.
  - toolz 2y ago
    Ethics aren't objective anyway, so it's not useful to rely on them. The US prides itself on being a melting pot full of diverse entrepreneurs. Diversity means different sets of ethics, sometimes varying greatly. I'm hopeful the US can get to a place where we expect everyone to agree on ethics and only reward those that operate with american ethics in mind. Which interestingly enough, I find the ethics that america loves to espouse with their words, more often reflects the enacted ethics of many immigrants when compared to the people who have many generations in this country.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > Why do you think he got hunted to the ends of the earth? Because of what the guys at the top were doing. If it had just been the LOVEINT stuff, I think the NSA would've said "oh, right, yes that's not meant to happen, few bad apples, nothing to see here". But showing a large systemic attitude, lying to congress… and specifically that America works with foreign partners to circumvent constitutional rights everywhere, that will have upset the people in charge. Plus getting most big tech to use E2E encryption for chat so wiretapping their servers stopped being useful.
  - lazide 2y ago
    That, and also because they can. Hell, extrajudicially destroying people for threatening the system is basically the entire reason for the national security apparatus. Big corp doesn’t get to do that (generally), hence actually having to (eventually) stop it.
    - psunavy03 2y ago
      > extrajudicially destroying people for threatening the system is basically the entire reason for the national security apparatus. This is a great take . . . if you're a liberal arts major in undergrad. It is literally sophomoric. Abuses in the intelligence community do not obviate the legitimate reasons why the government collects intelligence.
      - lazide 2y ago
        So you’re saying the folks responsible for ruining Snowden and others… saw consequences? COINTELPRO and MKULTRA resulted in… people getting prosecuted? Obviating or not, when the abuses see no real consequences, at what point do you say the abuses are just… part of the story too? Frankly, saying otherwise is the Sophomoric take, isn’t it?
        ben_w 2y ago
        Those would be excellent examples of "Abuses in the intelligence community" Even though I strongly dislike the abuses I learn of in the intelligence community, I don't see how these abuses "obviate the legitimate reasons why the government collects intelligence", nor do I see how you could go from that to the much stronger claim "extrajudicially destroying people for threatening the system is basically the entire reason for the national security apparatus." Do they extrajudicially destroy people for threatening the system? I have every reason to assume so. Is that the "entire reason" for them? No. Each agency in each nation also has the completely lawful purpose of protecting their own citizens from the agencies of other nations.
        2y ago

Because it’s unethical or because it’s inefficient to do this manually as opposed to algorithmically?

by avs733 2y ago

Because it’s unethical or because it’s inefficient to do this manually as opposed to algorithmically?

Because too many stories like this started to get them bad PR, which is a liability, so they put processes in place. Every large company ends up with these types of situations. The Snowden dumps showed a widespread culture of the NSA doing this on girlfriends, ex’s, and ‘potential love interests’. Among many other things. Why do you think he got hunted to the ends of the earth?

bigbacaloa 2y ago
Better to make it law and enforce the law than to trust large companies to do anything ethical.
- toolz 2y ago
  Ethics aren't objective anyway, so it's not useful to rely on them. The US prides itself on being a melting pot full of diverse entrepreneurs. Diversity means different sets of ethics, sometimes varying greatly. I'm hopeful the US can get to a place where we expect everyone to agree on ethics and only reward those that operate with american ethics in mind. Which interestingly enough, I find the ethics that america loves to espouse with their words, more often reflects the enacted ethics of many immigrants when compared to the people who have many generations in this country.
ben_w 2y ago
> Why do you think he got hunted to the ends of the earth? Because of what the guys at the top were doing. If it had just been the LOVEINT stuff, I think the NSA would've said "oh, right, yes that's not meant to happen, few bad apples, nothing to see here". But showing a large systemic attitude, lying to congress… and specifically that America works with foreign partners to circumvent constitutional rights everywhere, that will have upset the people in charge. Plus getting most big tech to use E2E encryption for chat so wiretapping their servers stopped being useful.
- lazide 2y ago
  That, and also because they can. Hell, extrajudicially destroying people for threatening the system is basically the entire reason for the national security apparatus. Big corp doesn’t get to do that (generally), hence actually having to (eventually) stop it.
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    > extrajudicially destroying people for threatening the system is basically the entire reason for the national security apparatus. This is a great take . . . if you're a liberal arts major in undergrad. It is literally sophomoric. Abuses in the intelligence community do not obviate the legitimate reasons why the government collects intelligence.
    - lazide 2y ago
      So you’re saying the folks responsible for ruining Snowden and others… saw consequences? COINTELPRO and MKULTRA resulted in… people getting prosecuted? Obviating or not, when the abuses see no real consequences, at what point do you say the abuses are just… part of the story too? Frankly, saying otherwise is the Sophomoric take, isn’t it?
      - ben_w 2y ago
        Those would be excellent examples of "Abuses in the intelligence community" Even though I strongly dislike the abuses I learn of in the intelligence community, I don't see how these abuses "obviate the legitimate reasons why the government collects intelligence", nor do I see how you could go from that to the much stronger claim "extrajudicially destroying people for threatening the system is basically the entire reason for the national security apparatus." Do they extrajudicially destroy people for threatening the system? I have every reason to assume so. Is that the "entire reason" for them? No. Each agency in each nation also has the completely lawful purpose of protecting their own citizens from the agencies of other nations.
        2y ago