3 ms·

I think the implications of your second topic are more profound than you are considering. By creating these online sock puppets and fictitious lives to back the

by logn 14y ago

I think the implications of your second topic are more profound than you are considering. By creating these online sock puppets and fictitious lives to back them up, the government is essentially injecting fake government agents into our lives which could go deeper than any of us would normally imagine. For instance, to be taken seriously on a message board such as ours, you might need a github page. You might also need a meetup profile. And you'd need a linkedin that's believable. To make these happen you might also need some real-world interaction, so it's possibly tied in with undercover agents in the real world, such as those infiltrating occupy wallstreet or other groups/organizations/companies we don't know about.

anigbrowl 14y ago
Espionage and counter-espionage has always functioned in an ethical gray area, by necessity. I appreciate that this fails 'the honor code' in many peoples' eyes, but I think it's better than aggressive militarism in that its ultimately far less destructive.
- b1daly 14y ago
  Thank you for saying this. What the us has done with military action is just appalling. To the extent that the US has enemies, spying and information based action is much less destructive. I would also like to ask some of you who seem to take it as av given that any erosion of privacy, any knowledge about you by government is bad: outside of edge cases are we seeing big negative effects from the huge amount of data being collected about the population at large? There are a lot of upsides to this infrastructure. I give Google a lot of info, but I get a lot in return. As someone else mentioned, we have probably more personal freedom than any previous era in the us. Many US citizens lived during times when racial discrimination was codified in law! There has always been an elite power structure in human society. The idea that the executive branch has to obey the law is pretty new. In general, I think the ideas of human rights are so powerful, that any technology that has the power to vastly increase communication will be instrumental in their spread. It's because they are powerful, and have an obvious appeal to humans. The powers that be cannot undo the truthfulness of ideas, by any means. This is my pet theory anyway. But I really am curious. There are a lot of super smart folks on here raising alarm bells about this. What are the scenarios where the average American brings calamity on themselves by posting a bunch of stuff online?
  - youngerdryas 14y ago
    I am not surprised no one has replied with a scenario which brings calamity. I'm sure many started to but realized how far fetched it would have to be. Few individuals can be a realistic threat to the government. My brother currently thinks he is harming the government by not paying taxes, quite the opposite though.
  - logn 14y ago
    I think the calamity comes when we re-define our objectives. For instance, right now the definition of 'terrorist' is fairly clear. But what if we start to consider drug lords terrorists (we probably already do)? Then what about the small dealers under them? Then what about considering the users they sell to terrorists (for funding them)? Then what about considering that drug user's spouse to be a terrorist, for harboring a terrorist? Then it could be fairly easy to imprison a great number of people. But the real danger is that instead of imprisoning everyone we pick and choose who we want to send away forever. Then when someone speaks out against the government in a way that's frowned upon, the government digs up some dirt which can categorize them as a 'terrorist' and they're locked away in a secret prison or executed. This might sound absurd but I think it's plausible. And it's exactly this kind of worst-case-scenario preparation and fear which gave us the great documents and principles our country was founded upon.

by logn 14y ago

anigbrowl 14y ago

Espionage and counter-espionage has always functioned in an ethical gray area, by necessity. I appreciate that this fails 'the honor code' in many peoples' eyes, but I think it's better than aggressive militarism in that its ultimately far less destructive.

b1daly 14y ago
Thank you for saying this. What the us has done with military action is just appalling. To the extent that the US has enemies, spying and information based action is much less destructive. I would also like to ask some of you who seem to take it as av given that any erosion of privacy, any knowledge about you by government is bad: outside of edge cases are we seeing big negative effects from the huge amount of data being collected about the population at large? There are a lot of upsides to this infrastructure. I give Google a lot of info, but I get a lot in return. As someone else mentioned, we have probably more personal freedom than any previous era in the us. Many US citizens lived during times when racial discrimination was codified in law! There has always been an elite power structure in human society. The idea that the executive branch has to obey the law is pretty new. In general, I think the ideas of human rights are so powerful, that any technology that has the power to vastly increase communication will be instrumental in their spread. It's because they are powerful, and have an obvious appeal to humans. The powers that be cannot undo the truthfulness of ideas, by any means. This is my pet theory anyway. But I really am curious. There are a lot of super smart folks on here raising alarm bells about this. What are the scenarios where the average American brings calamity on themselves by posting a bunch of stuff online?
- youngerdryas 14y ago
  I am not surprised no one has replied with a scenario which brings calamity. I'm sure many started to but realized how far fetched it would have to be. Few individuals can be a realistic threat to the government. My brother currently thinks he is harming the government by not paying taxes, quite the opposite though.
- logn 14y ago
  I think the calamity comes when we re-define our objectives. For instance, right now the definition of 'terrorist' is fairly clear. But what if we start to consider drug lords terrorists (we probably already do)? Then what about the small dealers under them? Then what about considering the users they sell to terrorists (for funding them)? Then what about considering that drug user's spouse to be a terrorist, for harboring a terrorist? Then it could be fairly easy to imprison a great number of people. But the real danger is that instead of imprisoning everyone we pick and choose who we want to send away forever. Then when someone speaks out against the government in a way that's frowned upon, the government digs up some dirt which can categorize them as a 'terrorist' and they're locked away in a secret prison or executed. This might sound absurd but I think it's plausible. And it's exactly this kind of worst-case-scenario preparation and fear which gave us the great documents and principles our country was founded upon.