6 ms·

The loss of privacy is massive in comparison to the lives lost to terrorism. More people die each year due to car accidents than have lost their lives to all te

The loss of privacy is massive in comparison to the lives lost to terrorism. More people die each year due to car accidents than have lost their lives to all terrorist attacks on US Soil. If the information that is being gathered is about safety, then why isn't the government isn't creating a massive program to strictly monitor highway speeds, traffic roadways, and increase traffic safety then? Answer: The information gathering has nothing to do with safety. It has everything to do with power. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

anigbrowl 13y ago
We have such a massive program, according to many; the NTSB is a big bureaucracy and a lot of people consider the whole concept of speed limits and traffic police as a encroachment upon their freedom rather than a reasonable collective decision on how to share transit arteries. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. This seems a rather inappropriate aphorism, since most people here would very much like to deny the NSA access to information about their phone usage. This is an argument against censorship rather than one in support of privacy. I don't think you've really thought this argument through. I don't think the government is so much interested in vastly expanding its powers of information gathering (although as I've noted elsewhere, the government has had unlimited access to your phone records, by order of the Supreme court, since 1979), as it is in maximizing its predictive abilities within its existing legal limits - which is also considered by many to be part of its job. It's not so much you vs. the government as you vs. a large number of your fellow citizens that simply don't share your beliefs about privacy, and who choose to elect law-and-order types more often than civil-liberties types.
- greedo 13y ago
  Yes, the government has "limited" access to your phone records, with a subpoena issued by a judge, after probable cause has been demonstrated. Anything else is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Not so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Afforess 13y ago
  >This seems a rather inappropriate aphorism, since most people here would very much like to deny the NSA access to information about their phone usage. This is an argument against censorship rather than one in support of privacy. I have no idea how you interpreted it that way. The quote is in reference to the government. It's from a video game, which came out in 1999. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY57ErBkFFE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY57ErBkFFE
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I'm perfectly aware of where it comes from, and I interpreted it according to the normal rules of English grammar. Just because it's against the spirit of totalitarian government doesn't alter the meaning of the words. After all, the NSA is not denying you information when it collects records of your phone conversations. It's doing so when it denies engaging inthis practice, but if the NSA (or those delegated to oversee it) were to say 'sure, we totally collect that data!' I doubt you'd be OK with it.
    - Afforess 13y ago
      It's impossible to have a meaningful conversation if you intentionally view anyone else's opinions in the worst possible light. You may have a valid interpretation of what I said, but it's clearly not the interpretation I intended to convey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
      - jamesaguilar 13y ago
        You cited an irrelevant quote and are invoking the principle of charity to demand that anigbrowl give it a pass. It would be easier if you just admitted that the quote is about censorship and not privacy and move on. You're weakening your rhetorical position by defending something that's obviously wrong, and not central to your point.
        Afforess 13y ago
- hindsightbias 13y ago
  > NTSB is a big bureaucracy Of 400 employees. If PRISM only really costs $20M/year (per the slide deck), it has to be the greatest bang-for-buck IT project in Federal history. I'd let it go if we can get rid of all those multi-billion satellite projects and 3/4ths of the staff. Damage to perceived 'rights' is OK, as long as it is done efficiently.
  - sillysaurus 13y ago
    Damage to perceived 'rights' is OK, as long as it is done efficiently. What do you mean?
  - adventured 13y ago
    It clearly doesn't only cost $20 million. That would be ignoring the multi-billion dollar Utah data center required to store / analyze everything. The bandwidth / networking capacity alone would cost more than that to setup and operate. They are getting a discount in this case however, as companies are doing a lot of the work for them.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  >This is an argument against censorship rather than one in support of privacy. Let's not forget that they've been attempting to keep the existence of this program a secret. >This seems a rather inappropriate aphorism, since most people here would very much like to deny the NSA access to information about their phone usage. Aren't the people supposed to be the masters of the government? >It's not so much you vs. the government as you vs. a large number of your fellow citizens that simply don't share your beliefs about privacy, and who choose to elect law-and-order types more often than civil-liberties types. So our job is to convince those people of their error by espousing evidence in support of our view. Malicious governments kill drastically more innocent people than malicious individuals or small groups; excessive government power is more dangerous than terrorism. The amount of money we spend on anti-terrorism measures is drastically out of proportion to the actual threat and those resources could be better spent on more serious issues, terrorism hype is financially supported in enormous amounts by defense contractors and other parties with a significant pecuniary interest in continued government waste, etc.
- Cthulhu_ 13y ago
  > We have such a massive program, according to many; the NTSB is a big bureaucracy and a lot of people consider the whole concept of speed limits and traffic police as a encroachment upon their freedom rather than a reasonable collective decision on how to share transit arteries. A similar view is held here (in the Netherlands), where interesting new methods are created to monitor speeding. The thing is, it's not viewed - or even promoted as - something that increases safety and reduces lethal accidents on the roads, but instead as a way for the government to make money. Similarly, the way this is portrayed and kept secret by the government and the security agencies is not to reduce and prevent terrorist attacks, but to infringe upon the privacy of people using US-based online services. If the NSA and similar organizations were to be more open about what terrorist attacks they prevented, they would create more goodwill and would gain support from the people. Yet, branding terrorists and openly causing fear of terrorists and their attacks has two side-effects; one, it will make terrorists smarter and more secretive, and two, it happens in all the Orwellian dystopias, instilling fear of 'terrorists' and foreign nations in the populace as a means of control.
- adimitrov 13y ago
  > This seems a rather inappropriate aphorism, since most people here would very much like to deny the NSA access to information about their phone usage. So, the people would dream themselves masters of the government agency NSA. Wasn't that what government was supposed to do? Serve the people?
XorNot 13y ago
What do you call speed cameras, signs, highway maintenance, driver education, highway patrol policing, periodic public information campaigns and aggressive regulation of safety standards in the automobile industry?
- Afforess 13y ago
  Interestly enough, speed cameras and highway patrols have nothing to do with traffic safety either. Highways could easily have camera systems to monitor the exact time when cars get on and off exits to determine how fast on average they were going during their trip. These systems have been tested and work, but the fact is that actually cracking down on speeders is massively unpopular and a political non-starter.
  - nijk 13y ago
    Huh? what you describe (time-based ticketing) already exists, and municipalities don't care that public opinion is against speeding fines.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    Or you know, that there is such a thing as safe speeding, such as when overtaking or to avoid an accident, and creating a system which would require someone to slow down and become a traffic hazard in order to avoid a fine, is absurd, oddly draconian, and likely to increase accident rates?
    - stinkytaco 13y ago
      This and the cost of deployment. Police, for all their foiles and failings are capable of judging a situation as another human would. Thus they can use their discretion in handing out tickets. Simple fact is that speeding is not that much of a problem. Certainly people do it and it's dangerous, but most people obey speed limits within acceptable parameters and drive fairly safely. Present levels of speed enforcement are doing their job and greater levels would have a point of diminishing returns.
  - 13y ago
md224 13y ago
Here's a Devil's Advocate position (not necessarily my personal beliefs, so please don't downvote based on disagreement. Just rip it to shreds instead!): The fear of losing privacy to the government is based on the fear that this increased surveillance will be used by the government to smother dissent. This is a valid fear, but has the government yet used surveillance to smother dissent? If you can find a solid example of this, I'd like to see one (and for all I know, there could be many, I'm genuinely interested). Until the government has been caught using surveillance to stifle dissent, it seems like increased surveillance only serves to reduce crime. Of course, there are illegal things that, in my opinion, should be legal, but this is a reason to petition the government for change, not break the law... perhaps a reduced ability to break pointless laws would galvanize the population into large-scale activism? Fear of government surveillance is entirely fear of smothered dissent. We must make sure our fears of the latter are logically sound before we fear the former. EDIT: Because I love arguing with myself, I'll point out that it's possible some wrongly illegal activities may be embarrassing for some individuals, and they would be hesitant to openly campaign for them. It still feels weird to argue for privacy on the grounds that people have a right to get away with certain things, hmm... EDIT 2: 15 minutes and already COINTELPRO negated the argument. Good counter, thanks. EDIT 3: Really appreciate that I seem to have gotten at least one upvote. I get really dismayed when politely-expressed unpopular opinions are downvoted, because I feel the best way to move the dialogue forward is to engage with opposing views, not hide them (even if your level of engagement is comprehensive refutation, that's still useful).
- mingmecca 13y ago
  On my cell phone (hi NSA!), so I can't give a full rebuttal, but start with COINTELPRO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- adventured 13y ago
  By the time they're using these extreme powers to smother dissent, you're fucked. It's game over and your ability to speak out using the first amendment is non-existent. The very reason why these things should never be allowed, is because the absolute protection of freedom of speech is ultimately the last safeguard against tyranny (before you get to violence anyway). Why let the guy into my house with a gun and roll the dice on whether he intends to at some point do me harm? That's crazy. We've seen enough really malevolent politicians assume power all over the world and domestically, to know better than to take such chances. History is littered with endless examples, it's at best naive to think America can't suffer the same types of fate.

anigbrowl 13y ago

We have such a massive program, according to many; the NTSB is a big bureaucracy and a lot of people consider the whole concept of speed limits and traffic police as a encroachment upon their freedom rather than a reasonable collective decision on how to share transit arteries. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. This seems a rather inappropriate aphorism, since most people here would very much like to deny the NSA access to information about their phone usage. This is an argument against censorship rather than one in support of privacy. I don't think you've really thought this argument through. I don't think the government is so much interested in vastly expanding its powers of information gathering (although as I've noted elsewhere, the government has had unlimited access to your phone records, by order of the Supreme court, since 1979), as it is in maximizing its predictive abilities within its existing legal limits - which is also considered by many to be part of its job. It's not so much you vs. the government as you vs. a large number of your fellow citizens that simply don't share your beliefs about privacy, and who choose to elect law-and-order types more often than civil-liberties types.

greedo 13y ago
Yes, the government has "limited" access to your phone records, with a subpoena issued by a judge, after probable cause has been demonstrated. Anything else is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Not so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Afforess 13y ago
>This seems a rather inappropriate aphorism, since most people here would very much like to deny the NSA access to information about their phone usage. This is an argument against censorship rather than one in support of privacy. I have no idea how you interpreted it that way. The quote is in reference to the government. It's from a video game, which came out in 1999. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY57ErBkFFE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY57ErBkFFE
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  I'm perfectly aware of where it comes from, and I interpreted it according to the normal rules of English grammar. Just because it's against the spirit of totalitarian government doesn't alter the meaning of the words. After all, the NSA is not denying you information when it collects records of your phone conversations. It's doing so when it denies engaging inthis practice, but if the NSA (or those delegated to oversee it) were to say 'sure, we totally collect that data!' I doubt you'd be OK with it.
  - Afforess 13y ago
    It's impossible to have a meaningful conversation if you intentionally view anyone else's opinions in the worst possible light. You may have a valid interpretation of what I said, but it's clearly not the interpretation I intended to convey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      You cited an irrelevant quote and are invoking the principle of charity to demand that anigbrowl give it a pass. It would be easier if you just admitted that the quote is about censorship and not privacy and move on. You're weakening your rhetorical position by defending something that's obviously wrong, and not central to your point.
      - Afforess 13y ago
hindsightbias 13y ago
> NTSB is a big bureaucracy Of 400 employees. If PRISM only really costs $20M/year (per the slide deck), it has to be the greatest bang-for-buck IT project in Federal history. I'd let it go if we can get rid of all those multi-billion satellite projects and 3/4ths of the staff. Damage to perceived 'rights' is OK, as long as it is done efficiently.
- sillysaurus 13y ago
  Damage to perceived 'rights' is OK, as long as it is done efficiently. What do you mean?
- adventured 13y ago
  It clearly doesn't only cost $20 million. That would be ignoring the multi-billion dollar Utah data center required to store / analyze everything. The bandwidth / networking capacity alone would cost more than that to setup and operate. They are getting a discount in this case however, as companies are doing a lot of the work for them.
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
>This is an argument against censorship rather than one in support of privacy. Let's not forget that they've been attempting to keep the existence of this program a secret. >This seems a rather inappropriate aphorism, since most people here would very much like to deny the NSA access to information about their phone usage. Aren't the people supposed to be the masters of the government? >It's not so much you vs. the government as you vs. a large number of your fellow citizens that simply don't share your beliefs about privacy, and who choose to elect law-and-order types more often than civil-liberties types. So our job is to convince those people of their error by espousing evidence in support of our view. Malicious governments kill drastically more innocent people than malicious individuals or small groups; excessive government power is more dangerous than terrorism. The amount of money we spend on anti-terrorism measures is drastically out of proportion to the actual threat and those resources could be better spent on more serious issues, terrorism hype is financially supported in enormous amounts by defense contractors and other parties with a significant pecuniary interest in continued government waste, etc.
Cthulhu_ 13y ago
> We have such a massive program, according to many; the NTSB is a big bureaucracy and a lot of people consider the whole concept of speed limits and traffic police as a encroachment upon their freedom rather than a reasonable collective decision on how to share transit arteries. A similar view is held here (in the Netherlands), where interesting new methods are created to monitor speeding. The thing is, it's not viewed - or even promoted as - something that increases safety and reduces lethal accidents on the roads, but instead as a way for the government to make money. Similarly, the way this is portrayed and kept secret by the government and the security agencies is not to reduce and prevent terrorist attacks, but to infringe upon the privacy of people using US-based online services. If the NSA and similar organizations were to be more open about what terrorist attacks they prevented, they would create more goodwill and would gain support from the people. Yet, branding terrorists and openly causing fear of terrorists and their attacks has two side-effects; one, it will make terrorists smarter and more secretive, and two, it happens in all the Orwellian dystopias, instilling fear of 'terrorists' and foreign nations in the populace as a means of control.
adimitrov 13y ago
> This seems a rather inappropriate aphorism, since most people here would very much like to deny the NSA access to information about their phone usage. So, the people would dream themselves masters of the government agency NSA. Wasn't that what government was supposed to do? Serve the people?

XorNot 13y ago

What do you call speed cameras, signs, highway maintenance, driver education, highway patrol policing, periodic public information campaigns and aggressive regulation of safety standards in the automobile industry?

Afforess 13y ago
Interestly enough, speed cameras and highway patrols have nothing to do with traffic safety either. Highways could easily have camera systems to monitor the exact time when cars get on and off exits to determine how fast on average they were going during their trip. These systems have been tested and work, but the fact is that actually cracking down on speeders is massively unpopular and a political non-starter.
- nijk 13y ago
  Huh? what you describe (time-based ticketing) already exists, and municipalities don't care that public opinion is against speeding fines.
- XorNot 13y ago
  Or you know, that there is such a thing as safe speeding, such as when overtaking or to avoid an accident, and creating a system which would require someone to slow down and become a traffic hazard in order to avoid a fine, is absurd, oddly draconian, and likely to increase accident rates?
  - stinkytaco 13y ago
    This and the cost of deployment. Police, for all their foiles and failings are capable of judging a situation as another human would. Thus they can use their discretion in handing out tickets. Simple fact is that speeding is not that much of a problem. Certainly people do it and it's dangerous, but most people obey speed limits within acceptable parameters and drive fairly safely. Present levels of speed enforcement are doing their job and greater levels would have a point of diminishing returns.
- 13y ago

md224 13y ago

Here's a Devil's Advocate position (not necessarily my personal beliefs, so please don't downvote based on disagreement. Just rip it to shreds instead!): The fear of losing privacy to the government is based on the fear that this increased surveillance will be used by the government to smother dissent. This is a valid fear, but has the government yet used surveillance to smother dissent? If you can find a solid example of this, I'd like to see one (and for all I know, there could be many, I'm genuinely interested). Until the government has been caught using surveillance to stifle dissent, it seems like increased surveillance only serves to reduce crime. Of course, there are illegal things that, in my opinion, should be legal, but this is a reason to petition the government for change, not break the law... perhaps a reduced ability to break pointless laws would galvanize the population into large-scale activism? Fear of government surveillance is entirely fear of smothered dissent. We must make sure our fears of the latter are logically sound before we fear the former. EDIT: Because I love arguing with myself, I'll point out that it's possible some wrongly illegal activities may be embarrassing for some individuals, and they would be hesitant to openly campaign for them. It still feels weird to argue for privacy on the grounds that people have a right to get away with certain things, hmm... EDIT 2: 15 minutes and already COINTELPRO negated the argument. Good counter, thanks. EDIT 3: Really appreciate that I seem to have gotten at least one upvote. I get really dismayed when politely-expressed unpopular opinions are downvoted, because I feel the best way to move the dialogue forward is to engage with opposing views, not hide them (even if your level of engagement is comprehensive refutation, that's still useful).

mingmecca 13y ago
On my cell phone (hi NSA!), so I can't give a full rebuttal, but start with COINTELPRO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
adventured 13y ago
By the time they're using these extreme powers to smother dissent, you're fucked. It's game over and your ability to speak out using the first amendment is non-existent. The very reason why these things should never be allowed, is because the absolute protection of freedom of speech is ultimately the last safeguard against tyranny (before you get to violence anyway). Why let the guy into my house with a gun and roll the dice on whether he intends to at some point do me harm? That's crazy. We've seen enough really malevolent politicians assume power all over the world and domestically, to know better than to take such chances. History is littered with endless examples, it's at best naive to think America can't suffer the same types of fate.