3 ms·

I think the central question here is whether a democracy can endure a constant state of war where every part of our lives is catalogued and cross-indexed by the

I think the central question here is whether a democracy can endure a constant state of war where every part of our lives is catalogued and cross-indexed by the government. The rest of it is just a legal discussion around property rights and Rand Paul's strategy, both of which are not really germane. It doesn't work. It's not that it's illegal, it's not that Rand Paul has to take this position to glorify himself or whatever, it's simply that it doesn't work. You can get away with "novel solutions" that won't work long-term for a while, but not indefinitely. Setting up this permanent monitoring infrastructure amounts to a cataclysm for our grandchildren. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

lmg643 13y ago
I think as long as Americans maintain a "zero tolerance" posture towards terrorism, this kind of security will always be justifiable, because the goal is zero events, versus accepting that some percentage "will happen." Nuclear terrorism is example #1 of why "by any means necessary" is considered appropriate for surveillance. Since it's hard to argue this will "never" happen, well, it justifies a lot. Whether that is right or wrong, I still don't know.
rayiner 13y ago
> I think the central question here is whether a democracy can endure a constant state of war where every part of our lives is catalogued and cross-indexed by the government. With regards to the latter point, I think it's both inevitable and not likely to be the downfall of democracy. There is no future scenario in which the government does not have the kind of insight into our lives that Google, Facebook, etc, have. Not necessarily because the government will ignore any laws and collect that data anyway, but because people desensitized to privacy issues by a computer at Google scanning their e-mail just aren't going to care about a computer at the NSA doing the same.
- ericd 13y ago
  Google doesn't have anywhere near the power the government does, and people realize this well enough to not make a false equivalence between the two.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    That's largely irrelevant to my point. The average person doesn't think google is going to use their information against them, which is why they allow google to engage in such invasive tracking (also, they don't realize how much google tracks). At the same time, the average person doesn't share HN's reflexive distrust of the government. Desensitized to privacy issues by google, etc's, tracking, it doesn't cause them any consternation that the government has access to that information too. They don't perceive either entity as a threat.

lmg643 13y ago

I think as long as Americans maintain a "zero tolerance" posture towards terrorism, this kind of security will always be justifiable, because the goal is zero events, versus accepting that some percentage "will happen." Nuclear terrorism is example #1 of why "by any means necessary" is considered appropriate for surveillance. Since it's hard to argue this will "never" happen, well, it justifies a lot. Whether that is right or wrong, I still don't know.

rayiner 13y ago

> I think the central question here is whether a democracy can endure a constant state of war where every part of our lives is catalogued and cross-indexed by the government. With regards to the latter point, I think it's both inevitable and not likely to be the downfall of democracy. There is no future scenario in which the government does not have the kind of insight into our lives that Google, Facebook, etc, have. Not necessarily because the government will ignore any laws and collect that data anyway, but because people desensitized to privacy issues by a computer at Google scanning their e-mail just aren't going to care about a computer at the NSA doing the same.

ericd 13y ago
Google doesn't have anywhere near the power the government does, and people realize this well enough to not make a false equivalence between the two.
- rayiner 13y ago
  That's largely irrelevant to my point. The average person doesn't think google is going to use their information against them, which is why they allow google to engage in such invasive tracking (also, they don't realize how much google tracks). At the same time, the average person doesn't share HN's reflexive distrust of the government. Desensitized to privacy issues by google, etc's, tracking, it doesn't cause them any consternation that the government has access to that information too. They don't perceive either entity as a threat.