4 ms·

"Ethics aside".... What a world we live in! :( But no, it isn't, because it can be gamed like any other rules system. The NSA probably thinks their system ha

"Ethics aside".... What a world we live in! :( But no, it isn't, because it can be gamed like any other rules system. The NSA probably thinks their system hasn't been explored yet, relying as they do primarily on security through obfuscation. One of the greatest pleasures in life is examining "black box" systems and figuring them out. The NSA would be fools to expect that their system is not already being gamed.

mtgx 13y ago
Yes, the same with torture. Hey, if torture works, maybe we should just allow it in every police station on everyone we ever arrest. It should make getting those confessions out so much easier! Say hello to the 2 centuries ago society! Glad to see the past 2 centuries have gone to waste in terms of what in means to evolve as a human in a modern society.
- rz2k 13y ago
  Which only says something about the person drawing the conclusion, not about deconstructing arguments. Torture must be both moral and strategically effective to make sense. Therefore, if either one is not the case, then you shouldn't stand for your government torturing people. It is difficult to convince someone to adopt different values using logic alone. Perhaps ultimately the ethics behind the value of privacy can be traced to its role in constructing a society that produces the best quality of life for people. If so then it may start with whether hurting someone can defuse a ticking bomb, then be expanded to whether hurting more people can undermine an enemy and whether it yields less accurate information than subtler interrogation methods, or perhaps whether it recruits more enemies and is a losing strategy, and some many steps later, after addressing whether it undermines the fundamental goals that make the society worth protecting, what kind of people it makes us to engage in torture. I suppose that what I am getting at is that we wouldn't necessarily agree with the values that informed past ideas about what is moral. Therefore, if we can simply point out that torturing also isn't in our strategic interest we can short circuit nonsense arguments about necessary evil. The same goes for privacy invasions, however, I don't agree that these programs are likely to be inefficient. More likely, they will be unscientific and confirm biases, and tend to cause suffering for many innocent people, while also encouraging self-censorship. They will also undermine the checks provided by institutions that have gone of the rails, or officials that have become corrupt having to interact with moral people. Perhaps most terrifying, I have read a couple journalists, of all professions, talk about these programs in context of TSA checks, and having to stand barefoot in front of gawkers, or be touched by strangers. Though these checks are a cause for indignity, and are varyingly effective, in comparison to universal surveillance, they are unlikely to quash any meaningful dissent or other important responsibilities of citizenship.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
I think it's a useful discussion to have since there are so many people who "don't have anything to hide" The argument works well for privacy advocates because even without regard to revealing classified secrets, the NSA won't be able to demonstrate good efficacy or good value for the money, due to the fact that such a system can only ever "work" rarely. A close look at this ought to also reveal a large fraction of abuse, and waste, in addition to false positives.

mtgx 13y ago

Yes, the same with torture. Hey, if torture works, maybe we should just allow it in every police station on everyone we ever arrest. It should make getting those confessions out so much easier! Say hello to the 2 centuries ago society! Glad to see the past 2 centuries have gone to waste in terms of what in means to evolve as a human in a modern society.

rz2k 13y ago
Which only says something about the person drawing the conclusion, not about deconstructing arguments. Torture must be both moral and strategically effective to make sense. Therefore, if either one is not the case, then you shouldn't stand for your government torturing people. It is difficult to convince someone to adopt different values using logic alone. Perhaps ultimately the ethics behind the value of privacy can be traced to its role in constructing a society that produces the best quality of life for people. If so then it may start with whether hurting someone can defuse a ticking bomb, then be expanded to whether hurting more people can undermine an enemy and whether it yields less accurate information than subtler interrogation methods, or perhaps whether it recruits more enemies and is a losing strategy, and some many steps later, after addressing whether it undermines the fundamental goals that make the society worth protecting, what kind of people it makes us to engage in torture. I suppose that what I am getting at is that we wouldn't necessarily agree with the values that informed past ideas about what is moral. Therefore, if we can simply point out that torturing also isn't in our strategic interest we can short circuit nonsense arguments about necessary evil. The same goes for privacy invasions, however, I don't agree that these programs are likely to be inefficient. More likely, they will be unscientific and confirm biases, and tend to cause suffering for many innocent people, while also encouraging self-censorship. They will also undermine the checks provided by institutions that have gone of the rails, or officials that have become corrupt having to interact with moral people. Perhaps most terrifying, I have read a couple journalists, of all professions, talk about these programs in context of TSA checks, and having to stand barefoot in front of gawkers, or be touched by strangers. Though these checks are a cause for indignity, and are varyingly effective, in comparison to universal surveillance, they are unlikely to quash any meaningful dissent or other important responsibilities of citizenship.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

I think it's a useful discussion to have since there are so many people who "don't have anything to hide" The argument works well for privacy advocates because even without regard to revealing classified secrets, the NSA won't be able to demonstrate good efficacy or good value for the money, due to the fact that such a system can only ever "work" rarely. A close look at this ought to also reveal a large fraction of abuse, and waste, in addition to false positives.