5 ms·

There are plenty of things that the state could use to make a person's life miserable if it was malicious. To me, that some capability could be used that way is

There are plenty of things that the state could use to make a person's life miserable if it was malicious. To me, that some capability could be used that way is insufficient reason to restrict the state from the capability.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago
>To me, that some capability could be used that way is insufficient reason to restrict the state from the capability. Forgive me for thinking that sounds a little naive. That argument could be used to support the repeal of the entire bill of rights and the separation of powers. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The whole idea of a constitution is to place restrictions on government power in order to limit as much as possible the amount of damage that can occur when the government is corrupt or incompetent. There are comparatively huge advantages to a government run by a competent Benevolent Dictator. The problem is that in practice dictators tend to be not so benevolent.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  I think you have misread me. The protections in the bill of rights protect against actions which inherently overreach, because their violation had a people directly. Passive tracking of people only overreaches if it is used to harm.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    "Because their violation harms people directly." is what I meant here.
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    >The protections in the bill of rights protect against actions which inherently overreach, because their violation harms people directly. Do they? Suppose we pass a law that says the police don't need any probable cause to record all your phone calls, bug your home and office and come into your house and read or copy all your personal documents, as long as they don't inconvenience you or deprive you of your papers. Pretty sure that would violate the Fourth Amendment, even though the harm there is substantially identical to the harm here. Which is theoretically none, assuming the police only target evildoers and never do anything nefarious with the information, etc. Likewise the First Amendment protection for anonymous speech. Having to disclose your identity to the government before you can communicate with anyone will only cause harm if the government does something untoward with the information, right? But the First Amendment doesn't allow them to require it, because the government could be doing something wrong. We even go so far as to say that the government can't demand the information because people may fear the government doing something wrong (chilling effects), and be afraid to say certain things as a result, even if the government never actually does anything with the information.
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      Agreed, it would violate the fourth amendment. At the time it was written, though, there was no non-invasive way to search someone's effects. The purpose at the time was to prevent searches as a means of harassment, and they did not guess that there would someday be a mechanism by which you could search without imposing. In any case, there is also a component of the probability of misuse (at least, in the way I judge these sorts of things). Your example of the first amendment is less compelling. The mere requirement to convey your identity is an imposition.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago

>To me, that some capability could be used that way is insufficient reason to restrict the state from the capability. Forgive me for thinking that sounds a little naive. That argument could be used to support the repeal of the entire bill of rights and the separation of powers. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The whole idea of a constitution is to place restrictions on government power in order to limit as much as possible the amount of damage that can occur when the government is corrupt or incompetent. There are comparatively huge advantages to a government run by a competent Benevolent Dictator. The problem is that in practice dictators tend to be not so benevolent.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
I think you have misread me. The protections in the bill of rights protect against actions which inherently overreach, because their violation had a people directly. Passive tracking of people only overreaches if it is used to harm.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  "Because their violation harms people directly." is what I meant here.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  >The protections in the bill of rights protect against actions which inherently overreach, because their violation harms people directly. Do they? Suppose we pass a law that says the police don't need any probable cause to record all your phone calls, bug your home and office and come into your house and read or copy all your personal documents, as long as they don't inconvenience you or deprive you of your papers. Pretty sure that would violate the Fourth Amendment, even though the harm there is substantially identical to the harm here. Which is theoretically none, assuming the police only target evildoers and never do anything nefarious with the information, etc. Likewise the First Amendment protection for anonymous speech. Having to disclose your identity to the government before you can communicate with anyone will only cause harm if the government does something untoward with the information, right? But the First Amendment doesn't allow them to require it, because the government could be doing something wrong. We even go so far as to say that the government can't demand the information because people may fear the government doing something wrong (chilling effects), and be afraid to say certain things as a result, even if the government never actually does anything with the information.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    Agreed, it would violate the fourth amendment. At the time it was written, though, there was no non-invasive way to search someone's effects. The purpose at the time was to prevent searches as a means of harassment, and they did not guess that there would someday be a mechanism by which you could search without imposing. In any case, there is also a component of the probability of misuse (at least, in the way I judge these sorts of things). Your example of the first amendment is less compelling. The mere requirement to convey your identity is an imposition.