3 ms·

I hope to lighten the mood: I learned something vital about democracy from videogames. In Civilization II and Alpha Centauri, democracy and technological progr

I hope to lighten the mood: I learned something vital about democracy from videogames. In Civilization II and Alpha Centauri, democracy and technological progress were modeled as being inherently "insecure." Your democratic, free and high-tech government was more susceptible to espionage and you could not effectively conduct espionage. It amazes me how this simple model reflects the real world nature of free governments. Leaks happen. The Obama administration's response should not be proactive prosecution. It should be to dismantle unjust, invasive security programs. They are plainly incompatible with free government, and they will be rendered ineffective—either by capitalism, politics, or in this case, whistleblowers. Edward Snowden is but one of many ways our security apparatus is nullified by genuine freedom.

wavefunction 13y ago
The weirdest thing for me is, after seeing pretty thorough comparisons between open/insecure and closed/secure systems throughout history, the folks in charge have decided to pursue closed/secure despite a proven track record of failure. I don't know exactly what to chalk it up against, other than short-term thinking that benefits the individuals making the decisions, hubris that "this time it's going to be different!", or some sort of intentional pursuit of the worst long-term strategy possible. Probably some combination of the first two?
philliphaydon 13y ago
I don't think people would really have that much of an issue with spying programs if they were more transparent. By that I mean they can't spy on ANYONE, they actually have to have justifiable evidence to suggest a person or group of people is conducting some form of illegal activities or are involved in potential terrorist activities/groups. Which they must then get a court order granting them the ability to spy on these people for a period of time. During that period of time they don't have to give out the name but once the warrant expires if nothing shows up then the warrant becomes public domain, or if it expires and they prove its helping build a case then names can continue to be suppressed until the time of trial. No secrecy within the country but enough secrecy that the person being spied on doesn't know until its too late. ^^ Hope that makes sense... My opinion.
- malandrew 13y ago
  I also think that warrants should detail the crime and only that crime can be charged with evidence gathered. Anything else for different crimes should be fruit of the poisonous tree, insofar as criminal proceedings are concerned. This would help prevent fishing expeditions, and the granting of warrants until there was reasonable strong suspicion to grant a warrant.

wavefunction 13y ago

The weirdest thing for me is, after seeing pretty thorough comparisons between open/insecure and closed/secure systems throughout history, the folks in charge have decided to pursue closed/secure despite a proven track record of failure. I don't know exactly what to chalk it up against, other than short-term thinking that benefits the individuals making the decisions, hubris that "this time it's going to be different!", or some sort of intentional pursuit of the worst long-term strategy possible. Probably some combination of the first two?

philliphaydon 13y ago

I don't think people would really have that much of an issue with spying programs if they were more transparent. By that I mean they can't spy on ANYONE, they actually have to have justifiable evidence to suggest a person or group of people is conducting some form of illegal activities or are involved in potential terrorist activities/groups. Which they must then get a court order granting them the ability to spy on these people for a period of time. During that period of time they don't have to give out the name but once the warrant expires if nothing shows up then the warrant becomes public domain, or if it expires and they prove its helping build a case then names can continue to be suppressed until the time of trial. No secrecy within the country but enough secrecy that the person being spied on doesn't know until its too late. ^^ Hope that makes sense... My opinion.

malandrew 13y ago
I also think that warrants should detail the crime and only that crime can be charged with evidence gathered. Anything else for different crimes should be fruit of the poisonous tree, insofar as criminal proceedings are concerned. This would help prevent fishing expeditions, and the granting of warrants until there was reasonable strong suspicion to grant a warrant.