4 ms·

one of the comments goes to great lengths explaining that those controlling the data collection are duly elected. And how powerless are they? The unelected

by temphn 13y ago

one of the comments goes to great lengths explaining that those controlling the data collection are duly elected. And how powerless are they? The unelected Clapper did anything, while the elected Wyden could do nothing. The technologist Snowden did everything. Democracy didn't bell the cat of the government bureaucracy. Technology did. Technology is more powerful than both democracy and bureaucracy, as it is not subject to dilution and co-optation.

steveklabnik 13y ago
> Technology is more powerful than both democracy and bureaucracy, as it is not subject to dilution and co-optation. How many web sites do you visit with ads compared to the ones you don't, again? I mean, the whole "eternal September" concept is predicated on certain technologies being diluted/coopted.
raintrees 13y ago
Aren't you comparing/confusing the tool with behavior? It seems to me I could restate that as "The pencil is more powerful than the mathematical equation E=MC^2 it writes"...
rayiner 13y ago
> Technology is more powerful than both democracy and bureaucracy That's an interesting statement, and I think one I represents a a troubling undercurrent of thought in the tech community. "We refuse to submit to the democratic process and will override the democratic consensus through technology."
- rohamg 13y ago
  no. the correct phrasing for the current of thought you reference would be "we refuse to submit to undemocratic/unconstitutional restrictions on the democratic process and will attempt to overturn the administrative consensus through technology". The majority of the time this comes through democratizing access to information, thus raising awareness and allowing the democratic process to work as designed.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You can't claim to be fighting for the democratic process when public opinion is not on your side.
    - rohamg 13y ago
      this is a silly comment. democratic process != majority rule. My point was precisely that by democratizing access to information, technology helps the public form an informed opinion.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Sure you can. Our democratic process involves people choosing a credible representative, who then hires a staff and meets with other representatives in order to make decisions. An activist working within the system can, as I feel like you've pointed out before, ignore public opinion and lobby representatives directly; "lobby" is a curse word around here, but obviously it's not always a bad thing.
- eloisius 13y ago
  And I think it invokes the rarely considered idea that maybe democracy isn't the pinnacle of human social organization. Corrupt power structures may have finally optimized for dominating a democratically organized society and we should be at least philosophizing about a favorable post-democracy world. I.e., what's more "democratic" than democracy?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    This is a scary comment; it reifies the abstract concern Rayiner had upthread. Favorable post-Democracy though technology? That sounds like something Aldous Huxley would write about.
    - eloisius 13y ago
      Using technology to improve our social organization doesn't have to mean some sort of dystopian techno-unanimity. In a more primitive time, would it be "scary" to suggest that through technological advancements like agriculture, writing, and calendars we could achieve a better, more just society?
      - tptacek 13y ago
        It's possible to look at the antagonists of most dystopian fiction and find the noble intentions. Rayiner's point wasn't that technology intrinsically subverts the social contract; only that some technologists seem to want it to.
        eloisius 13y ago
        I feel like we're talking past one another so I'll shut up after this reply. I think this disagreement comes down to a difference of values and not just how they are implemented. Specifically, you seem to hold a notion of a social contract: a concept that I reject. Subverting a "contract" which has been forced upon me and to which I never agreed sounds like a noble endeavor to me, but I'm sure you'd be repulsed by the idea. Given our starkly different motivations, I believe the best outcome either of us could hope for in a debate is that we both remain reasoned and civil, as there's probably little chance of winning the other to our side.
- devindotcom 13y ago
  I think the error in your comparison is that "the democratic consensus" is certainly not what produced PRISM and the rest. What I suggest in the article is little more than civil disobedience, in a way. It's refusing to supply an apparatus we never approved with information we never released. Since they can and will take it from us without our knowledge or consent, we have to make it impossible for that to happen before we can have a reasonable parley, you know? Obviously we're not quite at the Gandhi or King level of disobedience (it would be rather hubristic to suggest it), but it's a similar principle in action, perhaps a bit more preemptively.

by temphn 13y ago

steveklabnik 13y ago

> Technology is more powerful than both democracy and bureaucracy, as it is not subject to dilution and co-optation. How many web sites do you visit with ads compared to the ones you don't, again? I mean, the whole "eternal September" concept is predicated on certain technologies being diluted/coopted.

raintrees 13y ago

Aren't you comparing/confusing the tool with behavior? It seems to me I could restate that as "The pencil is more powerful than the mathematical equation E=MC^2 it writes"...

rayiner 13y ago

> Technology is more powerful than both democracy and bureaucracy That's an interesting statement, and I think one I represents a a troubling undercurrent of thought in the tech community. "We refuse to submit to the democratic process and will override the democratic consensus through technology."

rohamg 13y ago
no. the correct phrasing for the current of thought you reference would be "we refuse to submit to undemocratic/unconstitutional restrictions on the democratic process and will attempt to overturn the administrative consensus through technology". The majority of the time this comes through democratizing access to information, thus raising awareness and allowing the democratic process to work as designed.
- rayiner 13y ago
  You can't claim to be fighting for the democratic process when public opinion is not on your side.
  - rohamg 13y ago
    this is a silly comment. democratic process != majority rule. My point was precisely that by democratizing access to information, technology helps the public form an informed opinion.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Sure you can. Our democratic process involves people choosing a credible representative, who then hires a staff and meets with other representatives in order to make decisions. An activist working within the system can, as I feel like you've pointed out before, ignore public opinion and lobby representatives directly; "lobby" is a curse word around here, but obviously it's not always a bad thing.
eloisius 13y ago
And I think it invokes the rarely considered idea that maybe democracy isn't the pinnacle of human social organization. Corrupt power structures may have finally optimized for dominating a democratically organized society and we should be at least philosophizing about a favorable post-democracy world. I.e., what's more "democratic" than democracy?
- tptacek 13y ago
  This is a scary comment; it reifies the abstract concern Rayiner had upthread. Favorable post-Democracy though technology? That sounds like something Aldous Huxley would write about.
  - eloisius 13y ago
    Using technology to improve our social organization doesn't have to mean some sort of dystopian techno-unanimity. In a more primitive time, would it be "scary" to suggest that through technological advancements like agriculture, writing, and calendars we could achieve a better, more just society?
    - tptacek 13y ago
      It's possible to look at the antagonists of most dystopian fiction and find the noble intentions. Rayiner's point wasn't that technology intrinsically subverts the social contract; only that some technologists seem to want it to.
      - eloisius 13y ago
        I feel like we're talking past one another so I'll shut up after this reply. I think this disagreement comes down to a difference of values and not just how they are implemented. Specifically, you seem to hold a notion of a social contract: a concept that I reject. Subverting a "contract" which has been forced upon me and to which I never agreed sounds like a noble endeavor to me, but I'm sure you'd be repulsed by the idea. Given our starkly different motivations, I believe the best outcome either of us could hope for in a debate is that we both remain reasoned and civil, as there's probably little chance of winning the other to our side.
devindotcom 13y ago
I think the error in your comparison is that "the democratic consensus" is certainly not what produced PRISM and the rest. What I suggest in the article is little more than civil disobedience, in a way. It's refusing to supply an apparatus we never approved with information we never released. Since they can and will take it from us without our knowledge or consent, we have to make it impossible for that to happen before we can have a reasonable parley, you know? Obviously we're not quite at the Gandhi or King level of disobedience (it would be rather hubristic to suggest it), but it's a similar principle in action, perhaps a bit more preemptively.