15 ms·

You're implying that all this spying would be OK if it allowed us to catch a lot of criminals. I don't think inefficiency is a good argument here, although for

by Udo 13y ago

You're implying that all this spying would be OK if it allowed us to catch a lot of criminals. I don't think inefficiency is a good argument here, although for the moment it's a safe position to have. There are no benefits that make it worth living in a surveillance state, even if they perfect it.

DanBC 13y ago
You're correct that the surveillance is not acceptable even if it works. My point is addressing the surveillance in Their own terms - "we do it to catch criminals" is the justification They give for the surveillance. But even that justification fails. The surveillance is unacceptable for all the obvious reasons, but it doesn't even do what They claim it does.
- Udo 13y ago
  > My point is addressing the surveillance in Their own terms I believe this is a mistake. The core argument should remain that surveillance is immoral. That it doesn't work is just a bonus, but arguing on these terms could give proponents the impression that they're generally on the right track and that people just want them to work harder at it.
  - Ntrails 13y ago
    "surveillance is immoral" Unconstitutional is an argument that tends to have more weight. Immoral is a weak position to take when my opinion on morality and yours probably aren't the same - and for most people surveillance is full of grey areas.
    - Udo 13y ago
      It's sad that this needs to be said explicitly, but laws should be derived from ethics, not the other way around.
      - harshreality 13y ago
        Aren't they already? Ethics are subjective. There is always a minority that disagrees with the ethical basis for any given law. But there is an ethical basis that prompted getting the law passed.
      - Ntrails 13y ago
        You missed a pretty vital part of this - which is that laws are derived (at least theoretically in a democracy) from the majority view on ethics and morality.
        w_t_payne 13y ago
        We are a democracy once every 4 years ... and that extends only as far as the legislative branch. Our government(s) are composed of more than just elected representatives. We have civil servants that propose and draft the law, judges that interpret it, and police officers who enforce it. Do any of these groups give more than a passing damn about elections or the will of the majority? Or are they more easily subverted by the glare of the latest media frenzy, selfish consideration of their own career advancement, or innate primal urges towards jingoism, nepotism and authoritarianism? You tell me.
      - w_t_payne 13y ago
        The law has nothing to do with ethics. That is just a smoke-screen. The law is an instrument of control. Nothing more, nothing less.
      - enraged_camel 13y ago
        Your ethics or mine?
  - w_t_payne 13y ago
    Surveillance may be immoral, but so is warfare, imprisonment, the death penalty, taxation, graft, cronyism, corruption, or pretty much anything else to do with the domination of the state over the subservient individual.
    - kabdib 13y ago
      Ah, but the constitution permits or has a process for war, imprisonment, death penalties and taxes. (The others you lump in, not so much, though you could argue about cronyism). At least surveillance can be dealt a blow by withdrawing funding.
      - w_t_payne 13y ago
        Does the presence of a process make it any less immoral? I am sure there are drug cartels with a very rigorous process that they go through when they carry out a revenge killing --- first, extract the pancreas, then the spleen ....
        ash 13y ago
        Why does US legal system rely so much on "due process of law"? I think it nearly ignores the spirit of law. That's why US government managed to grow surveillance for so long. It just followed the process for as much as it could manage.
        w_t_payne 13y ago
        So much process ... so little spirit. It is, indeed, a sad sight.
        kabdib 13y ago
        Tell a judge "rule this way, because it's moral" and he'll tell you to get out of his court. (Modulo cronyism and the possibility that a judge is prejudiced and/or crooked). Having an argument based on law is much harder to argue against than someone's personal set of moral values. Looking into cultures where "legal" things are decided with a moral system (e.g., most theocracies) I see a lot worse stuff going on. I'm not trying to minimize the nasty and disgusting surveillance system the US has in place, I'm just saying that rule by morality is a double-edge sword.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    I agree. Unwarranted suspicionless surveillance is unconstitutional. End of discussion. To even entertain arguments about efficacy is an implied admission that it might be acceptable if it caught bad guys. Even worse, if all they need to do to sell it, is to show a positive result; you can bet that they will bag themselves some "terrorists" in pretty short order.
- a3n 13y ago
  > it doesn't even do what They claim it does. "If you would just give us more money and leeway, we would: - Catch more terrorists. - Deliver the rest of those high tech fighter planes. - Finish the new payroll system."
  - gngeal 13y ago
    I see you've ordered it in the order of exponentially increasing difficulty.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  But the justification isn't to "catch criminals", it's to combat terrorism, the supposedly clear and present danger... right?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
malandrew 13y ago
I don't think the issue is efficiency so much as "please demonstrate that this crime is serious enough and occurs often enough for us to think it is worth solving" I'm assuming that with this system they are catching like 95% of all cases, since it sounds like the measure is an extremely effective one. Near as I can tell this crime occurs once in every 20000 border crossings. During those 7 years we effectively paid $850 million per person captured. Now if all 2000 of those people can be demonstrated as terrorists. Heck if only 50 can be captured it may be justifiable. However I wouldn't be surprised if the overwhelming majority of those 2000 cases are absolute nobodies who want nothing more than to live and work in the US. The remaining legitimate criminals caught probably don't justify the cost of the system. At the end of the day, if someone really wants to enter the US, they are probably not going to enter through our nation's airports. We have thousands of thousands of miles of unprotected border that someone could get across.
- jedmeyers 13y ago
  Do you know the way to find out how many people decided not to commit a specific crime due to implemented countermeasures? Or you suspect that the number of people trying to commit visa fraud stayed the same after fingerprinting had beed implemented?

by Udo 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

You're correct that the surveillance is not acceptable even if it works. My point is addressing the surveillance in Their own terms - "we do it to catch criminals" is the justification They give for the surveillance. But even that justification fails. The surveillance is unacceptable for all the obvious reasons, but it doesn't even do what They claim it does.

Udo 13y ago
> My point is addressing the surveillance in Their own terms I believe this is a mistake. The core argument should remain that surveillance is immoral. That it doesn't work is just a bonus, but arguing on these terms could give proponents the impression that they're generally on the right track and that people just want them to work harder at it.
- Ntrails 13y ago
  "surveillance is immoral" Unconstitutional is an argument that tends to have more weight. Immoral is a weak position to take when my opinion on morality and yours probably aren't the same - and for most people surveillance is full of grey areas.
  - Udo 13y ago
    It's sad that this needs to be said explicitly, but laws should be derived from ethics, not the other way around.
    - harshreality 13y ago
      Aren't they already? Ethics are subjective. There is always a minority that disagrees with the ethical basis for any given law. But there is an ethical basis that prompted getting the law passed.
    - Ntrails 13y ago
      You missed a pretty vital part of this - which is that laws are derived (at least theoretically in a democracy) from the majority view on ethics and morality.
      - w_t_payne 13y ago
        We are a democracy once every 4 years ... and that extends only as far as the legislative branch. Our government(s) are composed of more than just elected representatives. We have civil servants that propose and draft the law, judges that interpret it, and police officers who enforce it. Do any of these groups give more than a passing damn about elections or the will of the majority? Or are they more easily subverted by the glare of the latest media frenzy, selfish consideration of their own career advancement, or innate primal urges towards jingoism, nepotism and authoritarianism? You tell me.
    - w_t_payne 13y ago
      The law has nothing to do with ethics. That is just a smoke-screen. The law is an instrument of control. Nothing more, nothing less.
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      Your ethics or mine?
- w_t_payne 13y ago
  Surveillance may be immoral, but so is warfare, imprisonment, the death penalty, taxation, graft, cronyism, corruption, or pretty much anything else to do with the domination of the state over the subservient individual.
  - kabdib 13y ago
    Ah, but the constitution permits or has a process for war, imprisonment, death penalties and taxes. (The others you lump in, not so much, though you could argue about cronyism). At least surveillance can be dealt a blow by withdrawing funding.
    - w_t_payne 13y ago
      Does the presence of a process make it any less immoral? I am sure there are drug cartels with a very rigorous process that they go through when they carry out a revenge killing --- first, extract the pancreas, then the spleen ....
      - ash 13y ago
        Why does US legal system rely so much on "due process of law"? I think it nearly ignores the spirit of law. That's why US government managed to grow surveillance for so long. It just followed the process for as much as it could manage.
        w_t_payne 13y ago
        So much process ... so little spirit. It is, indeed, a sad sight.
      - kabdib 13y ago
        Tell a judge "rule this way, because it's moral" and he'll tell you to get out of his court. (Modulo cronyism and the possibility that a judge is prejudiced and/or crooked). Having an argument based on law is much harder to argue against than someone's personal set of moral values. Looking into cultures where "legal" things are decided with a moral system (e.g., most theocracies) I see a lot worse stuff going on. I'm not trying to minimize the nasty and disgusting surveillance system the US has in place, I'm just saying that rule by morality is a double-edge sword.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  I agree. Unwarranted suspicionless surveillance is unconstitutional. End of discussion. To even entertain arguments about efficacy is an implied admission that it might be acceptable if it caught bad guys. Even worse, if all they need to do to sell it, is to show a positive result; you can bet that they will bag themselves some "terrorists" in pretty short order.
a3n 13y ago
> it doesn't even do what They claim it does. "If you would just give us more money and leeway, we would: - Catch more terrorists. - Deliver the rest of those high tech fighter planes. - Finish the new payroll system."
- gngeal 13y ago
  I see you've ordered it in the order of exponentially increasing difficulty.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
But the justification isn't to "catch criminals", it's to combat terrorism, the supposedly clear and present danger... right?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

malandrew 13y ago

I don't think the issue is efficiency so much as "please demonstrate that this crime is serious enough and occurs often enough for us to think it is worth solving" I'm assuming that with this system they are catching like 95% of all cases, since it sounds like the measure is an extremely effective one. Near as I can tell this crime occurs once in every 20000 border crossings. During those 7 years we effectively paid $850 million per person captured. Now if all 2000 of those people can be demonstrated as terrorists. Heck if only 50 can be captured it may be justifiable. However I wouldn't be surprised if the overwhelming majority of those 2000 cases are absolute nobodies who want nothing more than to live and work in the US. The remaining legitimate criminals caught probably don't justify the cost of the system. At the end of the day, if someone really wants to enter the US, they are probably not going to enter through our nation's airports. We have thousands of thousands of miles of unprotected border that someone could get across.

jedmeyers 13y ago
Do you know the way to find out how many people decided not to commit a specific crime due to implemented countermeasures? Or you suspect that the number of people trying to commit visa fraud stayed the same after fingerprinting had beed implemented?