3 ms·

As you should know surveillance is used for far more broadly than for preventing terrorism. It is beyond comprehension that you can ignore documented abuses, ev

As you should know surveillance is used for far more broadly than for preventing terrorism. It is beyond comprehension that you can ignore documented abuses, even ones that have recently been reported. You cannot justify arbitrary powers simply by pointing to the fact that (US and ally) citizens may be safer from terrorism. Otherwise you should be advocating for more invasive surveillance. > Being investigated does not mean you're an enemy. No it means I lose my autonomy and therefore my freedom. It means I can never have goals that meaningfully oppose those who surveil me.

diminoten 13y ago
Well yes, you can never have the goal of harming US citizens. Otherwise, your autonomy is not lost, just because someone is watching you. That's malarky.
- lukifer 13y ago
  Have you ever read Sun Tzu? Knowing is way more than half the battle. Autonomy includes a balance of power and ability to defend yourself, and citizens are unable to spy back on the NSA. Even if the power is not being abused today (which I doubt), it hands over the keys completely to the next Stalin (or even just the next Nixon).
  - diminoten 13y ago
    Citizens elect representatives who do the "spying back" on the NSA. If the citizenry didn't like what the representatives were doing, they'd elect different ones. There will never be a "next" Stalin. We're past the days when such a person is possible.
    - lukifer 13y ago
      > There will never be a "next" Stalin. I find that somewhat naive, especially when Putin is enjoying wide popularity. (Not because he has anything resembling Stalin's track record of evil, but rather to demonstrate that many in the public still desire a powerful unitary executive.) There is an instinct in the human animal that craves charismatic, authoritarian power when times are tough. But even if you're correct, I'm honestly more concerned about institutions than individuals. Institutions, whether "public" or "private", have a tendency to converge towards the survival of the institution as their only goal, and in some ways take on a life of their own; replacing any one employee or leader doesn't necessarily change the overall momentum and internal culture. This is my middle-of-the-road estimation of the danger, nestled between the unlikely extremes of "100% selfless heroes guarding us while we sleep" and "shadow government quietly pulling the strings of the world". In other words, I'm much more nervous about "Brazil" than "1984". See also: http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2013/02/hostile-ai-youre-soaking-in-it.html http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2013/02/hostile-ai-youre-... > If the citizenry didn't like what the representatives were doing, they'd elect different ones. We're working on that.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  Of course it is. If they know everything about me then they can coerce me. And if not me then other officials. How can you have a government where many people are subject to powerful coercion?
- foobarqux 13y ago
  > Well yes, you can never have the goal of harming US citizens. Aren't US citizens at risk of being harmed everyday in normal diplomatic bargaining? Isn't it debatable, among US citizens themselves, as to what constitutes harm or benefit? Isn't that what political discourse is about?

diminoten 13y ago

Well yes, you can never have the goal of harming US citizens. Otherwise, your autonomy is not lost, just because someone is watching you. That's malarky.

lukifer 13y ago
Have you ever read Sun Tzu? Knowing is way more than half the battle. Autonomy includes a balance of power and ability to defend yourself, and citizens are unable to spy back on the NSA. Even if the power is not being abused today (which I doubt), it hands over the keys completely to the next Stalin (or even just the next Nixon).
- diminoten 13y ago
  Citizens elect representatives who do the "spying back" on the NSA. If the citizenry didn't like what the representatives were doing, they'd elect different ones. There will never be a "next" Stalin. We're past the days when such a person is possible.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    > There will never be a "next" Stalin. I find that somewhat naive, especially when Putin is enjoying wide popularity. (Not because he has anything resembling Stalin's track record of evil, but rather to demonstrate that many in the public still desire a powerful unitary executive.) There is an instinct in the human animal that craves charismatic, authoritarian power when times are tough. But even if you're correct, I'm honestly more concerned about institutions than individuals. Institutions, whether "public" or "private", have a tendency to converge towards the survival of the institution as their only goal, and in some ways take on a life of their own; replacing any one employee or leader doesn't necessarily change the overall momentum and internal culture. This is my middle-of-the-road estimation of the danger, nestled between the unlikely extremes of "100% selfless heroes guarding us while we sleep" and "shadow government quietly pulling the strings of the world". In other words, I'm much more nervous about "Brazil" than "1984". See also: http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2013/02/hostile-ai-youre-soaking-in-it.html http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2013/02/hostile-ai-youre-... > If the citizenry didn't like what the representatives were doing, they'd elect different ones. We're working on that.
foobarqux 13y ago
Of course it is. If they know everything about me then they can coerce me. And if not me then other officials. How can you have a government where many people are subject to powerful coercion?
foobarqux 13y ago
> Well yes, you can never have the goal of harming US citizens. Aren't US citizens at risk of being harmed everyday in normal diplomatic bargaining? Isn't it debatable, among US citizens themselves, as to what constitutes harm or benefit? Isn't that what political discourse is about?