4 ms·
Absolutely it's not the only answer. But it's still and always will be a critical component. It's illegal to trespass, but we still use fences and gates and loc
by LoganCale 13y ago
Absolutely it's not the only answer. But it's still and always will be a critical component. It's illegal to trespass, but we still use fences and gates and locks to keep unwanted people out of our property.
- unclebucknasty 13y agoThe difference is that we don't erect fences to keep the government out of our yards, because the government is supposed to be us and the government is not supposed to be trespassing. This, as opposed to bad guys who break the law. In other words, the government is supposed to enforce the law when someone hops your fence. But where do you go for justice when the government is the one hopping your fence? This is not being pedantic. I believe it is the wrong posture to advocate for a technology-based response. We should not be building fences against our government. It implies that a continuing adversarial relationship between the people and our government is on some level acceptable. And, it sends the message that whatever the government can access is fair game. Instead, we should demand that the government be brought back into the will of the people and Constitutional principles by law. And it should be backed by not only true whistleblower protection, but obligation for fear of conviction by complicity.
- quantumpotato_ 13y agoWell put. Is it possible to fight against the police state without putting technological fences around it?
- unclebucknasty 13y agoI would say that the degree to which we defend ourselves with fences is the degree to which we are "losing". The very need for fences is born of government encroachment. If we constantly need more, better, and bigger fences, then it can only be a measure of the degree of this encroachment. And, ultimately, this cat and mouse game is one that we will lose. The government has unlimited resources, including those which we ourselves contribute, ironically. And, of course, the government has the law on its side. Therefore, it is only by changes to this law and subsequent real enforcement that we have a hope. Otherwise, they will use the force of law, including these very powers that we are trying to curtail. There is no "winning" against this, save for a reclamation of the law.
- quantumpotato_ 13y agoYou have a very valid point. But until the law is changed significantly so that you say "we, the people" have our freedom, do you think technology should be used to protect against government? Or do you recommend citizens abandoning their fences and working to change the law?
- bloaf 13y ago>A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."
- LoganCale 13y agoGovernment can never be trusted on an individual level, because it very often acts against individuals. Collectively, it may represent a majority of the public, but those individuals who it does not represent are screwed. Political changes are good and important, but individuals should absolutely build a fence between themselves and their governments because those governments inevitably trespass wherever people don't make it clear they want them to keep out.
- strictfp 13y agoAll it takes is for the government to make 'concealed communication' illegal in order to make any current or future privacy technology illegal. This has already happened in other countries, how can you prevent it from happening in yours?