5 ms·

Before reading this, bear in mind, you wont find many more critical of government than me....That said I have to ask the following: How can any government acce

by alan_cx 13y ago

Before reading this, bear in mind, you wont find many more critical of government than me....That said I have to ask the following: How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? Essentially law enforcement do need to investigate crime. That has to be right and good for all. Even this anarchist accepts this. Such a situation is fine for "us", and great for government, in that it means they them selves can communicate with confidence. But to expect government to accept a situation where there is zero way they can snoop or investigate is asking a lot. Its a huge risk to government. So, I think we have to forget that idea completely, as attractive as it is to the likes of me. As others have said, its procedural or legal, not technical. What is needed is a rock solid frame work and set of rules that properly limit how the snooping is done. What is needed is a universal bill of online or electronic rights. Not just for the USA, but something that can apply to any country and government. I'd suggest it should be developed by an international group, UN backed, and made part of being a member. Or could it be something that has to be agreed to as part of acquiring IP addresses or domain names. Dunno, but tie it in some how. Ok, I'm not sure that works totally as I have set it out, Im no lawyer, and others may well want to modify it, but we need something international as the internet is international. We all need protection, not just Americans. We need a base level to work from. Something we can all accept as reasonable, workable and enforceable. Most of all, we need confidence in using communications and those regulating it.

adsr 13y ago
Why not use ISO, they are doing a fine job on the C standard without the help of NIST.
andrewljohnson 13y ago
"How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it?" In my opinion, the 4th amendment says the government needs a good reason and a warrant, and then we all agree they can read my gmail. We don't have to agree they can store, search, and use everyone's gmail for fighting crime, terrorism, or gaining economic advantage over other nations. Forget international committees. Smash the hard drives with my phone data in them that spooks can read at will.
- sp332 13y ago
  Even if they have a warrant, they can't read a well-encrypted email. What do they do then?
  - DanBC 13y ago
    They put you in prison until you hand over the keys. In the UK this is under RIPA. In the US there's probably some law they can kludge to fit - contempt of court or some-such.
    - kamjam 13y ago
      What happens in situations like this if you use a hidden volume within an encrypted file using something like Truecrypt, which allows plausible deniability? You've supplied the "password" but the real meaty stuff is still hidden away... http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/hidden-volume#Y0 http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/hidden-volume#Y0
      - DanBC 13y ago
        Hidden volumes are often done wrong and trivially easy for 'them' to find. Under UK law the rule isn't to hand over the keys so they can decrypt the ciphertext, but to make the plaintext available.
        kamjam 13y ago
        Yes, I understand that, but if you have 2 passwords, each of which unlocks different plaintext within your encrypted conatainer, then theoretically you could never be found out... (but as you saying, assuming the implementation is correct)
  - darrylb42 13y ago
    The get a warrant to put a key logger on your machine and get it that way.
droopyEyelids 13y ago
Your augment makes sense, but somehow you're missing the idea that the government has infinite ways to investigate someone outside of breaking encrypted communication. They actually have people who can break into buildings and install keyloggers, or audio bugs, or interview witnesses, or anything you can imagine.
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  His argument doesn't make sense because it misses the fact that a government is supposed to represent the people, and therefore it should accept the will of the people.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    Thank you for posting that. When the government has indiscriminately turned its power against the people it is supposed to protect, then it is working to some other end and for some other interest.
revelation 13y ago
Huh? There are lots of limitations on the power of government (and law enforcement). Why is it "asking a lot" for them to accept that?
hershel 13y ago
Alan, Is it OK for government only to have the means to do targeted surveillance while dragnet surveillance is not possible? It seems technically possible(probably, that's where blackberry is at. There are a few technical means that might achieve that[1]) and it does fit needing to issue a warrant to do so. Btw such a strong and capable regulatory framework that is always on, seems useful in regulating corporations and politicians, and if exists it should scare the hell out of them. I could see why they prefer it this way, with. Surveillance staying hidden in the shadows. [1]one way to do this is strong encryption but medium endpoint security.
vidarh 13y ago
I have absolutely no interest in forgetting the idea of secure communications just because governments won't like it. I find it peculiar to see someone call themselves an anarchist yet accept this - unless you're a Proudhonist or other particularly esoteric pre-Bakunin kind that have been out of fashion since the 1870's... A key feature of anarchism all the way back to when Bakunin was expelled from the first International by Marx over the issue of state authority has explicitly been the rapid destruction of the state as a critical element exactly because of the opportunity for oppression that lies inherent in the state. This is pretty much the dividing line between anarchism and marxist socialism/communism (the marxist standpoint is that a large scale working class uprising would enable the transformation of the state from a tool of oppression by the upper classes against the working class to a temporary tool of oppression by the working class against the upper classes, becoming obsolete as the working class subsumes the previously privileged classes), and also one of the major distinguishing features between anarchism and the various form of liberalism (in the classical sense, not the modern US sense) and libertarianism The point being that the government does not serve you. It may quite regularly do things that overlap with your interests, but your influence on your government is disproportionally small in any situation where economic power buys you more attention from legislators per head than a vote does. In that kind of situation, something that makes the government afraid is not something we should forget, but something to embrace and expand to help redress the balance. Yes, it also helps 'the bad guys'. So does envelopes on your mail, the ability to freely lock your door and expect the police not to wander it at their leisure, or the ability to walk down the street without an id number stamped to your forehead. It would make things a lot easier for law enforcement if we all lived in prison already. Obviously we do not accept these things - it is not enough for something to benefit law enforcement for us to accept it. > But to expect government to accept a situation where there is zero way they can snoop or investigate is asking a lot. I see noone expecting government to accept such a situation, and even flawless information security for your communications does not create such a situation. You are setting up a strawman with this sentence. > What is needed is a rock solid frame work and set of rules that properly limit how the snooping is done. Rules don't stop people from doing something when the ability to monitor that they are actually complying is nearly non-existent. > I'd suggest it should be developed by an international group, UN backed, and made part of being a member. This is a very naive view of how the UN works. The very point of the UN is that it is inclusive - you don't exclude even the worst dictators because then you shut down communication. The upside is that this means there is a forum to make agreements amongst pretty much all the governments of the world. The downside is that you have to deal with these governments even when drafting agreements where "the good guys", if you can even come up with a cohesive list of who they would be, all agree to principles that would substantially improve things. Yes, it is infuriating whenever some dictatorship effectively shuts down some initiative, but it is the reality we have to live in as long as these regimes exist. In other words, the UN will not do something like this because it goes directly counter to the interests of the governments of a large number of UN countries. And without substantial political upheaval it also goes counter to the interests of the governments of many democratic countries whose populations might prefer much stricter rules. > Or could it be something that has to be agreed to as part of acquiring IP addresses or domain names. Dunno, but tie it in some how. The current system for allocation of IP addresses and domain names only works because everyone voluntarily defers to the respective authorities. Even then, nothing but technical skills stops you, your grandma, or your government from setting up its own DNS roots, and nothing stops your ISP or your government from changing routing tables and allocate its own addresses. They don't because it would break a lot of things, and because the current processes are sufficiently apolitical to not give them a reason to. If that changed, the internet would break into islands where not all parts can talk to all other parts without intermediaries. This is why nobody has force the issue of tieing non-technical requirements to allocations of IP addresses or domains any more than it is in anyones interest to, say, withhold a country code for phone numbers from a dictatorship.
asgard1024 13y ago
> How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? Does the government accept situation where it cannot read your own thoughts? How is that different? You could make the same argument about crime fighting here. If we could read thoughts, well, then there would be no unsolvable crime really. But is it desirable? So, no, even anarchists won't agree (neither me, and I am not an anarchist). The privacy comes to moral consideration too. Secret communication has no effect on the real world unless the people communicating actually act. Just like thoughts have no effect on the real world, unless you act. That's why we don't punish thoughts, but acts, and by that extension, we shouldn't punish communication, just acting based on that communication. Since these acts take place in the real world, criminal investigation is not obstructed. Edit: Maybe a clarification. You could make an argument that if you don't know communication between people, then it's harder to convict a specific person rather than just the group. But the same is true for private communication (it was always a problem, even before electronic communications), and is also true for communication between neurons (we cannot be sure if person acted willingly or is a psychiatric case).
alextingle 13y ago
> How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? The way they accept every other fact of life that they cannot change. The genie is out of the bottle now. Strong encryption exists; government cannot break it, and "bad actors" will use it. Law enforcement do need to investigate crime, but they need to do it in the real world not in the world of make believe. If that means they have to go back to older, harder investigative methods then life will go on. The "alternative" that our governments seem to have chosen is unconscionable... They break their own laws, forsake their own principles and corral their own people into virtual concentration camps. In their desperation they have seized total control, and then "restrained themselves" to simulate the capabilities they might have had in the good old days. Their self-restraint is admirable, but our societies are founded on law and democracy, not built on trust in the good natures of absolute rulers.
- diydsp 13y ago
  I like your thoughts because they pay respect to the fact that (current) governments are NOT foundationally correct entities. They are socially-constructed approximations of justice which aid our human existence, but are not fundamentally infallible as, say, the laws of physics. Government should be a last-ditch effort to maintain the long-term survivability of our species.... However, so many people (cough Apple) treat laws as a list of the most disrespectful circumstances and violent actions they can do without repercussions. We can deny the existence of strong crypto no more than we can deny the existence of Plutonium. Any government that can't regulate around that has no justification for our support and any population that can't survive the gifts of Prometheus has no justification for survival. If we're to levitate above the point we're at now (compromised security, virtual concentration camps, etc.), we've got to develop our culture such that there is no incentive to use strong crypto for gain. We've got to stop pushing ourselves into such dense living quarters. We've got to further lower our reproduction rate. We've got to stop buying into celebrity and corporate culture....
lutusp 13y ago
> How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? In a democracy? A system in which (at least in principle) the government is supposed to obey the laws and serve the needs of the people? > Essentially law enforcement do need to investigate crime. That logically breaks down to two questions: (1) Can the government listen in on anything it wants, and (2) does the government have that right? I won't presume to offer practical answers, but from a legal and constitutional standpoint, the answers are maybe and no. > Even this anarchist accepts this. An anarchist who accepts the government's right to listen in on anything ... isn't an anarchist. An anarchist who assumes that the government is doing that ... is a realist.
betterunix 13y ago
"How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it?" Their friends in the business community can rest assured that foreign competitors, criminals, etc. are not able to eavesdrop on their communications. Spies in foreign countries could use a strong cipher without raising any suspicions. These arguments were made in the 90s you know. "Essentially law enforcement do need to investigate crime." Only to a point. If the only evidence of a crime is the plaintext of some encrypted message -- no physical evidence, no witnesses, etc. -- then the benefits of strong cryptography vastly outweigh whatever problem there is with letting the crime go unpunished.
w_t_payne 13y ago
This is not just about communications, though, is it? It is about authentication and control over our the machines that help us to run our lives. If you can break my cryptography, you are (in essence) the real owner of every single network-connected digital-electronic device that I have. Which increasingly means all of them. It feels (to me) more akin to theft than dirty-tom peeping.
canvia 13y ago
I wonder what % of posts in threads covering these topics are astroturf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
mcguire 13y ago
How can you expect a government to accept a situation where it cannot compel a criminal suspect to provide evidence against himself?
chernevik 13y ago
> How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? A government by and for the people accepts it because the people accept it. What a government _is_, of course, a philosophical question. The American Constitution treats government as an agreement among people, and structures that agreement to withhold particular powers from that agreement. It does _not_ withhold these powers in recognition of some divine grant or innate possession of 'rights', but because it anticipates these powers make the government dangerous to the people governed. Given those powers, the people in government would inevitably abuse them, and would over time evolve into a faction or class to themselves, striving to retain control of the government for their own purposes and to the neglect of the people's. A government that can consistently and without consequence exceed the powers allotted to it by the people governed will inevitably become an aristocracy, and a tyranny, unless those excesses are checked. (There are other visions of what a government is. vidarh's comment on this subthread is the best account of anarchism I've read -- really smart -- saying that government is necessarily a class instrument that ought to be weakened or destroyed because it inevitably serves the strong economic interest.) Of course, those limits make it harder for the government to pursue the people's interests. But the point is that those short-term deficiencies are a wise trade over the long-term, over which an unbounded government would transform into tyranny. Surely the government can do a better job preventing the next 9/11 bombing if it has all these surveillance powers. But I'm not nearly as worried about such bombings as I am about how the government has already transformed beyond our control, and how much further it could go. I am very sure that 99.99% of us opposed to political terrorism can defeat the 0.01% using it, even while we tie our own hands in some ways for our own long-term protection. It's true that the technology of WMD have increased the potential leverage and destructiveness of that 0.01%. It's also true that we haven't hardly started thinking about how we, as a society, meet and check that expanded threat. I'm confident we'll figure it out. And even if we don't, the possibilities of that violent minority aren't nearly so dangerous or likely as those of an unchecked government. So how can any government accept such limits? Because it is _us_, and we recognize that those limits best ensure our safety and that of our kids.
nova 13y ago
> How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? Chief George Earle: Sensors all over the city can zero in on anyone at any time. I can't even conceive of what police officers did before it was developed. John Spartan: We worked. This fascist crap makes me want to puke.
- kamjam 13y ago
  I'm currently living in Canada, and for a while people would say "Oh, you're from the London UK, I heard they have mass surveillance there and more cameras than people[1]". The worst to judge were Americans I met. Well, it seems those manually watched cameras were the least of our worries. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/02/cctv-cameras-watching-surveillance http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/02/cctv-cameras-watch...

by alan_cx 13y ago

adsr 13y ago

Why not use ISO, they are doing a fine job on the C standard without the help of NIST.

andrewljohnson 13y ago

"How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it?" In my opinion, the 4th amendment says the government needs a good reason and a warrant, and then we all agree they can read my gmail. We don't have to agree they can store, search, and use everyone's gmail for fighting crime, terrorism, or gaining economic advantage over other nations. Forget international committees. Smash the hard drives with my phone data in them that spooks can read at will.

sp332 13y ago
Even if they have a warrant, they can't read a well-encrypted email. What do they do then?
- DanBC 13y ago
  They put you in prison until you hand over the keys. In the UK this is under RIPA. In the US there's probably some law they can kludge to fit - contempt of court or some-such.
  - kamjam 13y ago
    What happens in situations like this if you use a hidden volume within an encrypted file using something like Truecrypt, which allows plausible deniability? You've supplied the "password" but the real meaty stuff is still hidden away... http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/hidden-volume#Y0 http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/hidden-volume#Y0
    - DanBC 13y ago
      Hidden volumes are often done wrong and trivially easy for 'them' to find. Under UK law the rule isn't to hand over the keys so they can decrypt the ciphertext, but to make the plaintext available.
      - kamjam 13y ago
        Yes, I understand that, but if you have 2 passwords, each of which unlocks different plaintext within your encrypted conatainer, then theoretically you could never be found out... (but as you saying, assuming the implementation is correct)
- darrylb42 13y ago
  The get a warrant to put a key logger on your machine and get it that way.

droopyEyelids 13y ago

Your augment makes sense, but somehow you're missing the idea that the government has infinite ways to investigate someone outside of breaking encrypted communication. They actually have people who can break into buildings and install keyloggers, or audio bugs, or interview witnesses, or anything you can imagine.

eliasmacpherson 13y ago
His argument doesn't make sense because it misses the fact that a government is supposed to represent the people, and therefore it should accept the will of the people.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  Thank you for posting that. When the government has indiscriminately turned its power against the people it is supposed to protect, then it is working to some other end and for some other interest.

revelation 13y ago

Huh? There are lots of limitations on the power of government (and law enforcement). Why is it "asking a lot" for them to accept that?

hershel 13y ago

Alan, Is it OK for government only to have the means to do targeted surveillance while dragnet surveillance is not possible? It seems technically possible(probably, that's where blackberry is at. There are a few technical means that might achieve that[1]) and it does fit needing to issue a warrant to do so. Btw such a strong and capable regulatory framework that is always on, seems useful in regulating corporations and politicians, and if exists it should scare the hell out of them. I could see why they prefer it this way, with. Surveillance staying hidden in the shadows. [1]one way to do this is strong encryption but medium endpoint security.

vidarh 13y ago

I have absolutely no interest in forgetting the idea of secure communications just because governments won't like it. I find it peculiar to see someone call themselves an anarchist yet accept this - unless you're a Proudhonist or other particularly esoteric pre-Bakunin kind that have been out of fashion since the 1870's... A key feature of anarchism all the way back to when Bakunin was expelled from the first International by Marx over the issue of state authority has explicitly been the rapid destruction of the state as a critical element exactly because of the opportunity for oppression that lies inherent in the state. This is pretty much the dividing line between anarchism and marxist socialism/communism (the marxist standpoint is that a large scale working class uprising would enable the transformation of the state from a tool of oppression by the upper classes against the working class to a temporary tool of oppression by the working class against the upper classes, becoming obsolete as the working class subsumes the previously privileged classes), and also one of the major distinguishing features between anarchism and the various form of liberalism (in the classical sense, not the modern US sense) and libertarianism The point being that the government does not serve you. It may quite regularly do things that overlap with your interests, but your influence on your government is disproportionally small in any situation where economic power buys you more attention from legislators per head than a vote does. In that kind of situation, something that makes the government afraid is not something we should forget, but something to embrace and expand to help redress the balance. Yes, it also helps 'the bad guys'. So does envelopes on your mail, the ability to freely lock your door and expect the police not to wander it at their leisure, or the ability to walk down the street without an id number stamped to your forehead. It would make things a lot easier for law enforcement if we all lived in prison already. Obviously we do not accept these things - it is not enough for something to benefit law enforcement for us to accept it. > But to expect government to accept a situation where there is zero way they can snoop or investigate is asking a lot. I see noone expecting government to accept such a situation, and even flawless information security for your communications does not create such a situation. You are setting up a strawman with this sentence. > What is needed is a rock solid frame work and set of rules that properly limit how the snooping is done. Rules don't stop people from doing something when the ability to monitor that they are actually complying is nearly non-existent. > I'd suggest it should be developed by an international group, UN backed, and made part of being a member. This is a very naive view of how the UN works. The very point of the UN is that it is inclusive - you don't exclude even the worst dictators because then you shut down communication. The upside is that this means there is a forum to make agreements amongst pretty much all the governments of the world. The downside is that you have to deal with these governments even when drafting agreements where "the good guys", if you can even come up with a cohesive list of who they would be, all agree to principles that would substantially improve things. Yes, it is infuriating whenever some dictatorship effectively shuts down some initiative, but it is the reality we have to live in as long as these regimes exist. In other words, the UN will not do something like this because it goes directly counter to the interests of the governments of a large number of UN countries. And without substantial political upheaval it also goes counter to the interests of the governments of many democratic countries whose populations might prefer much stricter rules. > Or could it be something that has to be agreed to as part of acquiring IP addresses or domain names. Dunno, but tie it in some how. The current system for allocation of IP addresses and domain names only works because everyone voluntarily defers to the respective authorities. Even then, nothing but technical skills stops you, your grandma, or your government from setting up its own DNS roots, and nothing stops your ISP or your government from changing routing tables and allocate its own addresses. They don't because it would break a lot of things, and because the current processes are sufficiently apolitical to not give them a reason to. If that changed, the internet would break into islands where not all parts can talk to all other parts without intermediaries. This is why nobody has force the issue of tieing non-technical requirements to allocations of IP addresses or domains any more than it is in anyones interest to, say, withhold a country code for phone numbers from a dictatorship.

asgard1024 13y ago

> How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? Does the government accept situation where it cannot read your own thoughts? How is that different? You could make the same argument about crime fighting here. If we could read thoughts, well, then there would be no unsolvable crime really. But is it desirable? So, no, even anarchists won't agree (neither me, and I am not an anarchist). The privacy comes to moral consideration too. Secret communication has no effect on the real world unless the people communicating actually act. Just like thoughts have no effect on the real world, unless you act. That's why we don't punish thoughts, but acts, and by that extension, we shouldn't punish communication, just acting based on that communication. Since these acts take place in the real world, criminal investigation is not obstructed. Edit: Maybe a clarification. You could make an argument that if you don't know communication between people, then it's harder to convict a specific person rather than just the group. But the same is true for private communication (it was always a problem, even before electronic communications), and is also true for communication between neurons (we cannot be sure if person acted willingly or is a psychiatric case).

alextingle 13y ago

> How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? The way they accept every other fact of life that they cannot change. The genie is out of the bottle now. Strong encryption exists; government cannot break it, and "bad actors" will use it. Law enforcement do need to investigate crime, but they need to do it in the real world not in the world of make believe. If that means they have to go back to older, harder investigative methods then life will go on. The "alternative" that our governments seem to have chosen is unconscionable... They break their own laws, forsake their own principles and corral their own people into virtual concentration camps. In their desperation they have seized total control, and then "restrained themselves" to simulate the capabilities they might have had in the good old days. Their self-restraint is admirable, but our societies are founded on law and democracy, not built on trust in the good natures of absolute rulers.

diydsp 13y ago
I like your thoughts because they pay respect to the fact that (current) governments are NOT foundationally correct entities. They are socially-constructed approximations of justice which aid our human existence, but are not fundamentally infallible as, say, the laws of physics. Government should be a last-ditch effort to maintain the long-term survivability of our species.... However, so many people (cough Apple) treat laws as a list of the most disrespectful circumstances and violent actions they can do without repercussions. We can deny the existence of strong crypto no more than we can deny the existence of Plutonium. Any government that can't regulate around that has no justification for our support and any population that can't survive the gifts of Prometheus has no justification for survival. If we're to levitate above the point we're at now (compromised security, virtual concentration camps, etc.), we've got to develop our culture such that there is no incentive to use strong crypto for gain. We've got to stop pushing ourselves into such dense living quarters. We've got to further lower our reproduction rate. We've got to stop buying into celebrity and corporate culture....

lutusp 13y ago

> How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? In a democracy? A system in which (at least in principle) the government is supposed to obey the laws and serve the needs of the people? > Essentially law enforcement do need to investigate crime. That logically breaks down to two questions: (1) Can the government listen in on anything it wants, and (2) does the government have that right? I won't presume to offer practical answers, but from a legal and constitutional standpoint, the answers are maybe and no. > Even this anarchist accepts this. An anarchist who accepts the government's right to listen in on anything ... isn't an anarchist. An anarchist who assumes that the government is doing that ... is a realist.

betterunix 13y ago

"How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it?" Their friends in the business community can rest assured that foreign competitors, criminals, etc. are not able to eavesdrop on their communications. Spies in foreign countries could use a strong cipher without raising any suspicions. These arguments were made in the 90s you know. "Essentially law enforcement do need to investigate crime." Only to a point. If the only evidence of a crime is the plaintext of some encrypted message -- no physical evidence, no witnesses, etc. -- then the benefits of strong cryptography vastly outweigh whatever problem there is with letting the crime go unpunished.

w_t_payne 13y ago

This is not just about communications, though, is it? It is about authentication and control over our the machines that help us to run our lives. If you can break my cryptography, you are (in essence) the real owner of every single network-connected digital-electronic device that I have. Which increasingly means all of them. It feels (to me) more akin to theft than dirty-tom peeping.

canvia 13y ago

I wonder what % of posts in threads covering these topics are astroturf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

mcguire 13y ago

How can you expect a government to accept a situation where it cannot compel a criminal suspect to provide evidence against himself?

chernevik 13y ago

> How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? A government by and for the people accepts it because the people accept it. What a government _is_, of course, a philosophical question. The American Constitution treats government as an agreement among people, and structures that agreement to withhold particular powers from that agreement. It does _not_ withhold these powers in recognition of some divine grant or innate possession of 'rights', but because it anticipates these powers make the government dangerous to the people governed. Given those powers, the people in government would inevitably abuse them, and would over time evolve into a faction or class to themselves, striving to retain control of the government for their own purposes and to the neglect of the people's. A government that can consistently and without consequence exceed the powers allotted to it by the people governed will inevitably become an aristocracy, and a tyranny, unless those excesses are checked. (There are other visions of what a government is. vidarh's comment on this subthread is the best account of anarchism I've read -- really smart -- saying that government is necessarily a class instrument that ought to be weakened or destroyed because it inevitably serves the strong economic interest.) Of course, those limits make it harder for the government to pursue the people's interests. But the point is that those short-term deficiencies are a wise trade over the long-term, over which an unbounded government would transform into tyranny. Surely the government can do a better job preventing the next 9/11 bombing if it has all these surveillance powers. But I'm not nearly as worried about such bombings as I am about how the government has already transformed beyond our control, and how much further it could go. I am very sure that 99.99% of us opposed to political terrorism can defeat the 0.01% using it, even while we tie our own hands in some ways for our own long-term protection. It's true that the technology of WMD have increased the potential leverage and destructiveness of that 0.01%. It's also true that we haven't hardly started thinking about how we, as a society, meet and check that expanded threat. I'm confident we'll figure it out. And even if we don't, the possibilities of that violent minority aren't nearly so dangerous or likely as those of an unchecked government. So how can any government accept such limits? Because it is _us_, and we recognize that those limits best ensure our safety and that of our kids.

nova 13y ago

> How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? Chief George Earle: Sensors all over the city can zero in on anyone at any time. I can't even conceive of what police officers did before it was developed. John Spartan: We worked. This fascist crap makes me want to puke.

kamjam 13y ago
I'm currently living in Canada, and for a while people would say "Oh, you're from the London UK, I heard they have mass surveillance there and more cameras than people[1]". The worst to judge were Americans I met. Well, it seems those manually watched cameras were the least of our worries. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/02/cctv-cameras-watching-surveillance http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/02/cctv-cameras-watch...