4 ms·

This guy, Stewart Baker: "You ask me proofs that it works, I can show you proofs that the lack of it really fails" That is so flawed from a logic point of vie

This guy, Stewart Baker: "You ask me proofs that it works, I can show you proofs that the lack of it really fails" That is so flawed from a logic point of view that I won't even bother. "We can't be transparent .. we have to get comfortable with the idea that we're delegating to somebody.." There are two things here: 1) Most people agree that we can't talk about the details of implementation of a strategy agreed to by the US people to defend our country. The problem is that the mass surveillance that we've heard of in the last 5 months is not exactly a "detail of implementation" is it? It's a whole gods damn strategy that the US people didn't directly agree to. (Now yes, it's a democracy, we elected representatives who agreed to this. So what? Our constitution doesn't give full power to our representatives. If they didn't think for a second that a question of that magnitude might require some public debate, they are wrong, period). 2) He talks about trust. The problem is that trust is not something that you just ask for. If you are corrupt, lie, cheat, and all around screw up for long enough, people will stop trusting you.

DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
> not exactly a "detail of implementation" is it? It's a whole gods damn strategy that the US people didn't directly agree to ... we elected representatives who agreed to this. Well, the people who wrote the law which the NSA is claiming authorizes this also said they didn't agree to this. So much for any kind of "rule of law" or "oversight".
- aaronem 13y ago
  The claim that "the US people didn't directly agree to [broad NSA traffic/metadata analysis]" is a mere cavil at best; "the US people" need not "agree", nor particularly need our representatives, who debate and pass laws, but who do not interpret them -- such questions are considered and ruled upon by judges, and ultimately by the Supreme Court. (Or by the FISC, whose members' appointment by the Chief Justice I'd argue gives them roughly equivalent standing.) The final root of the current question being whether NSA acted in accord with applicable law, and whether said law is itself in accord with the Constitution, the Supreme Court or its FISC delegate is the proper venue in which to settle it -- and the sort of pointless, ugly public furball we see before us gains no one anything who has the slightest interest in the rule of law. Does this seem perhaps unsavory to you? A hair totalitarian, perhaps? Should the will of the people not be the ultimate sovereign? I bid you welcome to the Republic! -- the Republic built upon the rubble of the popular-sovereignty concept as codified in the failed Articles of Confederation, the Republic which for at least the last century or so has actually done a pretty solid job of living up to its primary design goal, which put simply is to keep the levers of power safe from the mob, and vice versa. Of course, the Republic has lately grown a thick, sclerotic crust of permanent civil service at the boundary between the two, and that's hardly ideal, but given that the only plausible alternative at this point is the catastrophe of mob rule, I'm perfectly happy to take what I can get. So should you be; especially in the modern era, genuine democracy has some really nasty failure modes, not least of which was das tausendjährige Reich.
aaronem 13y ago
> "You ask me proofs that it works, I can show you proofs that the lack of it really fails" > That is so flawed from a logic point of view that I won't even bother. Well, I don't blame you; trying to disprove p ⇒ q ∴ ¬q ⇒ ¬p would probably cost you some embarrassment.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- abraxasz 13y ago
  Please, do replace "p" and "q" with whatever you had in mind then meditate on the meaning of "=>". If you still don't get it refer to doctoboggan's counter-example.
  - theoh 13y ago
    Maybe it's something along the lines of "an effective security mechanism implies safety; if there is no safety then it follows that no effective security mechanism is in place"
nodata 13y ago
> That is so flawed from a logic point of view that I won't even bother. Do bother, if you're going to show someone up as screwing around with logic, make it easy for everyone to see it too.
- doctoboggan 13y ago
  To cure cancer everyone needs to wear green hats Proof: In the past not everyne wore green hats and they got cancer. Does that seem like valid reasoning?
  - nodata 13y ago
    No, it doesn't (and I wasn't asking for me). Thanks.

DerpDerpDerp 13y ago

> not exactly a "detail of implementation" is it? It's a whole gods damn strategy that the US people didn't directly agree to ... we elected representatives who agreed to this. Well, the people who wrote the law which the NSA is claiming authorizes this also said they didn't agree to this. So much for any kind of "rule of law" or "oversight".

aaronem 13y ago
The claim that "the US people didn't directly agree to [broad NSA traffic/metadata analysis]" is a mere cavil at best; "the US people" need not "agree", nor particularly need our representatives, who debate and pass laws, but who do not interpret them -- such questions are considered and ruled upon by judges, and ultimately by the Supreme Court. (Or by the FISC, whose members' appointment by the Chief Justice I'd argue gives them roughly equivalent standing.) The final root of the current question being whether NSA acted in accord with applicable law, and whether said law is itself in accord with the Constitution, the Supreme Court or its FISC delegate is the proper venue in which to settle it -- and the sort of pointless, ugly public furball we see before us gains no one anything who has the slightest interest in the rule of law. Does this seem perhaps unsavory to you? A hair totalitarian, perhaps? Should the will of the people not be the ultimate sovereign? I bid you welcome to the Republic! -- the Republic built upon the rubble of the popular-sovereignty concept as codified in the failed Articles of Confederation, the Republic which for at least the last century or so has actually done a pretty solid job of living up to its primary design goal, which put simply is to keep the levers of power safe from the mob, and vice versa. Of course, the Republic has lately grown a thick, sclerotic crust of permanent civil service at the boundary between the two, and that's hardly ideal, but given that the only plausible alternative at this point is the catastrophe of mob rule, I'm perfectly happy to take what I can get. So should you be; especially in the modern era, genuine democracy has some really nasty failure modes, not least of which was das tausendjährige Reich.

aaronem 13y ago

> "You ask me proofs that it works, I can show you proofs that the lack of it really fails" > That is so flawed from a logic point of view that I won't even bother. Well, I don't blame you; trying to disprove p ⇒ q ∴ ¬q ⇒ ¬p would probably cost you some embarrassment.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
abraxasz 13y ago
Please, do replace "p" and "q" with whatever you had in mind then meditate on the meaning of "=>". If you still don't get it refer to doctoboggan's counter-example.
- theoh 13y ago
  Maybe it's something along the lines of "an effective security mechanism implies safety; if there is no safety then it follows that no effective security mechanism is in place"

nodata 13y ago

> That is so flawed from a logic point of view that I won't even bother. Do bother, if you're going to show someone up as screwing around with logic, make it easy for everyone to see it too.

doctoboggan 13y ago
To cure cancer everyone needs to wear green hats Proof: In the past not everyne wore green hats and they got cancer. Does that seem like valid reasoning?
- nodata 13y ago
  No, it doesn't (and I wasn't asking for me). Thanks.