4 ms·

There are plenty of ideas for addressing the surveillance problem but perhaps it is time to take a step back and look at the "big picture". In any conflict, no

by smackay 13y ago

There are plenty of ideas for addressing the surveillance problem but perhaps it is time to take a step back and look at the "big picture". In any conflict, no matter how big or small, there is considerable advantage in having advance knowledge of your opponent's intentions. In military conflicts the invention of telegraph, radio, aircraft and satellites has more or less solved the problem with blindly marching into an area and getting annihilated. Nobody ever suggested that these technologies should be banned in order to create a level playing field. It is going to be the same patttern with all forms of electronic communication. The spectre of weapons of mass destruction (anything that can kill more than one person at a time) is the justification/motivation for government and law enforcement to monitor everything online. Whether it has merit is kind of besides the point. It is an advantage, perceived or otherwise, that is not going to be given up, under any circumstances. Another part to this is whether conspiring online actually constitutes a crime. People can chat all day about terrorist plots but until someone actually goes out and starts building a bomb or procuring weapons has a crime really taken place? Only when a society can decide on the answer to this question will it be possible to address online surveillance.

tokenizer 13y ago
> There are plenty of ideas for addressing the surveillance problem but perhaps it is time to take a step back and look at the "big picture". The "big picture" for me are the effects of the loss of privacy. What was once one of the most horrendous forms of punishment/torture, is now mainstream. Also, this only gives more power to already too powerful of people (you already mentioned the nukes). I think we've already proven we don't need mass surveillance to not blow ourselves up. > Another part to this is whether conspiring online actually constitutes a crime. ""To be classified as a crime, the act of doing something bad (actus reus) must be usually accompanied by the intention to do something bad (mens rea), with certain exceptions (strict liability)."" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime In other words, it's up to the most powerful, who are also in control of the surveillance to decide this, not us. Also, the "big picture" issues here aren't really surveillance itself, but MASS surveillance, SECRET courts, and CLASSIFIED evidence.
monsterix 13y ago
> there is considerable advantage in having advance knowledge of your opponent's intentions. Everyone's intention? In other words everybody is the opponent. Is that the big picture you have about the world?
Zigurd 13y ago
The only real WMD is a nuclear bomb. No non-state actor has ever used a chemical or biological weapon with other than trivial effect (the Aum cult came closest, and only illustrates the difficulty), and the military value of such weapons is questionable. So, who are the "opponents" that could lay a hand on the US without suffering immediate and total defeat? North Korea? Or, let's bug them. But in our present world, we could have a lot more freedom and privacy than we do, and a lot less economic drag from a bloated security apparatus.

by smackay 13y ago

tokenizer 13y ago

> There are plenty of ideas for addressing the surveillance problem but perhaps it is time to take a step back and look at the "big picture". The "big picture" for me are the effects of the loss of privacy. What was once one of the most horrendous forms of punishment/torture, is now mainstream. Also, this only gives more power to already too powerful of people (you already mentioned the nukes). I think we've already proven we don't need mass surveillance to not blow ourselves up. > Another part to this is whether conspiring online actually constitutes a crime. ""To be classified as a crime, the act of doing something bad (actus reus) must be usually accompanied by the intention to do something bad (mens rea), with certain exceptions (strict liability)."" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime In other words, it's up to the most powerful, who are also in control of the surveillance to decide this, not us. Also, the "big picture" issues here aren't really surveillance itself, but MASS surveillance, SECRET courts, and CLASSIFIED evidence.

monsterix 13y ago

> there is considerable advantage in having advance knowledge of your opponent's intentions. Everyone's intention? In other words everybody is the opponent. Is that the big picture you have about the world?

Zigurd 13y ago

The only real WMD is a nuclear bomb. No non-state actor has ever used a chemical or biological weapon with other than trivial effect (the Aum cult came closest, and only illustrates the difficulty), and the military value of such weapons is questionable. So, who are the "opponents" that could lay a hand on the US without suffering immediate and total defeat? North Korea? Or, let's bug them. But in our present world, we could have a lot more freedom and privacy than we do, and a lot less economic drag from a bloated security apparatus.