5 ms·

"Second, all surveillance of Americans should be moved to the FBI." This sounds like a great idea in theory, but in the current age of global communications I'

by jobu 13y ago

"Second, all surveillance of Americans should be moved to the FBI." This sounds like a great idea in theory, but in the current age of global communications I'm concerned that it's impossible to separate surveillance into "American" and "foreign". This gray area is what the NSA currently uses to circumvent the US Constitution, and I don't see how any other agency would handle it differently.

maxerickson 13y ago
There's lots of middle ground. For example, just tell the foreign intelligence side that they can't tap any communication where at least one side of it originates in the U.S. and then install meaningful (or stringent or whatever you want to call it) oversight on the domestic side.
whatevsbro 13y ago
"This sounds like a great idea in theory, but in the current age of global communications I'm concerned that it's impossible to separate surveillance into "American" and "foreign"." I've got an even better idea: No surveillance at all! What do Americans gain from the all-encompassing, algorithmic surveillance? -Why precisely nothing, of course. On the contrary, they suffer massive losses in privacy. So why is it done, then? -Not for the people's benefit, that's for sure.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "No surveillance at all" wouldn't just exclude "all-encompassing, algorithmic surveillance". It would also exclude warranted tapping of phones in connection with a murder investigation, and similar. I would be hugely leery of asserting that we gain precisely nothing from that.
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    You know what I was referring to.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      No, I don't. I have a few guesses, but no clear picture of which you mean, since none of them is particularly close to what you said.
      - whatevsbro 13y ago
        I was referring to NSA & Google monitoring everything anyone in the world does online. It's pointless to "refute" what I said with a "but what about criminal investigations?!" .. Well yeah, what abou them? You don't need to monitor everyone everywhere to solve crimes. You know that, so you shouldn't be confused about what I was referring to.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        "You know that, so you shouldn't be confused about what I was referring to." I'm a fan of the principle of charity, but it only extends so far if we're to actually engage in meaningful discussion. If I always take what you wrote and assume you mean something I agree with, I might not actually be engaging with the ideas you are trying to convey. This wasn't a case of ambiguity, but (apparently) of hyperbole that I failed to recognize as such. Even recognizing it, I'm still not entirely sure how far you intend it backed off.
        whatevsbro 13y ago
        Nevermind.

by jobu 13y ago

maxerickson 13y ago

There's lots of middle ground. For example, just tell the foreign intelligence side that they can't tap any communication where at least one side of it originates in the U.S. and then install meaningful (or stringent or whatever you want to call it) oversight on the domestic side.

whatevsbro 13y ago

"This sounds like a great idea in theory, but in the current age of global communications I'm concerned that it's impossible to separate surveillance into "American" and "foreign"." I've got an even better idea: No surveillance at all! What do Americans gain from the all-encompassing, algorithmic surveillance? -Why precisely nothing, of course. On the contrary, they suffer massive losses in privacy. So why is it done, then? -Not for the people's benefit, that's for sure.

dllthomas 13y ago
"No surveillance at all" wouldn't just exclude "all-encompassing, algorithmic surveillance". It would also exclude warranted tapping of phones in connection with a murder investigation, and similar. I would be hugely leery of asserting that we gain precisely nothing from that.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  You know what I was referring to.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    No, I don't. I have a few guesses, but no clear picture of which you mean, since none of them is particularly close to what you said.
    - whatevsbro 13y ago
      I was referring to NSA & Google monitoring everything anyone in the world does online. It's pointless to "refute" what I said with a "but what about criminal investigations?!" .. Well yeah, what abou them? You don't need to monitor everyone everywhere to solve crimes. You know that, so you shouldn't be confused about what I was referring to.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        "You know that, so you shouldn't be confused about what I was referring to." I'm a fan of the principle of charity, but it only extends so far if we're to actually engage in meaningful discussion. If I always take what you wrote and assume you mean something I agree with, I might not actually be engaging with the ideas you are trying to convey. This wasn't a case of ambiguity, but (apparently) of hyperbole that I failed to recognize as such. Even recognizing it, I'm still not entirely sure how far you intend it backed off.
        whatevsbro 13y ago
        Nevermind.