5 ms·

"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 "Amer

"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.

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.