8 ms·

I'm curious about exploring your perspective, if you don't mind indulging me. Suppose, in the course of their everyday routing systems, the USPS were tracking

I'm curious about exploring your perspective, if you don't mind indulging me. Suppose, in the course of their everyday routing systems, the USPS were tracking the information in question. Pretend it were free to transfer that data to the law enforcement authorities. Would you have an issue with it, if it were free as part of doing business?

Retric 12y ago
Proactive mass surveillance does not work. So even if the USPS is not spending money other parts of the government is going to waste money dealing with this crap. Sure, we can get into a debate about the ethics of surveillance, but as long as there is zero benefit it seems pointless. As to why it fails, there is simply to many false positives.
- theworst 12y ago
  While I tend to agree with your overall point, I was asking the question for a different reason. I find it useful to examine my opinions from different perspectives, even ones I disagree with, in order to better understand the crux of the issue. Again, while I personally agree with what you say, I think it's a bit assertive to say "proactive mass surveillance does not work". I know several people who would argue just as strongly that their work is critical to national security. This is a bit nitpicky on my part, but your statement "as long as there is zero benefit it seems pointless" is a tautology. I think the argument is regarding whether there is zero benefit. Again, I don't mean to criticize your beliefs; I'm just interested in openly exploring different perspectives to try and understand the situation better.
- chongli 12y ago
  Proactive mass surveillance does not work. Sure it does, just not for what it is claimed to by its proponents. The real point of proactive mass surveillance is to perpetuate a culture of mass fear, a chilling effect on free speech and to maintain the socioeconomic status quo; that is, to limit upward mobility and destroy any notion of wealth redistribution before it gets off the ground.
  - csallen 12y ago
    This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Fewer than 1% of the people I know live in a state of active fear of our government. There are certainly nefarious goals behind many incidents of mass surveillance, but "perpetuat[ing] a culture of mass fear" is not one of them. The vast majority of people don't even know this is going on, let alone care.
    - chongli 12y ago
      Those people are also not participating/planning any protests or other forms of civil disobedience. They are irrelevant, as far as the elite are concerned.
      - csallen 12y ago
        Not true. Tons of my friends participate in protests.
    - baddox 12y ago
      Of these people you know, how would most of them react initially if they received an unexpected letter or phone call from the IRS?
      - csallen 12y ago
        I fail to see the point of your question. Elaborate?
        baddox 12y ago
        My point is that there probably isn't a state of active fear of the government for most people, as in they're literally cowering in a corner. Of course, this is nearly literally true for some people today (like Edward Snowden) and has been literally true for lots of people in certain governments in recent history. But anyway, despite there not being an active fear for most people, there certainly would be an immediate fear upon receiving word from the IRS, because the tax system is so hopelessly complex that every single filer is almost certainly guilty of violating some law.
- quasque 12y ago
  How do you know it doesn't work? From all we've been told (very little, mostly through leaks) there isn't enough information to make that judgement. The key issue isn't the potential benefit of mass surveillance in dealing with crimes or potential crimes, but rather its risk to individual privacy and the danger of enabling authoritarian governance.

Retric 12y ago

Proactive mass surveillance does not work. So even if the USPS is not spending money other parts of the government is going to waste money dealing with this crap. Sure, we can get into a debate about the ethics of surveillance, but as long as there is zero benefit it seems pointless. As to why it fails, there is simply to many false positives.

theworst 12y ago
While I tend to agree with your overall point, I was asking the question for a different reason. I find it useful to examine my opinions from different perspectives, even ones I disagree with, in order to better understand the crux of the issue. Again, while I personally agree with what you say, I think it's a bit assertive to say "proactive mass surveillance does not work". I know several people who would argue just as strongly that their work is critical to national security. This is a bit nitpicky on my part, but your statement "as long as there is zero benefit it seems pointless" is a tautology. I think the argument is regarding whether there is zero benefit. Again, I don't mean to criticize your beliefs; I'm just interested in openly exploring different perspectives to try and understand the situation better.
chongli 12y ago
Proactive mass surveillance does not work. Sure it does, just not for what it is claimed to by its proponents. The real point of proactive mass surveillance is to perpetuate a culture of mass fear, a chilling effect on free speech and to maintain the socioeconomic status quo; that is, to limit upward mobility and destroy any notion of wealth redistribution before it gets off the ground.
- csallen 12y ago
  This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Fewer than 1% of the people I know live in a state of active fear of our government. There are certainly nefarious goals behind many incidents of mass surveillance, but "perpetuat[ing] a culture of mass fear" is not one of them. The vast majority of people don't even know this is going on, let alone care.
  - chongli 12y ago
    Those people are also not participating/planning any protests or other forms of civil disobedience. They are irrelevant, as far as the elite are concerned.
    - csallen 12y ago
      Not true. Tons of my friends participate in protests.
  - baddox 12y ago
    Of these people you know, how would most of them react initially if they received an unexpected letter or phone call from the IRS?
    - csallen 12y ago
      I fail to see the point of your question. Elaborate?
      - baddox 12y ago
        My point is that there probably isn't a state of active fear of the government for most people, as in they're literally cowering in a corner. Of course, this is nearly literally true for some people today (like Edward Snowden) and has been literally true for lots of people in certain governments in recent history. But anyway, despite there not being an active fear for most people, there certainly would be an immediate fear upon receiving word from the IRS, because the tax system is so hopelessly complex that every single filer is almost certainly guilty of violating some law.
quasque 12y ago
How do you know it doesn't work? From all we've been told (very little, mostly through leaks) there isn't enough information to make that judgement. The key issue isn't the potential benefit of mass surveillance in dealing with crimes or potential crimes, but rather its risk to individual privacy and the danger of enabling authoritarian governance.