3 ms·

Those are a lot of hypotheticals. As RMS said in his article: > Such claims must be put to the test. The NSA claimed that surveilling everyone in the US was

by agwa 12y ago

Those are a lot of hypotheticals. As RMS said in his article: > Such claims must be put to the test. The NSA claimed that surveilling everyone in the US was vital for preventing terrorism. When it had to give details, it became clear that the supposed benefit did not exist. And indeed, when RMS pressed the MIT police chief for actual evidence of the claimed benefits, he dodged the question.

joezydeco 12y ago
Isn't that asking someone to prove a negative? "Gee, with this security system in place nothing has ever happened, so you need to prove that something bad would happen if we took it away."
- agwa 12y ago
  No, it's asking them to prove a positive. CSAIL has been using the card system for 10 years now. If logging card access has all the pubic safety benefits that proponents claim it has, it should be possible to point to "criminals that have been caught, and/or property recovered." RMS asked the MIT police chief for this data, in aggregate (i.e. no personal details requested), and the MIT police chief dodged the question.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Locks are for deterrent. Their value as deterrent is uncorrelated to their value as a tracking tool.
    - agwa 12y ago
      OK, how about comparing the rate of property crime in buildings using traditional, non-electronic locks, with buildings using electronic locks that track access? The point here is that so far no evidence has been put forward to support all the hypothetical public safety benefits for which we're being asked to give up our privacy. That's troubling.
      - superuser2 12y ago
        It's not your privacy. You get to communicate with your friends while keeping that fact secret from the government. That's in the Bill of Rights. You do not get to enter a building that someone else owns while keeping that fact secret from the building owner. That's a crime.
        agwa 12y ago
        It is my privacy, and just because a private building owner can legally violate that privacy doesn't mean that they should or must[1], or that the users of that building shouldn't question the stated reasons that their privacy is being violated (particularly in the case of universities, which usually respect their community members' opinions more than a typical private organization). [1] For this reason, your assertion that secretly entering a private building is a crime is not universally true.
        superuser2 12y ago
        Why do you consider the fact that you're entering a building to be private? Why do you consider it a violation?
        icebraining 12y ago
        Just because the owner has a legal right to keep tabs on people, and that doing so doesn't infringe on constitutionally protected rights, doesn't mean privacy isn't being violated or that (s)he is above criticism. You do not get to enter a building that someone else owns while keeping that fact secret from the building owner. That's a crime. Nobody is saying that it should be "kept a secret". Only that it shouldn't be on record, especially electronically. You know, like people do everywhere buildings have regular keys.

by agwa 12y ago

joezydeco 12y ago

Isn't that asking someone to prove a negative? "Gee, with this security system in place nothing has ever happened, so you need to prove that something bad would happen if we took it away."

agwa 12y ago
No, it's asking them to prove a positive. CSAIL has been using the card system for 10 years now. If logging card access has all the pubic safety benefits that proponents claim it has, it should be possible to point to "criminals that have been caught, and/or property recovered." RMS asked the MIT police chief for this data, in aggregate (i.e. no personal details requested), and the MIT police chief dodged the question.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Locks are for deterrent. Their value as deterrent is uncorrelated to their value as a tracking tool.
  - agwa 12y ago
    OK, how about comparing the rate of property crime in buildings using traditional, non-electronic locks, with buildings using electronic locks that track access? The point here is that so far no evidence has been put forward to support all the hypothetical public safety benefits for which we're being asked to give up our privacy. That's troubling.
    - superuser2 12y ago
      It's not your privacy. You get to communicate with your friends while keeping that fact secret from the government. That's in the Bill of Rights. You do not get to enter a building that someone else owns while keeping that fact secret from the building owner. That's a crime.
      - agwa 12y ago
        It is my privacy, and just because a private building owner can legally violate that privacy doesn't mean that they should or must[1], or that the users of that building shouldn't question the stated reasons that their privacy is being violated (particularly in the case of universities, which usually respect their community members' opinions more than a typical private organization). [1] For this reason, your assertion that secretly entering a private building is a crime is not universally true.
        superuser2 12y ago
        Why do you consider the fact that you're entering a building to be private? Why do you consider it a violation?
      - icebraining 12y ago
        Just because the owner has a legal right to keep tabs on people, and that doing so doesn't infringe on constitutionally protected rights, doesn't mean privacy isn't being violated or that (s)he is above criticism. You do not get to enter a building that someone else owns while keeping that fact secret from the building owner. That's a crime. Nobody is saying that it should be "kept a secret". Only that it shouldn't be on record, especially electronically. You know, like people do everywhere buildings have regular keys.