4 ms·

Many are quick to jump and state that we should all have 100% privacy, and that governments should not look into our communications. At the same time we are ask

Many are quick to jump and state that we should all have 100% privacy, and that governments should not look into our communications. At the same time we are asking for the government to protect us. Something like 9-11 happens and we blame our national security officials. Something like the Boston Marathon happens and we do the same. At some point we have to choose: Natural Freedom or Societal Freedom, but we cannot have both. I for one believe that we should TRULY consider recording every message we send/receive. We should have a very high threshold for using these communications against people, and making sure they can only be used for matters of the people's security.

chrisdone 12y ago
> At the same time we are asking for the government to protect us. Speak for yourself.
- rokhayakebe 12y ago
  Whether they are doing this effectively or not is up for debate, but certainly in any society it is part of the role of the government to protect its citizens. Certainly this job cannot be left to individuals or to private parties.
vertex-four 12y ago
> Something like 9-11 happens and we blame our national security officials. Something like the Boston Marathon happens and we do the same. Lots of people might, but a lot of the younger generation most certainly doesn't - these are black swan events. Given that they don't happen more often, I'd say the Government have more than enough power - you can't stop 100% of terrorism, just like you can't stop 100% of crime. > We should have a very high threshold for using these communications against people, and making sure they can only be used for matters of the people's security. We already have laws which empower the Government with additional powers in cases of "national security". The result? Suddenly, drug busts are national security. Now, that's not to say the Government should not have some well-thought-out powers to combat terrorism if they actually need them. What they have now, and what you are proposing, is not well-thought-out.
mhuffman 12y ago
I am baffled as to why you think a criminal or terrorist would follow the rules set forth by the US Congress and not use unbreakable encryption in their communications. The only people that would be successfully watched would be law-abiding engineers of products and law-abiding users of those products.
- rokhayakebe 12y ago
  Certainly having the ability to read all messages is not built with the intention that we will find a message from the chief of ISIS emailing his top generals. As a strategist, to disintegrate/infiltrate any terrorist cell, you will not begin from the top and work your way down. Every organization is more fragile at the bottom, hence you can expect someone will make the mistake of using the system and leaking information, allowing national security officials to work their way up from there.
  - mhuffman 12y ago
    So your theory is that we should all be spied on in the off chance some of the low-hanging fruit in a hypothetical criminal organization simply makes a mistake or goofs up enough to put it in the officials lap. Working off that theory, why not just not spy on millions of innocent civilians and let the criminal bunglers bungle anyway?

chrisdone 12y ago

> At the same time we are asking for the government to protect us. Speak for yourself.

rokhayakebe 12y ago
Whether they are doing this effectively or not is up for debate, but certainly in any society it is part of the role of the government to protect its citizens. Certainly this job cannot be left to individuals or to private parties.

vertex-four 12y ago

> Something like 9-11 happens and we blame our national security officials. Something like the Boston Marathon happens and we do the same. Lots of people might, but a lot of the younger generation most certainly doesn't - these are black swan events. Given that they don't happen more often, I'd say the Government have more than enough power - you can't stop 100% of terrorism, just like you can't stop 100% of crime. > We should have a very high threshold for using these communications against people, and making sure they can only be used for matters of the people's security. We already have laws which empower the Government with additional powers in cases of "national security". The result? Suddenly, drug busts are national security. Now, that's not to say the Government should not have some well-thought-out powers to combat terrorism if they actually need them. What they have now, and what you are proposing, is not well-thought-out.

mhuffman 12y ago

I am baffled as to why you think a criminal or terrorist would follow the rules set forth by the US Congress and not use unbreakable encryption in their communications. The only people that would be successfully watched would be law-abiding engineers of products and law-abiding users of those products.

rokhayakebe 12y ago
Certainly having the ability to read all messages is not built with the intention that we will find a message from the chief of ISIS emailing his top generals. As a strategist, to disintegrate/infiltrate any terrorist cell, you will not begin from the top and work your way down. Every organization is more fragile at the bottom, hence you can expect someone will make the mistake of using the system and leaking information, allowing national security officials to work their way up from there.
- mhuffman 12y ago
  So your theory is that we should all be spied on in the off chance some of the low-hanging fruit in a hypothetical criminal organization simply makes a mistake or goofs up enough to put it in the officials lap. Working off that theory, why not just not spy on millions of innocent civilians and let the criminal bunglers bungle anyway?