3 ms·

There isn't really a legitimate debate, there's the PR department of statism and fearfulness and then the reality-seeking people who decry government power-grab

There isn't really a legitimate debate, there's the PR department of statism and fearfulness and then the reality-seeking people who decry government power-grabbing and anti-liberalism. Dragnet surveillance is totalitarianism. I guess there are apologists for totalitarianism, but why, if we are a democracy, do we listen to those who actively advocate for tyranny? EDIT: Haven't heard any objection to my points yet, primarily that it's not possible to argue in good faith that someone can be both be well-informed about the effects of dragnet surveillance and still be pro-surveillance.

slg 12y ago
Comments like this reinforce my point. You are basically framing this entire debate as good versus evil. That is not going to change anyone's minds and it serves no real purpose outside of rallying your own side. There is a middle ground between our government can read everything and our government can read nothing. I don't know where that line is, but the only way we find that line is through open debate. Except no side apparently seems willing to engage in that debate.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  Middle ground does not always exist. For example, take the plans to set up decentralized networks outside of the government's control. There have been discussions on how to allow the government to still be able to fight certain forms of illegal data exchange (terrorism and child abuse) while banning it from being at all involved in the others (drugs). But there is no middle ground solution. Any network that comprises itself enough to allow the government in to monitor and combat certain data will weaken its ability to prevent the government from being able to do the same elsewhere. As it stands, giving the government the power to read any one particular thing will result in it being abused to read other things that were never intended. And with a history filled with governments always overstepping their bounds, the only real solution is to create something that cannot be read, as any limit that depends upon 'please don't' is only a temporary patch.
  - slg 12y ago
    >As it stands, giving the government the power to read any one particular thing will result in it being abused to read other things that were never intended. Isn't this potentially the real problem? It is why our original system required courts and warrants, checks and balances. The Internet doesn't have to be completely different than the offline world. The police can knock down my door if there is a threat of child abuse or terrorism, but aren't allowed to do the same for a traffic violation. Why would that system need to be different online? We just need to make the process of acquiring and executing a warrant more transparent. That political debate would take precedence over any technical problem like designing a distributed system that could accommodate this type of request.
    - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
      >It is why our original system required courts and warrants, checks and balances. The problem is that current technology allows the government to hide behind 'you have no proof we did anything wrong' and 'state secret' defenses. Maybe a system that makes it clear when communications are being monitored, but the government is going to oppose that as much as a system that can't be monitored. Also, there are few other considerations: No foreign company is going to kick in your door, but they would be willing to hack your computer/listen to your chatter in an attempt to steal company secrets. Any weak point for the government is a weak point for all others. Also, government is made up of some individuals that I do not want anywhere near any backdoors of my systems. Not to say everyone in government is incompetent. Maybe they are if you are head of R&D for some massive project, at which point you would be taking extra precautions.
  - jshap70 12y ago
    >Middle ground does not always exist I think looking at issues with this lens is how the whole idea of "you're either with us or against us" gets started. It's possible to be less opinionated than that. I think everyone should take a step back and actually analyze the situation for what it is, rather than immediately grabbing the pitch fork.
    - 12y ago
- dreamfactory2 12y ago
  Not sure it's that simple. It's a given that everyone wants to be reasonable of course, but 1984 was framed precisely as a kind of political horror story. Should we really react in terms of compromise and middle ground if somebody proposes that we live in such a horror story? My view is that this kind of thing is a part of what intelligence services are supposed to prevent, not implement, and they are therefore seriously failing to do their taxpayer-funded jobs. Not really sure of the point of employing smart people to protect you if they then use all of their wiles to weaken individual and state security.
Loughla 12y ago
That's still inside the tech bubble. Talk to Old Lady A or middle-aged man B in any number of flyover states; the average American. They have no concept of what type of data is available about them online. They have no worries about being watched by any agency, because they literally do not understand what is being watched. Many, many people over the age of 40(ish) make assumptions about what is possible and what is not based solely on past experience. When it was nearly impossible to gather data, house data, and retrieve data about a monstrously large group, no one bothered. Therefore, average Americans from that time period have no idea what is possible. Like the OP said - take the time to educate folks about what is possible and why they should worry, instead of argue for right versus wrong. All that does is make people pick sides, however irrational the side is.

slg 12y ago

Comments like this reinforce my point. You are basically framing this entire debate as good versus evil. That is not going to change anyone's minds and it serves no real purpose outside of rallying your own side. There is a middle ground between our government can read everything and our government can read nothing. I don't know where that line is, but the only way we find that line is through open debate. Except no side apparently seems willing to engage in that debate.

Lawtonfogle 12y ago
Middle ground does not always exist. For example, take the plans to set up decentralized networks outside of the government's control. There have been discussions on how to allow the government to still be able to fight certain forms of illegal data exchange (terrorism and child abuse) while banning it from being at all involved in the others (drugs). But there is no middle ground solution. Any network that comprises itself enough to allow the government in to monitor and combat certain data will weaken its ability to prevent the government from being able to do the same elsewhere. As it stands, giving the government the power to read any one particular thing will result in it being abused to read other things that were never intended. And with a history filled with governments always overstepping their bounds, the only real solution is to create something that cannot be read, as any limit that depends upon 'please don't' is only a temporary patch.
- slg 12y ago
  >As it stands, giving the government the power to read any one particular thing will result in it being abused to read other things that were never intended. Isn't this potentially the real problem? It is why our original system required courts and warrants, checks and balances. The Internet doesn't have to be completely different than the offline world. The police can knock down my door if there is a threat of child abuse or terrorism, but aren't allowed to do the same for a traffic violation. Why would that system need to be different online? We just need to make the process of acquiring and executing a warrant more transparent. That political debate would take precedence over any technical problem like designing a distributed system that could accommodate this type of request.
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    >It is why our original system required courts and warrants, checks and balances. The problem is that current technology allows the government to hide behind 'you have no proof we did anything wrong' and 'state secret' defenses. Maybe a system that makes it clear when communications are being monitored, but the government is going to oppose that as much as a system that can't be monitored. Also, there are few other considerations: No foreign company is going to kick in your door, but they would be willing to hack your computer/listen to your chatter in an attempt to steal company secrets. Any weak point for the government is a weak point for all others. Also, government is made up of some individuals that I do not want anywhere near any backdoors of my systems. Not to say everyone in government is incompetent. Maybe they are if you are head of R&D for some massive project, at which point you would be taking extra precautions.
- jshap70 12y ago
  >Middle ground does not always exist I think looking at issues with this lens is how the whole idea of "you're either with us or against us" gets started. It's possible to be less opinionated than that. I think everyone should take a step back and actually analyze the situation for what it is, rather than immediately grabbing the pitch fork.
  - 12y ago
dreamfactory2 12y ago
Not sure it's that simple. It's a given that everyone wants to be reasonable of course, but 1984 was framed precisely as a kind of political horror story. Should we really react in terms of compromise and middle ground if somebody proposes that we live in such a horror story? My view is that this kind of thing is a part of what intelligence services are supposed to prevent, not implement, and they are therefore seriously failing to do their taxpayer-funded jobs. Not really sure of the point of employing smart people to protect you if they then use all of their wiles to weaken individual and state security.

Loughla 12y ago

That's still inside the tech bubble. Talk to Old Lady A or middle-aged man B in any number of flyover states; the average American. They have no concept of what type of data is available about them online. They have no worries about being watched by any agency, because they literally do not understand what is being watched. Many, many people over the age of 40(ish) make assumptions about what is possible and what is not based solely on past experience. When it was nearly impossible to gather data, house data, and retrieve data about a monstrously large group, no one bothered. Therefore, average Americans from that time period have no idea what is possible. Like the OP said - take the time to educate folks about what is possible and why they should worry, instead of argue for right versus wrong. All that does is make people pick sides, however irrational the side is.