8 ms·

One thing law students learn in law school is that by far and away the most cases that chip away at constitutional protections are drug cases. The war on drugs

by jstalin 12y ago

One thing law students learn in law school is that by far and away the most cases that chip away at constitutional protections are drug cases. The war on drugs has done more to eliminate constitutional privacy protections than any other government program. And now of course "the terrorists" seem to be the next justification for final, complete, mass surveillance.

omgitstom 12y ago
How do you stop the mass surveillance machine once the gears are turning? This is a question I ask myself frequently, and I can't find the right path to get out of this vicious cycle.
- vijayr 12y ago
  I don't think it is possible. It is not just the gov, it is also private and public companies. Forget snooping for a second - let us just consider the public data. Once it is out there, who knows how many organizations have it? And even if we did, how are we going to force them to destroy it and not continue collecting more data? Most people give their data willingly either out of laziness or ignorance. If I have 15 different "store cards" in my wallet and let those stores happily track every single item I buy, willingly, who is to blame?
  - kbenson 12y ago
    If this is the natural progression of "information wants to be free", then it's probably worthwhile for us to figure out methods to live within this new reality. I'm not saying we shouldn't still fight it, but there should be a backup plan, in case it is futile.
    - seanp2k2 12y ago
      The backup plan is that we are not immortal, so however bad it gets, at least no one can force us to endure it forever.
      - vijayr 12y ago
        Isn't "forever" in this case "as long as one lives"? But then, it is possible to tarnish somebody's name and legacy even after their death.
  - LLWM 12y ago
    Most people give their data willingly because they get something worthwhile in exchange. The store cards exist because people trade tracking of their purchase data for discounted prices. Nobody is to blame because there is nothing to blame anyone for.
    - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
      It is like a child giving me a shiny rock because they like the pie I made better. Am I not to blame because I understand the value of the diamond better than the child and use the information asymmetry to my advantage?
      - LLWM 12y ago
        Your example only makes sense to you because you assume that the child could sell the diamond for enough money to buy the pie from you (or from someone else who has just as good of a pie) and have some left over. In the actual situation under discussion, there is no such option. If that's not the case and you really would only part with the pie for that high of a price, and no other pie will do for the child, then what is there to complain about? How much do you think it costs to buy a pie made by, say, Gordon Ramsay? Feel free to replace with someone who is actually a good chef and not just a famous one if I made a poor choice.
        Lawtonfogle 12y ago
        The example was to show someone taking advantage of information asymmetry. You are now just arguing the analogy. Do you believe it is acceptable to take advantage of information asymmetry when getting goods or services from someone (including children)?
        LLWM 12y ago
        I don't believe it is acceptable for there to be information asymmetry in the first place. Arguing about what to do when it's there is about as fruitful as arguing about how hard you should be allowed to beat your slaves.
- api 12y ago
  Power is an end in itself. The war on drugs and the war on terror (and war in general) is a great way to expand it.
- giardini 12y ago
  I would propose that - all surveillance cease at some fixed moment and - all information collected for a preceding fixed period (say 3 years', or maybe all of it) be made available for public inspection forever. By "all" I mean just that - ALL information. Everything collected about everybody: presidents, prime ministers, senators & congressmen, corporations, churches, public and private institutions, trusts, public and private officials, their secretaries, clerks, bartenders and hired courtesans,etc - all of us would have our private information revealed. This would cause an upheaval in the politics of the nation but would also provide a bonanza of invaluable information for society to review going forward. Do you want to know how corporate leaders break the law? Just look at the data and gather statistics. Are our politicians making illegal deals? Ditto. And of course, is my wife hiding something from me? Allow prosecutions to proceed and the revealed information to be submitted as evidence. We might have to set up special courts and do triage to handle the influx of lawsuits and criminal arrests but we could at least get some of the rats out of the barn. Whether we burn the barn down or not is society's choice (doesn't seem we have a very good barn right now anyway - reminds me a bit of Animal House).
  - olefoo 12y ago
    While this makes for a great piece of speculative fiction; I think you underestimate the violence that the powers that be are willing to deploy to defend the present arrangement.
  - kbenson 12y ago
    The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that privacy, as we currently know it, is a short lived phenomenon due to increased anonymity of large masses of people without the corresponding technology to accurately track information coming from them. The hundred person village of the past had little anonymity. The teeming metropoli of the future will have little as well. Privacy is information, and information moves towards more access, not less. As much as it pains me to admit it, there are parallels between privacy/surveillance and patents, copyrights and DRM, but the the roles are often reversed. That not to say it's all bad, there are some possible upsides to a world with less privacy. For example, with the lack of any expectation of privacy for vast swaths of the average day, we may see a shift to people aligning their beliefs and actions, and that may be made easier by a shift in some of the less tolerant beliefs. This would by no means be a guaranteed, it would take work. In the end though, I think whether privacy is somehow protected or not, one of the most important things we can do is make sure we are informed of, and inform the public of, what's likely and what's possible to have intercepted by surveillance. No matter the outcome, that's useful information for everyone to have, so they can act accordingly.
- unabridged 12y ago
  I don't believe we can escape it. Surveillance technology becomes cheaper everyday, in the long term tiny automated drones with cameras will be cheaper than a steak from a real cow. Even if you limit the government's power, there will be private surveillance everywhere. Even if you stop companies in your country from making them, some other country will. Our only hope is to better align our laws with our beliefs. Removing victimless crimes like drug laws will redirect this mass surveillance machine toward violent criminals. Full transparency in the government will prevent government officials from using the surveillance for personal gain or to harm political opponents.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- e12e 12y ago
  It's kind of funny when you think about DDR and the Stasi; the other super-power ran the other into the ground, and now that power is performing mass surveillance in place of the Stasi...
paulhauggis 12y ago
So many people have gotten fired from their job (and had careers/jobs ruined) over private communications that got leaked to the Internet in the last couple of years. Nobody even mentions the fact that their privacy was violated. They only care about the private conversation that got leaked (and of course, how the person needs to be punished). Anything you write on the Internet, even if it's just your personal beliefs, will come back to haunt you in the future no matter how innocent it seems like at the time. If it offends someone (and pretty much anything you write will offend someone), there is a chance you could have your livelihood taken away from you. I'm more concerned with this than any government surveillance. I'm fine with legalizing drugs. I'm not fine with the inability of me, as a business owner, to be able to fire someone for coming into my place of business under the influence. This is exactly what the CA proposed law wanted to allow a few years back.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  >I'm not fine with the inability of me, as a business owner, to be able to fire someone for coming into my place of business under the influence. As a business are you currently less able to fire someone for being under the influence of marijuana than if they were under the influence of alcohol?
  - paulhauggis 12y ago
    Yes. Especially when the advocates continue to say that the major use is medical. There is no medical alcohol.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      Ethanol is part of the treatment for methanol poisoning. That would be an acute care situation though, not something that would be a concern in the workplace.
    - GauntletWizard 12y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiseptic#Some_common_antiseptics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiseptic#Some_common_antisept... Ingested alcohol is less commonly used as a medical aid, but most every hospital uses alcohol on a daily basis.
tsotha 12y ago
It's interesting to note "money laundering" wasn't a crime until 1985. Before then you could legally move your own money around without notifying the government.

by jstalin 12y ago

omgitstom 12y ago

How do you stop the mass surveillance machine once the gears are turning? This is a question I ask myself frequently, and I can't find the right path to get out of this vicious cycle.

vijayr 12y ago
I don't think it is possible. It is not just the gov, it is also private and public companies. Forget snooping for a second - let us just consider the public data. Once it is out there, who knows how many organizations have it? And even if we did, how are we going to force them to destroy it and not continue collecting more data? Most people give their data willingly either out of laziness or ignorance. If I have 15 different "store cards" in my wallet and let those stores happily track every single item I buy, willingly, who is to blame?
- kbenson 12y ago
  If this is the natural progression of "information wants to be free", then it's probably worthwhile for us to figure out methods to live within this new reality. I'm not saying we shouldn't still fight it, but there should be a backup plan, in case it is futile.
  - seanp2k2 12y ago
    The backup plan is that we are not immortal, so however bad it gets, at least no one can force us to endure it forever.
    - vijayr 12y ago
      Isn't "forever" in this case "as long as one lives"? But then, it is possible to tarnish somebody's name and legacy even after their death.
- LLWM 12y ago
  Most people give their data willingly because they get something worthwhile in exchange. The store cards exist because people trade tracking of their purchase data for discounted prices. Nobody is to blame because there is nothing to blame anyone for.
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    It is like a child giving me a shiny rock because they like the pie I made better. Am I not to blame because I understand the value of the diamond better than the child and use the information asymmetry to my advantage?
    - LLWM 12y ago
      Your example only makes sense to you because you assume that the child could sell the diamond for enough money to buy the pie from you (or from someone else who has just as good of a pie) and have some left over. In the actual situation under discussion, there is no such option. If that's not the case and you really would only part with the pie for that high of a price, and no other pie will do for the child, then what is there to complain about? How much do you think it costs to buy a pie made by, say, Gordon Ramsay? Feel free to replace with someone who is actually a good chef and not just a famous one if I made a poor choice.
      - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
        The example was to show someone taking advantage of information asymmetry. You are now just arguing the analogy. Do you believe it is acceptable to take advantage of information asymmetry when getting goods or services from someone (including children)?
        LLWM 12y ago
        I don't believe it is acceptable for there to be information asymmetry in the first place. Arguing about what to do when it's there is about as fruitful as arguing about how hard you should be allowed to beat your slaves.
api 12y ago
Power is an end in itself. The war on drugs and the war on terror (and war in general) is a great way to expand it.
giardini 12y ago
I would propose that - all surveillance cease at some fixed moment and - all information collected for a preceding fixed period (say 3 years', or maybe all of it) be made available for public inspection forever. By "all" I mean just that - ALL information. Everything collected about everybody: presidents, prime ministers, senators & congressmen, corporations, churches, public and private institutions, trusts, public and private officials, their secretaries, clerks, bartenders and hired courtesans,etc - all of us would have our private information revealed. This would cause an upheaval in the politics of the nation but would also provide a bonanza of invaluable information for society to review going forward. Do you want to know how corporate leaders break the law? Just look at the data and gather statistics. Are our politicians making illegal deals? Ditto. And of course, is my wife hiding something from me? Allow prosecutions to proceed and the revealed information to be submitted as evidence. We might have to set up special courts and do triage to handle the influx of lawsuits and criminal arrests but we could at least get some of the rats out of the barn. Whether we burn the barn down or not is society's choice (doesn't seem we have a very good barn right now anyway - reminds me a bit of Animal House).
- olefoo 12y ago
  While this makes for a great piece of speculative fiction; I think you underestimate the violence that the powers that be are willing to deploy to defend the present arrangement.
- kbenson 12y ago
  The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that privacy, as we currently know it, is a short lived phenomenon due to increased anonymity of large masses of people without the corresponding technology to accurately track information coming from them. The hundred person village of the past had little anonymity. The teeming metropoli of the future will have little as well. Privacy is information, and information moves towards more access, not less. As much as it pains me to admit it, there are parallels between privacy/surveillance and patents, copyrights and DRM, but the the roles are often reversed. That not to say it's all bad, there are some possible upsides to a world with less privacy. For example, with the lack of any expectation of privacy for vast swaths of the average day, we may see a shift to people aligning their beliefs and actions, and that may be made easier by a shift in some of the less tolerant beliefs. This would by no means be a guaranteed, it would take work. In the end though, I think whether privacy is somehow protected or not, one of the most important things we can do is make sure we are informed of, and inform the public of, what's likely and what's possible to have intercepted by surveillance. No matter the outcome, that's useful information for everyone to have, so they can act accordingly.
unabridged 12y ago
I don't believe we can escape it. Surveillance technology becomes cheaper everyday, in the long term tiny automated drones with cameras will be cheaper than a steak from a real cow. Even if you limit the government's power, there will be private surveillance everywhere. Even if you stop companies in your country from making them, some other country will. Our only hope is to better align our laws with our beliefs. Removing victimless crimes like drug laws will redirect this mass surveillance machine toward violent criminals. Full transparency in the government will prevent government officials from using the surveillance for personal gain or to harm political opponents.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
e12e 12y ago
It's kind of funny when you think about DDR and the Stasi; the other super-power ran the other into the ground, and now that power is performing mass surveillance in place of the Stasi...

paulhauggis 12y ago

So many people have gotten fired from their job (and had careers/jobs ruined) over private communications that got leaked to the Internet in the last couple of years. Nobody even mentions the fact that their privacy was violated. They only care about the private conversation that got leaked (and of course, how the person needs to be punished). Anything you write on the Internet, even if it's just your personal beliefs, will come back to haunt you in the future no matter how innocent it seems like at the time. If it offends someone (and pretty much anything you write will offend someone), there is a chance you could have your livelihood taken away from you. I'm more concerned with this than any government surveillance. I'm fine with legalizing drugs. I'm not fine with the inability of me, as a business owner, to be able to fire someone for coming into my place of business under the influence. This is exactly what the CA proposed law wanted to allow a few years back.

Dylan16807 12y ago
>I'm not fine with the inability of me, as a business owner, to be able to fire someone for coming into my place of business under the influence. As a business are you currently less able to fire someone for being under the influence of marijuana than if they were under the influence of alcohol?
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  Yes. Especially when the advocates continue to say that the major use is medical. There is no medical alcohol.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    Ethanol is part of the treatment for methanol poisoning. That would be an acute care situation though, not something that would be a concern in the workplace.
  - GauntletWizard 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiseptic#Some_common_antiseptics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiseptic#Some_common_antisept... Ingested alcohol is less commonly used as a medical aid, but most every hospital uses alcohol on a daily basis.

tsotha 12y ago

It's interesting to note "money laundering" wasn't a crime until 1985. Before then you could legally move your own money around without notifying the government.