3 ms·
I know some people don't want to even think about it, but just as a thought exercise; where does the limit lie? How much and how long does society go on nicely
by wahsd 12y ago
I know some people don't want to even think about it, but just as a thought exercise; where does the limit lie?
How much and how long does society go on nicely asking the government to stop thrusting itself down the slope? Do we just keep asking and asking while things get worse and worse and the next generation that is born into blanket state surveillance sees nothing wrong with the situation?
I get that there are civil remedies like the subject one, along with judicial methods, and even electoral ones. But it also seems that there is a distinct process in place that effectively shields and converts, or generally simply disconnects legislative representation from the will of the people. How much does it matter that those who oppose blanket surveillance make up an inconsequential minority among the established legislators that have political or financial reasons to oppose what society wants, or simply have been scared by boogiemen that various agencies heavily lean on in order to justify their existence and funding.
Also, what happens when the will of the people, for whatever reason lacks the foresight to prevent unintended consequences of irreversible actions or decisions by, e.g., constantly electing people that will only perpetuate the surveillance state we currently live in?
I'm simply asking the question of anyone, where they think the line currently is or will be drawn? It seems that examples in human history abound of philosophical boundaries constantly being pushed back, all the while the position becomes ever increasingly overbearing and draconian and authoritarian.
Have there been any efforts to establish what it is that the founders of this country would have established as the final line in the sand? I don't know, and maybe it's just a misinterpretation, but it seems that the very most fundamental and core concepts of our country and society were violated a long enough time ago to have reasonably expected remediation by now.
- mhurron 12y ago> How much and how long does society go on nicely asking the government to stop thrusting itself down the slope? First ask how much of society has an issue with the direction. Then you can ask how far they'll go.
- snowwrestler 12y agoIf you want to understand why the Congress does what it does, you have to first accept that they are addressing the desires of large portions of the population. When it seems like they are not, it's because many of the desires of the population are directly conflicting. For example, people want very low-cost energy, but people also want a clean environment and to fight global warming. Or, people want the freedom to own their own guns, but they are horrified by mass shootings like Sandy Hook Elementary. Or, people want planes to never ever crash for any reason, but people also hate any security inconvenience at airports. In the case of privacy, people want their data to be secure, and they want to keep the bad guys out of our companies. Even here on HN, look at the reactions to news of major hacks. The reaction is 100% negative. No one says "eh, that company was probably doing everything right, and just got unlucky." No, the prevailing opinion is "those idiots need to get better at security." The thing is, there is no possible way for a company to get better at security without transacting information in some way. Cutting-edge exploits must be shared to be understood and mitigated. You can't do that without sharing information. The EFF does not even discuss this, which is fine, because that's not really their job. Their job is to fight against a bad bill. But we should not make the mistake of thinking that no one wants the government to help with cybersecurity. Actually most companies DO want that, and indirectly, their customers and employees do too.