4 ms·

Government contracting is a very large and lucrative business. The surveillance programs are large data pipelines that require datacenters, computing, storage a

by iwwr 11y ago

Government contracting is a very large and lucrative business. The surveillance programs are large data pipelines that require datacenters, computing, storage and state-of-the-art analysis. Then, given the secret nature of the program, the bidding process is less strict as a matter of cost and hence more profitable.

logicallee 11y ago
if we were serious about the social benefit to having a failsafe black box that we can sometimes under extraordinary conditions retrieve intelligence from, then companies should be required to operate these programs (send data to that black box) without benefit, and over their protests, by law. they shouldn't be paid for it. it should be a burden. It should be like taxes - companies should hate the burden, and try to avoid it, but in the end do what it takes because society has said that it's necessary. companies should certainly not receive transfer payments from the public in exchange for spying on them. I mean think about it, this means you are LITERALLY paying taxes, to be transferred over to a company and returned to shareholders of a company, where that company has received the transfer... so that it can operate a special level of secrecy... in order not to tell you... that they are spying on you. Which you paid for. I mean I get that you're covering the cost of the equipment, but this is about EXTRA payment. I mean that is a level of absurdity that is beyond the pale. It is like handing a waitress a tip and saying, "this is for not telling me that you were spying on me." I mean, regardless of whether this creates a puzzled or a guilty look on her face, it is a pretty absurd transfer payment!! "Wait, what...you're paying me extra...NOT to tell you...that I'm spying on you?" - "Yep!! In my book, that's how you earn the big profit." Pretty absurd. You don't give companies profit for these programs. It's some burden they do out of civil responsibility and legal obligation, if at all. It's also why a for-profit police force is a pretty bad idea. Some things are best left to a minimal government mandate, and not these artificial market forces.
- LLWM 11y ago
  By the same reasoning, criminals literally pay the police to lock them up or shoot at them. Isn't that crazy????? No, that's how taxes work. You don't get to pick and choose which government functions to pay for.
  - tehwebguy 11y ago
    These examples are missing the point. A clearer example than the server / tip is jury duty. It's not profitable for almost anyone with a job but for the most part we are forced to participate.
    - logicallee 11y ago
      Yes, that's a good analogy. Most adults can see why being tried by a jury of your peers is an amazing difference between a modern democracy and fascism, so we "force" each other (ourselves) to participate, even though it isn't profitable, and we create a great public good as a result (a fairer system of laws, even if it isn't perfect. it's hard to want an alternative to a jury of your peers if you are being tried for some crime by the state.) So in the analogy, the companies that are spying for the NSA are like the people participating in jury duty - and (if we agree that there is a social good toward having the black box of intelligence available under extraordinary circumstances) should be "forced" to (or compensated extremely minimally for it), like jury duty. Being paid a windfall profit to do so would be as though people went out of their way to participate in jury duty, for personal profit. Obviously that would be a horrendous set of incentives for society. (i.e. creating legal cases just so people can participate in jury duty.) having it be a chore and "forced" on people (by the social contract) and to a minimal extent, is much better. (this is just assuming there is some social good to having this stuff be available at all, under extraordinary circumstances.)
  - logicallee 11y ago
    It would be crazy, if criminals obeyed all the other laws and paid their taxes responsibly, as well as voted and participated in representative democracy. Which is why they don't. Plus, to complete the analogy with our subject (which I mention explicitly) the police would have to be for-profit, which would be a terrible idea. But to answer your question, yes, it would absurd for criminals to vote in for-profit police that they choose to finance, and have shoot at them for profit. The difference is that the public aren't criminals, and are protected by minimum sane levels of black-box surveillance for their protection, which they pay for via taxes. It's not supposed to be some profit-making activity. it's not "against" the public. the public aren't criminals.

by iwwr 11y ago

logicallee 11y ago

if we were serious about the social benefit to having a failsafe black box that we can sometimes under extraordinary conditions retrieve intelligence from, then companies should be required to operate these programs (send data to that black box) without benefit, and over their protests, by law. they shouldn't be paid for it. it should be a burden. It should be like taxes - companies should hate the burden, and try to avoid it, but in the end do what it takes because society has said that it's necessary. companies should certainly not receive transfer payments from the public in exchange for spying on them. I mean think about it, this means you are LITERALLY paying taxes, to be transferred over to a company and returned to shareholders of a company, where that company has received the transfer... so that it can operate a special level of secrecy... in order not to tell you... that they are spying on you. Which you paid for. I mean I get that you're covering the cost of the equipment, but this is about EXTRA payment. I mean that is a level of absurdity that is beyond the pale. It is like handing a waitress a tip and saying, "this is for not telling me that you were spying on me." I mean, regardless of whether this creates a puzzled or a guilty look on her face, it is a pretty absurd transfer payment!! "Wait, what...you're paying me extra...NOT to tell you...that I'm spying on you?" - "Yep!! In my book, that's how you earn the big profit." Pretty absurd. You don't give companies profit for these programs. It's some burden they do out of civil responsibility and legal obligation, if at all. It's also why a for-profit police force is a pretty bad idea. Some things are best left to a minimal government mandate, and not these artificial market forces.

LLWM 11y ago
By the same reasoning, criminals literally pay the police to lock them up or shoot at them. Isn't that crazy????? No, that's how taxes work. You don't get to pick and choose which government functions to pay for.
- tehwebguy 11y ago
  These examples are missing the point. A clearer example than the server / tip is jury duty. It's not profitable for almost anyone with a job but for the most part we are forced to participate.
  - logicallee 11y ago
    Yes, that's a good analogy. Most adults can see why being tried by a jury of your peers is an amazing difference between a modern democracy and fascism, so we "force" each other (ourselves) to participate, even though it isn't profitable, and we create a great public good as a result (a fairer system of laws, even if it isn't perfect. it's hard to want an alternative to a jury of your peers if you are being tried for some crime by the state.) So in the analogy, the companies that are spying for the NSA are like the people participating in jury duty - and (if we agree that there is a social good toward having the black box of intelligence available under extraordinary circumstances) should be "forced" to (or compensated extremely minimally for it), like jury duty. Being paid a windfall profit to do so would be as though people went out of their way to participate in jury duty, for personal profit. Obviously that would be a horrendous set of incentives for society. (i.e. creating legal cases just so people can participate in jury duty.) having it be a chore and "forced" on people (by the social contract) and to a minimal extent, is much better. (this is just assuming there is some social good to having this stuff be available at all, under extraordinary circumstances.)
- logicallee 11y ago
  It would be crazy, if criminals obeyed all the other laws and paid their taxes responsibly, as well as voted and participated in representative democracy. Which is why they don't. Plus, to complete the analogy with our subject (which I mention explicitly) the police would have to be for-profit, which would be a terrible idea. But to answer your question, yes, it would absurd for criminals to vote in for-profit police that they choose to finance, and have shoot at them for profit. The difference is that the public aren't criminals, and are protected by minimum sane levels of black-box surveillance for their protection, which they pay for via taxes. It's not supposed to be some profit-making activity. it's not "against" the public. the public aren't criminals.