3 ms·

I've been watching season 1 of "The Blacklist" in the background while working over the weekend. Aside from being yet more terror porn, one of the interesting s

I've been watching season 1 of "The Blacklist" in the background while working over the weekend. Aside from being yet more terror porn, one of the interesting subplots had a rogue unit surveilling the FBI. The implication was clear: these bad guys are so cool and awesome that they can run their own surveillance! Against us! But really, not so much. If you really wanted to gather a whole bunch of secret data on what the government was doing? You wouldn't need to set up cameras and monitor everything. You wouldn't need some super-cool intercept site located in Virginia. The government has already done that for you. All you need to do is break in and scoop up data like every other subscriber is doing -- just like what happened with the recent breech at OPM. (Which, being the biggest heist in American intelligence history, is amazingly under-reported) As this article points out, people seem to lose sight of the fact that by putting all of our eggs in one basket, we just make it easier for somebody to rob us of all of our eggs. Backdoors are a horrible idea. I agree with the author here that the reasoning displayed on these editorial pages is "breaktakingly stupid" Aside from the fact that the security state is destroying the republic, there are some seriously ignorant people making broad decisions about a lot of things they should just stay away from.

realusername 11y ago
It's strange that you mentioned this series. I've watched the first season and halfway through the second and I never seen a TV show stuffed with so much clichés. Seriously, it must be financed with some political adgenda behind. Everything you can think of is there, the Russian mafia, the Ukrainian bomber, the German neo-nazi group, some psychopath trying to do a chemical attack... Every episode is like this. Anyway, to go back to the subject of the article, backdoors are always a stupid idea because there is no way to guarantee that the backdoor will not be used for other purpose. Recording so much data is also risky for the future. Who trusts their current government ? And who is going to trust the government they will have in 20 years ?.
- walshemj 11y ago
  If you have to fill 20/22 episodes of a spy show you do go through antagonists.
Sven7 11y ago
Well...its always going to be easy to say the leadership is stupid and backdoors are a horrible idea. What's hard to answer is how do you stop the next Boston marathon bomber. No good answers to that, which is why we see all kinds of partial solutions, with all their well known consequences getting deployed.
- DanielBMarkham 11y ago
  Yes. It's hard. But asking such questions without context is bullshit. We've had bombings and mass murders throughout our country's history. Hell, the country was founded on a tax revolt that ended up in a civil war (a huge chunk of folks weren't exactly happy with breaking with England) So when I look at all that bloodshed and lives lost, I really have to ask myself if a 9-11 every day wouldn't be better than giving up the freedom to be secure in our persons and papers that all of those folks in times past died for. So yes, there exists danger to the population for which a decrease in our way of life is not warranted. People will die. There will be much media coverage and yelling. But the real question isn't about the loss of life. The real question is whether or not a system of government that is designed around free and informed people electing representatives can survive a sustained attack built around getting people angry and afraid. You got me on that one. Perhaps single, 6 or 8-year presidential terms. Required rotation of the HoR with a 2 or 3 term limit? Going back to electing senators from state legislatures? Whatever the solution, it's going to involve a longer feedback loop between outrage and people voting. We also desperately need some group of people representing the system itself instead of the voters. That used to be the senate.
- mcphage 11y ago
  > What's hard to answer is how do you stop the next Boston marathon bomber. Not only how do you stop the next Boston marathon bomber—that's relatively simple. What's hard is stopping the next Boston marathon bomber without doing more damage to our country than the next Boston marathon bomber would do. And that's hard, because despite the loss of life, the Boston Marathon bomber didn't actually do much damage to our country.

realusername 11y ago

It's strange that you mentioned this series. I've watched the first season and halfway through the second and I never seen a TV show stuffed with so much clichés. Seriously, it must be financed with some political adgenda behind. Everything you can think of is there, the Russian mafia, the Ukrainian bomber, the German neo-nazi group, some psychopath trying to do a chemical attack... Every episode is like this. Anyway, to go back to the subject of the article, backdoors are always a stupid idea because there is no way to guarantee that the backdoor will not be used for other purpose. Recording so much data is also risky for the future. Who trusts their current government ? And who is going to trust the government they will have in 20 years ?.

walshemj 11y ago
If you have to fill 20/22 episodes of a spy show you do go through antagonists.

Sven7 11y ago

Well...its always going to be easy to say the leadership is stupid and backdoors are a horrible idea. What's hard to answer is how do you stop the next Boston marathon bomber. No good answers to that, which is why we see all kinds of partial solutions, with all their well known consequences getting deployed.

DanielBMarkham 11y ago
Yes. It's hard. But asking such questions without context is bullshit. We've had bombings and mass murders throughout our country's history. Hell, the country was founded on a tax revolt that ended up in a civil war (a huge chunk of folks weren't exactly happy with breaking with England) So when I look at all that bloodshed and lives lost, I really have to ask myself if a 9-11 every day wouldn't be better than giving up the freedom to be secure in our persons and papers that all of those folks in times past died for. So yes, there exists danger to the population for which a decrease in our way of life is not warranted. People will die. There will be much media coverage and yelling. But the real question isn't about the loss of life. The real question is whether or not a system of government that is designed around free and informed people electing representatives can survive a sustained attack built around getting people angry and afraid. You got me on that one. Perhaps single, 6 or 8-year presidential terms. Required rotation of the HoR with a 2 or 3 term limit? Going back to electing senators from state legislatures? Whatever the solution, it's going to involve a longer feedback loop between outrage and people voting. We also desperately need some group of people representing the system itself instead of the voters. That used to be the senate.
mcphage 11y ago
> What's hard to answer is how do you stop the next Boston marathon bomber. Not only how do you stop the next Boston marathon bomber—that's relatively simple. What's hard is stopping the next Boston marathon bomber without doing more damage to our country than the next Boston marathon bomber would do. And that's hard, because despite the loss of life, the Boston Marathon bomber didn't actually do much damage to our country.