Surveillance Works: How Do You Feel About It Now?

[russ_watters]

You've never had the "privilege" of TA-ing chem labs when there were a few Moslems in the class --- one hand on the chain to the safety shower at all times --- other on the first aid kit. "Dangerous?" Yes. A "threat?" No. Reid was "a joke" because Reid was a joke. Buncha religious nuts with copies of "the anarchists' cookbook?" Slapstick. Let 'em run loose on airliners making the other passengers ill as they turn themselves into "Phantoms of the Opera?" No. Was it a "sophisticated" plot? No. Did it take Sherlock Holmes to expose it? No. Could the "Keystone Kops" have spotted the idiots? Eehhh --- mebbe, mebbe not. Was it "good" police work, the kind of thing people are paid to do? Yeah. Is it outside the bounds of "habeas corpus?" Depends on how good their lawyers are. Should they be strung up? Yup. Will they be? Nope.

I think it is unwise to underestimate them. Al Qaeda is not just a bunch of dumb freshmen with a copy of the Anarchists' Cookbook.

 

[russ_watters]

And as long as...

I don't see how any of that is relevant here. All of that information in the links you provided is information the government must have to do its job. The only way for the government not to use that information is for it to cease doing its job. And you're not suggesting that it should, are you...? And assuming you are not saying that the IRS should pack up and leave town, doesn't that undermine your own argument?

If all you want to do is point out that government makes mistakes, I'll certainly grant you that, but that fact doesn't change the fact that it needs and is going to get all the information in your post - and shouldn't inhibit surveilance either. The logic for both is the same: once you decide whether or not the government needs the info, then the government needs the info - data security is a separate question that isn't relevant to whether or not the government needs the info.

At the very least, I will grant you that that is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed, though. Unlike the nebulous "Big Brother" fears that are the typical other objection (Hurkyl pointed out).

 

[russ_watters]

I have no problem with surveillance as long as it is done legally and according to the law. The intelligence, domestic and foreign, are doing their jobs.

What I have a problem with is when someone like the president (or any individual in government) uses government resources, e.g. FBI or NSA, to spy on people, US citizens or others, who are not involved in criminal or suspicious activity. McCarthy was an extreme example, and his un-American activities damaged or destroyed countless innocent people. Then remember Nixon's Whitehouse enemies list - Nixon used the FBI to spy on 'innocent' people who simply openly criticized his policies.

Aren't those two paragraphs separate issues and isn't the first one a tautology? The whole point here is debating what should and shouldn't be legal, so just saying that you have no problem with surveilance that is legal doesn't address that (except, perhaps, to say that you don't think the laws are too liberal on it right now).

Certainly, the use of such data for a personal vendetta is now and always was illegal. So how is that relevant here? Are you saying the increased amount of information will make it easier to do that? Same answer as to Bob: the possible abuse of such information is not relevant to the question of whether or not such information is necessary for the government to do its job. Data security is a certainly a concern, but it is a separate issue.

And clearly, as the McCarthy example shows, you don't need high tech modern surveilance to carry out a personal vendetta. Most of their good information was obtained by good, old fashioned intimidation in a Congressional sub-committee. Abuse of pretty much anything requires that someone be breaking the law (redundant). You can't outlaw something that can be abused just because it can be abused. Try the same logic on any number of consumer products - cars, guns, cigarettes, tobacco - it works the same for all of them.

What you have to do is adequately regulate things to minimize such risks. License drivers, have a minimum smoking/drinking age - and mandate and enforce proper procedures in government to reduce such risks in data security.

 

[Astronuc]

Aren't those two paragraphs separate issues and isn't the first one a tautology?

They are two separate issues, and no, the first is not a tautology, rather it provides context.

The whole point here is debating what should and shouldn't be legal, so just saying that you have no problem with surveilance that is legal doesn't address that (except, perhaps, to say that you don't think the laws are too liberal on it right now).

Certainly, the use of such data for a personal vendetta is now and always was illegal. So how is that relevant here? Are you saying the increased amount of information will make it easier to do that? Same answer as to Bob: the possible abuse of such information is not relevant to the question of whether or not such information is necessary for the government to do its job.

I was reflecting on the comment "the type of program which Democrats and civil-libertarian maximalists so fashionably decry lately", and the point that I was trying to convey is that most people, including myself, are not objecting to government surveillance, but rather inappropriate or illegal surveillance. Most reasonable people do recognize the threat of terrorism, and the therefore the need for the government to protect the population through effective and 'legal' surveillance. On the other hand, there are those who will object to any surveillance, even when it is justified, and I would agree that is a ridiculous position.


As for not understanding the desire for privacy, I don't understand the administration's desire for secrecy, except that they are trying to hide some activity which is potentially illegal.

There are reasons that we have a Constitution and Rule of Law, and one reason is to prevent abuse of power. Well, Bush has abused his power, and one manifestation of that is 'domestic surveillance without appropriate oversight'. The other abuses include misleading the country about the war in Iraq, and the denial of 'due process' to detainees at Guantanamo.

 

[alexandra]

My opinion on this issue is simply stated - but one of America's most prominant and respected 'founding fathers' says it much better than I ever could:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759" (cited online at http://www.quotegarden.com/freedom.html)

 

[Gokul43201]

Between the rhetoric and the strawmen, I failed to catch the argument in that article. But then, it's only an anonymous op-ed in the Washington Times!

 

[Bystander]

I think it is unwise to underestimate them. Al Qaeda is not just a bunch of dumb freshmen with a copy of the Anarchists' Cookbook.

Let's not overestimate them either.

The "magic" of guerilla warfare, or ski-masked gutless cowardice, is the appearance that a disproportionate effort is required to suppress a small band of hoodlums (hundred man-years per psychopath, if we take Robert Thompson's numbers). Compare this to the 3-10 man years per inflicted fatality in conventional wars --- looks inefficient, until we compare it to conventional law enforcement; how many man-years to nail Ted Kaczynski? Pablo Escobar? Moussaoui?

Would surveillance programs have prevented Oklahoma City? Who knows? "Horseshoe nail history" is a waste of time.

Is this a planned effort to divert resources into the least effective channel (conventional law enforcement)? We've got killing grounds in central Asia (A-stan), and SW Asia operating at the 100 man-year per nitwit rate --- they could actually be working well enough that the 10% who can actually see the world outside the Koran feel it's necessary to throw a few morons away in a diversion --- like you say, "Let's not underestimate them." Tactically, they're complete idiots --- strategically, there're several thousand years experience in Fabian strategy built into the culture.

 

[edward]

The additional burden of being buried under tons of bureaucratic tripe is only putting us futher behind the curve. The liquid explosive approach was first tried by terrorists in 1995. So what did Homeland Security do after 911? They took away our nail clippers. After an attempted shoe bombing they started searching shoes.

We are throwing money at a problem that is not necessarily going to be solved unless that money is more wisely spent. The article below concerns wise money that was not spent at all.

Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.

The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.

The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/terror_explosives_detection

 

[SOS2008]

The additional burden of being buried under tons of bureaucratic tripe is only putting us futher behind the curve. The liquid explosive approach was first tried by terrorists in 1995. So what did Homeland Security do after 911? They took away our nail clippers. After an attempted shoe bombing they started searching shoes.

We are throwing money at a problem that is not necessarily going to be solved unless that money is more wisely spent. The article below concerns wise money that was not spent at all.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/terror_explosives_detection

That's because the Bush administration is only concerned about terrorism in so far as containing it and/or exploiting it to gain/retain power. For example, Bush justified the invasion of Iraq stating that by taking the war "over there," we would be safer here. This in contrast to recent remarks that:

"We've taken a lot of measures to protect the American people," President Bush said Thursday. "But obviously we're still not completely safe."

Which better reflects the reality, with exception of his assertion that "a lot of measures" have been taken to protect Americans. This would be a laugh if it wasn't such a serious matter. Finally liquids are being banned, though electronics still are allowed as carry-ons, and only 10% of the cargo is screened.

Aside from points already made regarding neglect of obvious safe guards (e.g., securing the border), Bush's warrant-less surveillance program is just another Watergate guise to spy on the opposition for personal strategic intelligence. Assuming this surveillance is effective in combating terrorism (though majority consensus is that it's not), why, oh why would any sane American support such activity without checks and balances via substantial oversight?

As for the Bush administration's track record on spending and managing the tax-payer's money wisely, that is even more pitiful. Iraq alone is a financial fiasco that will haunt us for generations.

 

[edward]

The current so called sophisticated NSA system didn't even catch this:

SEATTLE -- Nine people have been arrested following a two-year investigation into an international sex-trafficking ring involving smuggling Asian women into the U.S. in shipping containers, authorities said.

The U.S. attorney's office in Seattle said the "highly organized national network prostitution ring" illegally brought women to the U.S. from China, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan and Laos

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/World/2006/08/12/1751058-sun.html

Most anything could have been in those containers.
Some day the administration will have to look at something besides airplanes. But you got to admit, airplanes rate a high score on the continuing fear factor agenda which the administrtion thrives on.

 

[Manchot]

I have never been against surveillance or record gathering, I have nothing to hide and do not suffer from paranoia that the govermenment would give a hairy rats @ss what I'm doing. We live in dangerous times. There are nuts out there and we have to give the people we pay to protect us the ability to protect us.

I flat-out don't understand people's desire for privacy. If it helps the FBI catch a criminal, they can have at my phone lines, bank records, whatever. As long as the use of the information is legit, there is no harm in the gathering of it.

I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread. To all of those who are for widescale surveillance: do you realize that what you're describing is a core aspect of fascism? Human nature makes it impossible for widescale surveillance to not be abused by those in power. It's one of those things that looks good on paper (e.g., communism) but then ultimately fails because people are in the mix.

We live in dangerous times.

Actually, we live in the safest times in human history (despite what some would have you believe). We don't have to worry about getting eaten by wild animals (which we did in most of our history), about getting invaded by another country (at least in the US), or about ending the world through nuclear war. Probably the two most dangerous things right now are North Korea and Iran, neither of which are doing anything that could be prevented by domestic surveillance. Terrorists are pretty low on the list. Hell, far more people have been killed in car accidents than by terrorists since the Cold War ended. If we'd sunk billions of dollars into cars that drive themselves, we'd have saved more lives and made that money back by doing away with millions of hours of wasted time spent in traffic. Terrorism is just a convenient distraction to increase the executive branch's power.

I'm not one to repeat a cliche, but if we allow the US to become a fascist state, then the Islamofascist terrorists have won.

 

[Hurkyl]

do you realize that what you're describing is a core aspect of fascism?

Fallacy: guilt by association.

Human nature makes it impossible for widescale surveillance to not be abused by those in power.

Even if you're right, so what?

We get along fine with lots of things that can be abused, and arguably better than without those things. (Governments, for example)

It's one of those things that looks good on paper (e.g., communism) but then ultimately fails because people are in the mix.

Two things:

(1) Can give reasons why you think that's true?
(2) Can you argue that it's better than the alternative?

If you cannot answer those questions, then your opinion really doesn't have any weight at all.

 

[Gokul43201]

If unchecked surveillance was in the best interests of the people, we wouldn't have the need for subpoenas, warrants, "probable cause" or the FISA court. Heck, even Arlen Specter sees it necessary to go out of the way to fix the NSA Wiretapping Program in order to give it an semblance of legality!

 

[Manchot]

Fallacy: guilt by association.

Ok, I didn't want to get into this (because it's arguing not against the idea but against a group of people), but let's associate those politicians arguing for widescale surveillance (specifically, Bush) with some other fascist ideologies: strong nationalistic tendencies, the rallying of large group of people around a fear of a small group (specifically, terrorists and gay people who want to get married), spending large amounts of money that the government doesn't have, and so on. Obviously, this isn't a valid argument against surveillance, but removing privacy can still cause the destruction of the Bill of Rights. Once you remove the Constitutional right to privacy, some unscrupulous feds (and they do exist, believe it or not) might start to think, "Hey, if we spy on the New York Times, we can probably put pressure on them to not run certain stories." Then, before you know it, journalism has to be approved by the government before they can be released, and freedom of speech is dead.

Two things:

(1) Can give reasons why you think that's true?
(2) Can you argue that it's better than the alternative?

Well, I'll assume that you agree that widescale surveillance looks good on paper. If those in power have the appropriate oversight and are reasonable in their zeal to catch criminals / terrorists, without invading the privacy of innocent Americans, then I would see no problem with that. However, history has shown us that people in authority can and do abuse their power.

As you mentioned, we have lots of things that could be abused but are better than the alternative. Nevertheless, what you neglected to mention is that the only instances where this doesn't occur is when there is a large system of checks and balances in place. By instituting secret surveillance programs that answer only to one person, we would be practically begging to get taken advantage of. We should strive to have a transparent government, not a transparent populace. The key difference between a democratic form of government and a totalitarian form is that in the former, the government represents the people, while in the latter, the people represent the government.

The way I see it, there are two options. Increasing surveillance only results in marginal gains in safety. If there are people who want you dead and will commit suicide to do so, they will find a way. It's impossible to stop them all. You can continue to increase surveillance until you no longer have a democratic form of government. On the other hand, you can accept the idea that there are a lot of ways to die, and terrorism is not even close to being a major item on that list. To quote many people, "Freedom isn't free." The small chance of getting killed by an extremist is the price you have to pay to live in a free country.

 

[Bystander]

Okay --- this ain't going anywhere --- let's rephrase: "Given the point of the OP that analysis of information is useful for prevention of criminal activity, and the Constitutional protection from 'unreasonable search and seizure,' plus assorted SCOTUS decisions placing peoples' garbage in the public domain, fingerprints left at scenes of crimes (very personal item), restrictions on 'discovery' in legal proceedings, What are the boundaries of an inviolate personal domain?" Or, "What is public domain?"

Air is public domain --- I can't smoke up something you might breathe; em radiation is public domain --- I can claim copyright to broadcast material and sue you if you record, reproduce, or otherwise profit financially from my broadcasts without my permission, but cannot otherwise restrict your use of the broadcast; tax records, soc. sec. #, licenses, transcripts are all public domain, and establish my identity and existence --- I can sue the alma mater for peddling my name to insurance companies, realtors, and other frauds for institutional profit (particularly when they charge me a fortune for transmitting records for my purposes); lot of custom and precedent on the topic.

"Due diligence" is the term the bloodsuckers use; you, personally, are required/expected to take "all reasonable care" to secure your personal, and private, belongings (this is the basis of "make my day" laws), and personal, and private, communications.

Were I a betting man, and had to bet on whether the "defenders of the Constitution" squawking about surveillance were also squawking about "make my day," I'd have to put my money on their being somewhat hypocritical --- that they defend the Constitution when it's convenient for a particular political agenda. "Due diligence" does include "taking care" of identifiable threats (terrorists) in whatever way is available or appropriate to the threats. If that entails collection and analysis of information flying through the air em-style, magnetic fields oscillating around unshielded telephone lines, and other such things, so be it. As I've said earlier, it's the most labor intensive approach --- I'd prefer the more efficient methods.

 

[edward]

If we are talking of due dilligence and security money well spent. We are once again behind the curve, when it come to tracing possible terrorists.

Trakfones, a prepaid disposable cellphone, have been purched in large numbers in this country. They are inexpensive and can be used once and thrown away. This was first announced by ABC news in Janurary. The first known terrorist use of tracfones was in the Madrid train bombings in March of 2004. These phones are noted to be non traceable.

Currently the phones can be purchased for cash in The U.S. and no ID is required.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1499905
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060813/1068981.asp

Again I mention my concern that the NSA is so wrapped up in the tons of
data that they are gathering through high tech, that they are not seeing the obvious.

 

[Hurkyl]

let's associate those politicians arguing for widescale surveillance (specifically, Bush) with some other fascist ideologies: strong nationalistic tendencies, the rallying of large group of people around a fear of a small group (specifically, terrorists and gay people who want to get married), spending large amounts of money that the government doesn't have, and so on. Obviously, this isn't a valid argument against surveillance

Fallacy: guilt by association. (And I didn't know "spending large amounts of money that the government doesn't have" was a tenet of Facism)

If you know it's not a valid argument, then why do you present it anyways?

but removing privacy can still cause the destruction of the Bill of Rights.

"can" is not synonymous with "will".

And don't forget that a lot of surveillance gathers public information, and so by definition cannot infringe on your privacy.

Once you remove the Constitutional right to privacy, some unscrupulous feds (and they do exist, believe it or not) might start to think, "Hey, if we spy on the New York Times, we can probably put pressure on them to not run certain stories." Then, before you know it, journalism has to be approved by the government before they can be released, and freedom of speech is dead.

Yay, a fantastic story, with absolutely no reason to believe in it!

Well, I'll assume that you agree that widescale surveillance looks good on paper.

Well, no. Widescale surveillance is a tool, and is inherently neither good nor bad.

Increasing surveillance only results in marginal gains in safety. If there are people who want you dead and will commit suicide to do so, they will find a way.

That's not the only thing surveillance is good for.

You can continue to increase surveillance until you no longer have a democratic form of government.

This makes no sense.

On the other hand, you can accept the idea that there are a lot of ways to die, and terrorism is not even close to being a major item on that list.

But, of course, it will quickly move up the list if nothing is done to curb it.

To quote many people, "Freedom isn't free." The small chance of getting killed by an extremist is the price you have to pay to live in a free country.

Loss of life isn't the only cost of extremism.

And, oddly, your interpretation of the quote is in exactly the opposite direction from how I would have interpreted it. I see you interpreted it as:

The price of freedom is that others' freedoms may kill us.

whereas I would have interpreted it as

We cannot have our freedoms unless we pay to protect them.

Just goes to show you that soundbites aren't very useful in arguments.

 

[SOS2008]

"can" is not synonymous with "will"

All you have to do is look at history to see that it is "will."

Why not be in favor of checks and balances? Why must anyone lose either freedom or security? If you want to talk about being safe, that means playing it safe and taking measures to prevent possible abuse of power, perhaps more than using every means available for security (and since when is "every means" necessary or therefore good, let alone effective?). Do you accept scientific theories at face value, or for that matter anything at face value? Why would you make an exception and "just trust" Bush (or any other leader in our government)?

If you want to preserve democracy and freedom - Question Authority.

 

[Hurkyl]

Why not be in favor of checks and balances?

Indeed. IMHO this sort of thing is where the discussion should be. Unfortunately, I won't have much to say, but it would be interesting to read. However, it's easy to criticize the fearmongering.

 

[Rach3]

Two things:

(1) Can give reasons why you think that's true?

I think it's almost tautological - if you give a powerful (hence vulnerable) politician the ability to spy on his constituents and opponents without due oversight, he will abuse this power to protect himself. Look at what Nixon did, or better yet look at the old fasicst and Stalinist governments and how secret intelligence was invariably used to against poltical opposition. That our legal system restrics and controls this kind of information-gathering is a core strength of our government, that kept Nixon from doing Watergates twice a day.

(2) Can you argue that it's better than the alternative?

I have yet to hear a compelling argument that retroactively approved, secret FISA warrants in place since the 70's are a hindrance to intelligence gathering. Removing judicial oversight does nothing to benefit intelligence, it merely allows for illegal abuses to go unchecked.

 

[Rach3]

By the way, I have not seen any indication that the intelligence involved this week was in any was, or necessitated, an secret extrajudicial process. It seems that most discussion either assumes things one way or the other, or worse yet fails to make this crucial distinction.

 

[Hurkyl]

Rach3: You seem to have missed the fact I'm replying to:

Human nature makes it impossible for widescale surveillance to not be abused by those in power.

and not

Human nature makes it impossible for widescale surveillance without due oversight to not be abused by those in power.

 

[edward]

By the way, I have not seen any indication that the intelligence involved this week was in any was, or necessitated, an secret extrajudicial process. It seems that most discussion either assumes things one way or the other, or worse yet fails to make this crucial distinction.

Nothing that happened this week involved the secretive intelligence community. It was all done by the Brits and their intel doesn't use our ridiculous questionable methods.

Our all encompassing highly secret NSA high tech surveillance didn't even pick up on the fact that Islamics in the USA have been buying thousands of tracfones. see post 51 above.

My point of view in this thread is not the legality of the Bush secret surveillance, but rather, is it even working? It is inexcusable that they apparently were not aware of the blasted tracfones. Local police busted that operation.

For that matter the whole system, including the Departments of Homeland and Transportation Security are being run by a bunch of people who's experience is primarily in management. The recent restrictions in airports are ludicrous. They are taking away gel filled baby pacifiers for gods sake. I hardly think that a blond haired blue eyed mom and her baby are going to be a high risk!

They are parroting what the British have done by totally concentrating on liquids and gels. In the meantime something simple and widely available, like Calcium Carbide for instance , could slip through their search for liquids.

 

[Evo]

Nothing that happened this week involved the secretive intelligence community. It was all done by the Brits and their intel doesn't use our ridiculous questionable methods.

Actually it was thanks to Palestinian intelligence. You do know that the brits even photographically track their citizen's whereabouts? Read this if you think the US invades their citizen's privacy. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104844

 

[daveb]

I hardly think that a blond haired blue eyed mom and her baby are going to be a high risk!

I agree with you on that point, but at the other extreme, the authorities can't profile just those that look like they are middle eastern descent. Then the extreme left will cry out that the system is inherently prejudicial against a certain group. I think the reason they apply a blanket standard, even to the blonde-haired blue-eyed mom, is to prevent exactly that kind of backlash.

 

[slugcountry]

After the news yesterday of British, Pakistani and US surveillance thwarting a terrorist plot that would have killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children. How do you feel about surveillance now?

Here is a good op-ed piece that basically recaps what happened and also reminds us of the thwarted attacks in Toronto two months ago thanks to surveillance.

I have never been against surveillance or record gathering, I have nothing to hide and do not suffer from paranoia that the govermenment would give a hairy rats @ss what I'm doing. We live in dangerous times. There are nuts out there and we have to give the people we pay to protect us the ability to protect us.

Do you think the government should not have used surveillance and the death of thousands of innocents is acceptable because we have a right to our privacy and a few thousands deaths now and then is just the price we have to pay?

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060810-084233-1883r.htm

I recommend you check out The Soft Cage by Parenti.

 

[edward]

Actually it was thanks to Palestinian intelligence. You do know that the brits even photographically track their citizen's whereabouts? Read this if you think the US invades their citizen's privacy. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104844

The Brits are using a battery powered microchip attached to the plate, supposedly for determining traffic flow and road costs. According to the link below the experimental stage of this program started in August 05.

It was initiated by their Transportation department and they did tell their citizens about it up front. We use the same system here for those who use toll roads frequently. We also have a zillion traffic cams, some of them even issue speeding tickets.
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,68429,00.html

Edit: opps I originally couldn't get the link in the forum OP to work. It appears that the Brits are using traffic cams as well.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/vehicle_trackin.html

So what happens if the bad guys take a bus?

 

[edward]

I just realized that, according to the links, British security didn't bother to talk to their Director of Transportation. How typical.

 

[Mickey]

There is so much information out there that no human or small group of humans can possibly know it all. The privacy issues of surveillance are mitigated by the fact the no one ever sees most of the information that's out there. It's stored and organized by computer programs, tailored to bring information to the attention of human operators that meets their specified conditions.

In other words, you're invisible if no one's looking for you. We just need to make sure that the people in power look for the right people.

 

[edward]

There is so much information out there that no human or small group of humans can possibly know it all.

That is why the NSA outsources the data processing to ? uhh secret helpers.

We just need to make sure that the people in power look for the right people.

That is the big problem with the current system. We aren't involved in the equation, nor is congress or the FISA courts.

I am not as worried about the privacy issue as I am about the possiblility that with all that data, someone will drop the ball.
Rememer, we had all the information we needed to stop 911. That information never got to the right people.

 

[Manchot]

Fallacy: guilt by association. (And I didn't know "spending large amounts of money that the government doesn't have" was a tenet of Facism)

If you know it's not a valid argument, then why do you present it anyways?

In retrospect, I'm claiming that guilt by association is perfectly agreeable in this case. Why? Anyone in power with fascist-like tendencies will seize upon surveillance networks and abuse them, regardless of any checks or balances. On the other hand, someone with civil libertarian tendencies will show much respect to the checks and balances in place. In the end, who gets the upper hand?

"can" is not synonymous with "will".

Isn't it? I think Murphy's Law very much applies here. Again, regardless of any checks and balances, people as powerful as the president can and do get away with breaking the law. (For example, here we are nine months after the NSA wiretapping debacle story broke, and there has been no court case confirming whether the president's actions were illegal or not. Most legal experts do not think it was legal, and here we are.)

And don't forget that a lot of surveillance gathers public information, and so by definition cannot infringe on your privacy.

You've oversimplified what "public information" and "private information" are. There are two types of privacy, privacy that results because something cannot be known by others, and privacy that comes from the difficulty with which it is to track a particular anonymous person's actions. Much of what you just referred to as "public information" would fall under the umbrella of the second kind of private information, and is no less private. For example, two people arguing in their living room might, by some people's definitions, be "public" since they are technically broadcasting light and sound to the outside world through a window whose glass vibrates with the sound and also transmits light. Also, when you venture out into the public world outside your home, you still enjoy privacy. Sure, various buildings might have security cameras that can track your moves, but because they're not networked, no one can easily track anyone person. Now, suppose that you implement a retinal scanning system and network all of the cameras together. Suddenly you've lost that privacy, because it is now easy for someone to track you. What has always been technically public information is being used to infringe upon your privacy.

That's not the only thing surveillance is good for.

Ok, so you increase surveillance to get marginal gains in safety from criminals as well as terrorists. Great.

This makes no sense.

If there were security cameras placed in every room of every home in the country, could you have a democratic government? I sincerely doubt it.

But, of course, it will quickly move up the list if nothing is done to curb it.

You've confused "nothing more" with "nothing." I'm claiming that the FBI, CIA, and NSA already have all the tools they need to prevent a substantial amount of terrorism, and that increasing their power can only harm us. I never said that nothing should be done to curb it, just that the status quo is fine.

And, oddly, your interpretation of the quote is in exactly the opposite direction from how I would have interpreted it. I see you interpreted it as:

The price of freedom is that others' freedoms may kill us.

Except that's not how I interpreted it. I interpreted it as meaning that complete security and complete freedom are mutually exclusive ideas, so that you cannot have both.

 

[Hurkyl]

The point by point is giving me a headache. Hopefully I'll get my reply reorganized before anyone responds to it. (And hopefully it will be more cohesive)


The right question to ask is almost never "Is there any bad?", but "Does the good outweigh the bad?"

Manchot: I'm going to assume that the thrust of your posts is to reject mass surveillance. (I don't think you've actually said it explicitly)

The problem I have with your posts is that your intent never seems to be to argue that the good outweighs the bad... but instead to overwhelm the reader with fear of mass surveillance. In other words, you're making a fallacious appeal to emotion.

I'm claiming that ... increasing their power can only harm us.

You've finally made an itty-bitty nod towards the question if the good outweights the bad. It would be great if you could center your argument around this.

(Incidentally, no matter now much bad you think will come of it, do you really think that not one iota of good could come out of mass surveillance? Avoiding hyperbole like this would also be a good thing)


Another thing on this is that your posts are phrased as if you're talking about the very concept of mass surveillance, but sometimes it sounds as if you're actually discussing something more specific. Could you clarify for me?



The other thing is that you are not talking about privacy, but are talking about obscurity. And "security through obscurity" is known to be a flawed concept (at least in computer-land). (and, AFAIK, there are no legal protections for obscurity)



Bleh, I have more to say, but can't figure out how to say it yet. Maybe I'll post it later.

 

[Duncan]

Mass surveillance - Not Needed

Not really sure what the thread is about, simply because serveillance is obviously needed. Mass surveillance is a different matter, this page has some interesting points.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/legal-surveillance-not-illegal.html"

If there a few hundred terriosts in a country of millions, how much mass surveillance do you think you will need to have a chance to catch even one? How many false positives would result?

 

[edward]

OMG how, talk about over reacting.

F-15s escort airliner to Boston after incident with passenger
By Brooke Donald
Associated Press

BOSTON — Fighter jets escorted a London-to-Washington, D.C., flight to Boston’s Logan airport Wednesday after the pilot declared an emergency because an apparently claustrophobic passenger caused a disturbance, federal officials said.

The federal security official for Logan said there was no indication of terrorism and denied reports that the woman had a screw driver, matches and a note referring to al-Qaida.

Passengers were taken off the plane and loaded onto a bus, and Naccara said the passengers were being interviewed. Their luggage was spread out on the tarmac, where it was rechecked by security officials and trained dogs

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2038857.php

A zanax tablet (antianxiety drug) costs about 25 cents, and probably would have solved the problem. It did turn out that the woman had a jar of vasoline and three cigarette lighters in her carry on luggage. Those should have been removed by security at Heathrow.

Throughout the day the news media made frequent references to the nonexistant screwdriver and al-Qaida note.

How totally bizarre our society has become.

 

[Skyhunter]

Isn't it? I think Murphy's Law very much applies here. Again, regardless of any checks and balances, people as powerful as the president can and do get away with breaking the law. (For example, here we are nine months after the NSA wiretapping debacle story broke, and there has been no court case confirming whether the president's actions were illegal or not. Most legal experts do not think it was legal, and here we are.)

Well that has finally changed.

Here is the most recent ruling.

http://news.com.com/Federal+judge+o...ogram/2100-1036_3-6106772.html?tag=st.ref.goo

The terrorist surveillance program violates the First Amendment's right to freedom of expression and the Fourth Amendment right to privacy--that is, freedom from unreasonable searches, ruled Taylor, who was appointed by President Carter in 1979. It also ignores requirements of a 1978 electronic wiretapping law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and represents an overstepping of presidential powers, Taylor wrote.

"There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," the judge wrote, dismissing the Bush administration's argument that the warrantless program falls within the president's inherent wartime powers as commander-in-chief.

I would have no problem with more aggressive surveilance programs, as long as they were effective, and with the proper oversight. I have no confidence that the current administration is capable of either. And the last person in the world that should have that kind of power is Dick "Shooter" Cheney.