# Are you OK with a real life "Eye of Sauron" for mass surveillance? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 28, 2015, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739 "2015-06-28T22:39:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/242 "2015-07-14T00:54:54Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Unlikely that anyone will use this tool for such a thing as there would be logging and tracking withing the system. That does not square with experience. For example, one of the many bits of dirty NSA laundry that has come to light is “LOVEINT” – personnel using their surveillance tools to spy on significant others. Now, stalking is a crime, so one would assume that if the world worked as you rather Pollyannishly assume, these people would be in prison. Nope – at most, they got a few slap-on-the-wrist administrative “punishments” like being transferred to another diocese, er, department. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/243 "2015-07-14T00:55:04Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > . . . As a thought experiment, if we required every person to have a GPS tracker on their cars at all times and kept a record of all movements (for the sake of arbument, a warrant would be required to pull the data), that might be a better comparison. However, I would still say that was _less_ intrusive because people do things in public, outside of their cars, that the GPS couldn’t track but SkyEye could. . . . There was some talk of recording the mileage of cars, in California, for licensing and registration purposes. If someone only drove a few miles in a year, he’d pay less than someone who drove 10,000 miles in the same year. This was roundly shouted down as an intolerable intrusion into the privacy of every Californian driver. We refused even the idea of allowing the monitoring of the distance we drive. The monitoring of our every destination would be that much less tolerable! ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/244 "2015-07-14T00:58:51Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > And what about the statutes of limitations? What if someone was a prostitute this time last year, but now has turned their life around, then we decide to do a crackdown? This could easily controlled: Skyeye data is only kept for 90 days. It would be inadmissible in court if it was older. > [@Smartass](#): > > Imagine what a tool it could be for Drug Warriors (and how the whole thing would escalate when the drug dealers inevitably fight back)… I think this is your weakest argument: don’t use a crime-solving tool because the drug dealers might fight back? An argument could be made that it will _lower_ the drug arrests. Currently users are arrested more often than dealers because they are easier to catch. What if it became easier to find the dealers and they can busted instead? ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/245 "2015-07-14T01:43:20Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > This could easily controlled: Skyeye data is only kept for 90 days. It would be inadmissible in court if it was older. I missed that part of the legislation enacting SkyEye…how do we make sure the data isn’t kept longer? > [@Deeg](#): > > I think this is your weakest argument: don’t use a crime-solving tool because the drug dealers might fight back? Sorry, I wasn’t really trying to develop an argument…about given up on that idea in this thread, since the key points of the arguments keep being ignored. At this point, I think I may be just stubbornly refusing to let **Uzi** have the last word–because he doesn’t deserve to get it by flinging strawmen around… In my opinion, the Drug War has been a losing proposition for the same reason that Prohibition was: There are too many otherwise law-abiding citizens who want to smoke pot, or snort coke, or rave on X, etc. Catching drug dealers has never worked because there’s always enough demand to “pull” in those willing to supply it. The Drug War merely guarantees profits to criminals. So, unless we choose to become a police state (which I think **Uzi** would support), the Drug War is unwinnable. But something like SkyEye could be used to escalate the conflict. On both sides. When we first declared “war” on drugs, I think it was rhetorical. In my opinion, this would be one more way of it becoming the real thing. Having said all that, I agree that there are stronger arguments to be made: I just was surprised to realize that no one had broached the general subject of “bad laws” in this thread. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/246 "2015-07-14T02:50:11Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > . . . Sorry, I wasn’t really trying to develop an argument…about given up on that idea in this thread, since the key points of the arguments keep being ignored. At this point, I think I may be just stubbornly refusing to let **Uzi** have the last word–because he doesn’t deserve to get it by flinging strawmen around… . . . What bums me the most is that an argument close to his could be constructed that was reasonable and rational. It’s sad how damn close he has come to a valid point, while still missing the bull’s eye entirely. David Brin, science fiction writer and real scientist, is currently assembling an anthology of stories dealing with a totally open society, a possible future where everyone can see everyone, pretty much all the time. (My literature prof is the editor!) Total surveillance really does have certain advantages, and **Uzi** is right that stopping crime would be one of them. Brin deals with that, and a number of other issues. It will be interesting to see how the various stories in the anthology balance out. Will there be at least one token “Shit, this is a dystopia!” cautionary tale? I can’t imagine the anthology would be balanced without one. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/247 "2015-07-14T04:50:09Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > I missed that part of the legislation enacting SkyEye…how do we make sure the data isn’t kept longer? In the Akron pilot they mentioned that the data is kept for only 90 days. How do we ensure they don’t keep it longer? Well, how do we ensure that suspects are read their Miranda Rights? How do we ensure that cops get warrants before entering a home? We (or rather the judges) generally throw out evidence that wasn’t gathered legally/correctly. It seems to largely work. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/248 "2015-07-14T06:01:52Z")
Some decades ago, in Los Angeles, the police formed a special Intelligence unit, to collect dossiers on suspected gang members. The courts told them to knock it off, and ordered the destruction of the records. One policemen flouted the ruling and took all the records home with him, and stored them in his garage. He got caught out, and there was a nasty legal come-back. So, we have at least that much precedent: the police cannot always be trusted to dispose of data collected on the populace, even when the law requires it. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/249 "2015-07-14T06:14:40Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Say a police dude comes to your house while you (and your wife, kids, etc…) are at work. Rifles through your paperwork, peers inside all your drawers, copies your hard drives etcetera, then leaves everything exactly the way it was before leaving. When you come home, you have no idea anyone was ever there. Assume, for the sake of the hypothetical, that they were wearing full-body NBC suits and also were trained ninjas, such that you can not even get trace evidence of their passing. > > Was that a search ? If not, why not ? Say a chef in a restaurant pisses in your soup, but adjusts the seasoning so you can’t taste it, and also brings it to the boil so you won’t catch anything nasty. You’ve absolutely no way to tell that you’re consuming another man’s urine. Is that OK? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/250 "2015-07-14T08:05:12Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Lots of people have been murdered, and the murder successfully made to appear as an accident. Nobody even knows, save the murderer alone. > > Were these murders? > > In objective terms, yes: the successful secret search is a search, and the successful disguised murder is a murder. > > In practical terms, it doesn’t matter what you call it. The perpetrator got away with it. > > You’re asking the classical “a tree falls in the forest” question. It isn’t answerable, and thus isn’t particularly useful to us. You’re missing the point I was trying to make, which is that a search is a search is a search, even if you don’t or can’t know it happened. And, as such, requires a warrant. [QUOTE=Yog Sosoth] But I don’t think the analogy works because the Eye would be looking in public areas. [/QUOTE] So ? The GPS also “looks” in public areas. Public is not the antithesis of search. Again, my point is that such a search requires a warrant. Since you can’t issue a blanket warrant for the entire city in perpetuity, the Eye of Sauron is unusable. [QUOTE=Mangetout] Say a chef in a restaurant pisses in your soup, but adjusts the seasoning so you can’t taste it, and also brings it to the boil so you won’t catch anything nasty. You’ve absolutely no way to tell that you’re consuming another man’s urine. Is that OK? [/QUOTE] Obviously not. Boiling soup ? What kind of unwashed Visigoth would do that ?! ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/251 "2015-07-14T09:16:36Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > Been kinda focused on convincing you that there ARE drawbacks. See, if you would be willing to acknowledge ANYTHING from the other side, the conversation might move forward, as opposed to being stuck in a rut of you giving me my daily admonition not to cheat on my wife if I don’t want to get caught. OMG. Of course, I would not like to have people watching me all the time when I am outside my home. The nuisance of it is minor even when thought of, though. I’m interested in why people think it worse than it actually is. > [@](#): > > In terms of missing people, we don’t even know there IS a victim. You are joking, right? We know someone has reported a person missing. Normally a report like that doesn’t occur is this was normal behavior for that person. You have no way of knowing the reason the person is gone. > [@](#): > > Since I don’t have the authority to do that, can we talk about whether the SkyEye thing is a good idea if we fail to follow your good advice? Because all of my arguments are based on the actual USA I currently live in, not the theoretical one you are positing, with a modified government structure. Typical. Implement a comprehensive IT system without the supporting competent people and processes. I will agree with you that without such limits on the system it can and would be abused because monkeys will inevitably throw shit. > [@](#): > > No. But catching the killer won’t save the dead person’s life, as you seem to be suggesting. The victim will remain just as dead, no lives saved. I’m just as happy that a killer is caught, if you must know. > [@](#): > > Thanks for sharing. But it still doesn’t fit into your talk of “lives saved”. I’m pointing out issues with your argument, and you’re trying to start a different one. As it turns out, I’m not that easily confused. Sorry with my feeble attempt to confuse you with multiple uses for such a system.:rolleyes: > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li]One person gives up a week of privacy to save one life = no-brainer.[/li][li]300 million people give up a lifetime of privacy to save…how many lives? A few thousand, maybe? And how many ways will the system be abused? How many people will be hurt by the unintended consequences? I don’t know, but this one is far from a no-brainer.[/li][/ul] So, if you had to give up two weeks of privacy to save someone, then they’re toast? I have no idea on how many would be hurt by such a system if it was abused. Unless you think it would be used to commit murder or kidnap people, then the scales seem to lie on the positive side of its use. > [@](#): > > I think I’d have to do a lot of walking–and everyone that I see on that walk would have to give up a lot of privacy for that one “save”, and who knows how many of them would end up being abused by this system, one way or another. How many people were abused by the data the NSA collected? The reason I ask is because that was a system designed by default to be hidden rather than the sort of system we are discussing. Obviously, the former would be more likely to be abused and should serve as a bench mark for what type of abuses can occur. There is a difference between what you can imagine and what actually does happen. > [@](#): > > If ANY are abused by the system, then you have to consider that against the saved lives. And just saying “the system shouldn’t be abused” doesn’t really count as considering them, does it? Again, OMG. Any system can be abused. That doesn’t mean we throw them all out or stop using them. Your potential to be embarrassed vs someone’s life is a no brainer for me. 10000 people being embarrassed vs someone’s life is also a no brainer. Once embarrassed they can get over it. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/252 "2015-07-14T09:22:42Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > It’s sad how damn close he has come to a valid point, while still missing the bull’s eye entirely. Feel free to enlighten, oh wise one. Such a system can be used to save lives and to solve crimes. Preventing abuse by those using the system inappropriately is doable if people chose to put the appropriate controls in place. What then am I missing here? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/253 "2015-07-14T12:07:58Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Feel free to enlighten, oh wise one. > > Such a system can be used to save lives and to solve crimes. Preventing abuse by those using the system inappropriately is doable if people chose to put the appropriate controls in place. What then am I missing here? I just want to check… It’s not your position (or is it) that _any_ amount of disruption/invasion to _everyone’s_ life/privacy/personal space is an acceptable price to pay for solving just one crime, is it? I mean, this isn’t an ‘if it saves just _one_ life, any price is worth it’ argument, is it? Because that argument doesn’t wash in other contexts such as gun control, airline safety, product testing etc. There is always a point at which we accept a risk because the cost of preventing it is too great. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/254 "2015-07-14T12:13:38Z")
**Uzi** - can you explain why you would find the police search your house without a warrant objectionable, in a way that doesn’t use “fluff” or “nebulous” justifications? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/255 "2015-07-14T13:55:27Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Your potential to be embarrassed vs someone’s life is a no brainer for me. 10000 people being embarrassed vs someone’s life is also a no brainer. Once embarrassed they can get over it. This is a particularly ridiculous argument given the effects (e.g. unemployment) that arise from politicians and bureaucrats using surveillance to “embarrass” their foes. That right there negates the “buuuut peepul could die!” argument by making it equally applicable to both sides: [QUOTE=Terry Pratchett] You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. [/QUOTE] I note that [this has already happened](http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/02/27/nsa-resistant-products-obama-tech-companies-encryption-overseas/5290553/) as a result of the government’s cyberspace Eye-of-Sauron policies: > [@](#): > > Cisco, IBM, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard have reported declines in business in China since the NSA surveillance program was exposed. The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation estimates the NSA imbroglio will cost U.S. businesses $22 billion through 2016. Forrester Research pegs potential losses at $180 billion, which includes tech firms and managed service providers. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/256 "2015-07-14T15:00:00Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I just want to check… It’s not your position (or is it) that _any_ amount of disruption/invasion to _everyone’s_ life/privacy/personal space is an acceptable price to pay for solving just one crime, is it? No more than someone saying that they’d give one weeks worth of privacy to save a life. > [@](#): > > There is always a point at which we accept a risk because the cost of preventing it is too great. I agree. There is always a cost vs benefit argument to be made. My argument is that what nebulous thing you are losing doesn’t cancel the benefits such a system can accrue to society. That someone may have this used against them in some way other than if they had committed a crime, is of lesser concern to me than the increased capability of the police to solve the crime or prevent a crime from continuing or becoming worse. > [@Ravenman](#): > > **Uzi** - can you explain why you would find the police search your house without a warrant objectionable, in a way that doesn’t use “fluff” or “nebulous” justifications? Why should I? I’ve never advocated for someone entering your house without a warrant. I have no desire to change that and for those that value their privacy (whatever that is), they still have it there. I don’t expect privacy walking down the street, nor should you. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/257 "2015-07-14T15:05:39Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > My argument is that what nebulous thing you are losing I’d hardly call $180 billion in economic damage, and the harm up to and including death that inevitably results, “nebulous”. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/258 "2015-07-14T15:05:59Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Why should I? I’ve never advocated for someone entering your house without a warrant. I have no desire to change that and for those that value their privacy (whatever that is), they still have it there. I don’t expect privacy walking down the street, nor should you. You can’t describe why you think it is wrong for police to violate one’s privacy? If you can’t even inform the class about why you think any kind of privacy is important, how are we to debate an issue of privacy? ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/259 "2015-07-14T16:22:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You can’t describe why you think it is wrong for police to violate one’s privacy? > > If you can’t even inform the class about why you think any kind of privacy is important, how are we to debate an issue of privacy? How about you argue why privacy is important (you’re position) and I’ll argue why I think this tool is important, mkay? I don’t think I need to prove that all privacy needs to be disposed of to make my case for this particular tech’s benefits. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/260 "2015-07-14T16:34:24Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > I’d hardly call $180 billion in economic damage, and the harm up to and including death that inevitably results, “nebulous”. Why would anyone die because of this? The $180B you speak of is what the US could potentially lose, other companies around the world would benefit to that amount. Chalk that up to a bad idea from one of your paranoid countrymen to create a hidden system with no oversight to properly evaluate the risks. What I was asking was how did the data collected harm anyone? I personally don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/261 "2015-07-14T16:52:01Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > How about you argue why privacy is important (you’re position) and I’ll argue why I think this tool is important, mkay? I don’t think I need to prove that all privacy needs to be disposed of to make my case for this particular tech’s benefits. Everyone here has argued why privacy is important. You’ve dismissed the substance of all those arguments by saying that they are “fluff” and “nebulous.” I want to know if there’s any argument at all for the right to privacy that you do not consider to be fluff or nebulous. I’m not actually sure that you believe in the concept of privacy, so I’m inviting you to explain if/why you believe that people have some kind of right to privacy. So I ask again, if the police violate someone’s privacy in a most egregious way, why do you believe that is wrong? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739.md?page=14)