# 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:** 17
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/322 "2015-07-29T02:41:06Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > Depends on which is “one” and which is “the other”. However, since we were talking the “value” of life and not the presence of it, the point is that you can have a miserable life that is of no value. So, all prisoners should be put to death? They don’t have privacy in jail. > [@](#): > > It would be nice if you would acknowledge that and stop parroting that “dead people have no privacy”. If you think that statement is meaningful, then it suggests that dead people’s lives had no value or that the value of a life (and whatever privacy it included) ceases to exist at death, which makes ANY discussion of the value of life or privacy absurd, because everyone dies. If that’s not what you are suggesting, please clarify what you ARE suggesting. The value of someone’s life, what they have accomplished can still exist after they are dead. Whatever that legacy is, or is not, is of no concern to them. THEY ARE DEAD. When they are dead they don’t care about their privacy. They might have when they were alive, but they don’t after. This isn’t a complex point. > [@](#): > > These posts will become much more manageable if you will confine your responses to the topic under discussion. In this case, we were NOT discussing whether tools have multiple uses. We were talking about how many lives this tool will save, to compare against the amount of privacy lost. Sorry, I don’t see any reason to limit myself to one particular benefit of this tool when there are many. I’m only discussing this with you because I like to slam my head against a brick wall apparently. > [@](#): > > I don’t understand why you seem to find it impossible to stay on topic. Your topic, you mean. > [@](#): > > Your observation that “we won’t know until they are found” does not in any way invalidate my prediction. And it’s pretty lame to just throw that out there as if it does. So, predict which ones are the ones that have left voluntarily, Nostradamus. I said a subset. I have never at any point quantified it. You apparently have. So what is the number? > [@](#): > > If a young actress dies, should it be okay to publish naked pictures of her that she would NOT have wanted published when she was alive? One thing I know for sure, she doesn’t care one way or the other now. Again, I’ve never said any of this is okay. I’ve suggested reasonable controls on such a system to prevent abuse. It is more likely that a former boyfriend took and published those pictures than some eye in the sky. > [@](#): > > How the hell should I know? I am not a Furry OR religious. However, it is conceivable to me that there might be such a person who would rather be dead than have their fetish exposed… And we should accommodate that concern? > [@](#): > > There are probably a lot of people who would give up a significant amount of privacy (at least temporarily) to be saved from a bear. I am not at all convinced that there are a lot of people who would give up a big chunk of privacy _in perpetuity_ because of threat #2. Yet, almost every one of them would say yes at the point in time they were being kidnapped. Interesting that people are only willing to do something that only benefits them directly. Is it governments role to only cater to that selfishness? > [@](#): > > Surely, you can see the difference. And surely you can see–since I’ve said it OVER and OVER, that it is NOT my position that no amount of “life-saving” is worth giving up any amount of privacy. Your analogy suggests that you are STILL debating a ridiculous strawman version of my position. In order to even say this you have to quantify what level of privacy society is willing to trade for the benefits this tool can provide. I won’t say ‘you’ because for some reason you think you exist outside of society. You haven’t said, so all I’m left with is assuming that no privacy is worth the trade. > [@](#): > > So, I guess your position is that no one should have any privacy at any time if there’s a chance that all of us giving up all of our privacy might save a person’s life, right? You’d be in favor of having SkyEye extending to filming the insides of our homes, too? Because dead people don’t care about privacy. Considering that I’ve mentioned warrants and that expectations of privacy are different in your home (and other excluded places) than when you are in public, I’ll leave you to figure out my response (that I’ve said many times previously). > [@](#): > > This issue is not whether YOU care about someone else’s business. The issue is whether they are entitled to keep it private. Again, this is not about you. And I have no idea what “decision making” you are talking about. Decisions on whether to use this tool. Context, sheesh. I have no idea on how many people might be ‘outed’ by a tool that should have controls in place to prevent such activity. I suspect it will be low. Probably as low as how many people you suspect could be saved by the tool. > [@](#): > > You’ve mentioned it, but you refuse to admit that the “benefit” in saved lives is a small number while the cost in privacy is a very big one. For instance, if we decided that one person’s life is worth, say, 50,000 people’s privacy (and, to be clear, we haven’t decided any such thing), then it looks to me like the SkyEye benefits in “lives saved” would still NOT outweigh the cost in privacy lost. And that’s not even considering the dollar cost of the damn thing. Okay, what is the dollar cost of the ‘lost’ privacy (and I’m on record saying that people should have no expectation of privacy once outside their home, so this isn’t adding or subtracting from that amount)? Cost of privacy being violated + cost of system = X Benefits of said systems = Y X - Y = Z > [@](#): > > Waste of time. As far as I’m concerned, this kind of privacy invasion can only be justified by a bunch of saved lives–it’s the only part of your argument that has ANY chance of being compelling to me. Again, why should your concerns trump the usefulness of a tool? I can maximize the police’s time and make them more efficient enforcing laws that you as part of society have determined are of value and should be enforced. > [@](#): > > You might find someone else who’s willing to take that up with you, but I think you may have run off all potential takers with your “I don’t listen but only say the same things over and over again” debating style. This is exactly like you have been doing. You keep saying privacy is important, but have no way demonstrated that it is other than for the purely selfish reasons of those who might be affected if it is violated. You haven’t demonstrated whether those selfish reasons are large or small (eg. explaining that you are gay to your ultra-conservative congregation that you skim money off of as part of your cult, or having to explain to your wife that you met your old girlfriend at the cafe to discuss the disposition of some joint property). I’m not inclined to give their selfish reasons much weight in any decision making (Decisions on the use of such a tool, so you don’t get lost in this conversation) > [@](#): > > …to use SkyEye for all these cases would be $99,150,000, even though 559,000 of those cases would have been closed in a matter of days WITHOUT SkyEye. Do the police use every tool at their disposal for investigating each and every case? Or do they use some form of judgement before doing so? ---
**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 30, 2015, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/323 "2015-07-30T10:15:46Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > I have no idea on how many people might be ‘outed’ by a tool that should have controls in place to prevent such activity. Depends – how many of them are personal or political thorns in the side of the people in power? > [@](#): > > I can maximize the police’s time and make them more efficient enforcing laws That is a bug, not a feature. Policing is only easy in a police state. Critical functions need to have lots of friction installed in order to avoid bad outcomes – that’s why nuclear missile silos have a two-key system instead of “The Clapper”[tm]. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/324 "2015-07-30T12:24:30Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Depends – how many of them are personal or political thorns in the side of the people in power? How many of those are doing things that could be used against them that they need to worry? > [@](#): > > That is a bug, not a feature. Policing is only easy in a police state. Critical functions need to have lots of friction installed in order to avoid bad outcomes – that’s why nuclear missile silos have a two-key system instead of “The Clapper”[tm]. Policing is only easy if no ones cares about catching the actual criminal rather than some poor smuck who happens to be in the wrong place. A law that you don’t want enforced shouldn’t be on the books to be enforceable. Otherwise, the goal is that it is enforced and that the people who are being charged are the ones what have actually done the crime. This would potentially help confirm that. ---
**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 30, 2015, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/325 "2015-07-30T16:38:38Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > How many of those are doing things that could be used against them that they need to worry? All of them. To quote a famous author in one of her rare moments of lucidity: [QUOTE=Ayn Rand] Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > A law that you don’t want enforced shouldn’t be on the books to be enforceable. The problem with this notion is that [wiggle room to break bad laws is an important mechanism in undercutting them](http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/): > [@](#): > > Over the past year, there have been a number of headline-grabbing legal changes in the US, such as the legalization of marijuana in CO and WA, as well as the legalization of same-sex marriage in a growing number of US states. > > As a majority of people in these states apparently favor these changes, advocates for the US democratic process cite these legal victories as examples of how the system can provide real freedoms to those who engage with it through lawful means. And it’s true, the bills did pass. > > What’s often overlooked, however, is that these legal victories would probably not have been possible _without the ability to break the law_. > > The state of Minnesota, for instance, legalized same-sex marriage this year, but sodomy laws had effectively made homosexuality itself completely illegal in that state until 2001. Likewise, before the recent changes making marijuana legal for personal use in WA and CO, it was obviously _not_ legal for personal use. > > Imagine if there were an alternate dystopian reality where law enforcement was 100% effective, such that any potential law offenders knew they would be immediately identified, apprehended, and jailed. If perfect law enforcement had been a reality in MN, CO, and WA since their founding in the 1850s, it seems quite unlikely that these recent changes would have ever come to pass. How could people have decided that marijuana should be legal, if nobody had ever used it? How could states decide that same sex marriage should be permitted, if nobody had ever seen or participated in a same sex relationship?.. ---
**Author:** ![Arrogantly\_Ignorant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Arrogantly\_Ignorant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arrogantly_Ignorant)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/326 "2015-07-31T17:57:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Rebutting what? You’ve not offered any reason not to do this other than you don’t like being looked at when you go outside. I have no idea why it bothers you when anyone can watch you now. Again, the only reason anyone has given is that they don’t want to get tickets for littering or jaywalking. So, if I mention littering it is because the chaff I have been given to make my bricks (arguments) is pretty slim. I’ve only been able to read the first four pages, so I don’t know if this has already been brought up, but I just wanted to comment on this. You seem to be making the large assumption that just because something is law means that it should be followed. What if this technology had been operational in the 1930s? Police could have used it to prosecute citizens guilty of miscegenation or to enforce other racist laws. Or a host of other discriminatory laws. Some laws _shouldn’t_ be enforced, much less enforced with the efficiency and breath this technology would allow. Our government was intentionally created to stymie quick change, so these types of laws stay on the books far longer than they should. As a result, a great many injustices were done before these laws were repealed. A great many more would have been done if this technology had existed. ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/327 "2015-07-31T23:50:08Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > So, all prisoners should be put to death? They don’t have privacy in jail. I thought you agreed a couple of posts ago that it’s the individual person who determines the value of their own life. If you meant that, then it might be reasonable to suppose that a prisoner might think his/her life was of little value. However, it would not be reasonable to say that outside parties, like the government, should determine that person’s life is of no value and put them to death. So, either you didn’t mean what you said earlier, or this is just another of your forays into randomly changing the subject. > [@Uzi](#): > > The value of someone’s life, what they have accomplished can still exist after they are dead. Where does that value exist? How do we measure it? > [@Uzi](#): > > Whatever that legacy is, or is not, is of no concern to them. THEY ARE DEAD. When they are dead they don’t care about their privacy. They might have when they were alive, but they don’t after. This isn’t a complex point. So, the value of their life can exist after they’re no longer around to care about it, but the value of their privacy cannot? Why does it work differently for one than the other? > [@Uzi](#): > > Sorry, I don’t see any reason to limit myself to one particular benefit of this tool when there are many. You’re free to discuss whatever the hell you want to. But if you respond to my post about one thing with a digression on another thing, then you’re not having a discussion with me. You’re ignoring what I’m saying and voicing whatever pops into your head at the time. > [@Uzi](#): > > Your topic, you mean. It’s not MY topic. It’s the topic we were talking about. You follow along for a post or two, and then when you don’t have a good answer for one of my points, you change the subject. A while ago, you were talking up SkyEye’s ability to save lives, and how saving lives is worth violating privacy. However, when I argue that there aren’t going to be a whole lot of saved lives, rather than disputing the point–or yielding the point–you change the subject to “other benefits”. This is bad argumentation, and if you keep it up, you will eventually have no one left to talk to BUT the wall. > [@Uzi](#): > > So, predict which ones are the ones that have left voluntarily, Nostradamus. I said a subset. That’s the problem that I’m talking about. My prediction was that the subset was a very small portion of the 661K cases, and since we DON’T know or can’t predict which ones are the subset, we can spend a great deal of money investigating them all OR we can selectively investigate a portion of them. It’s the same challenge the police have now: They can only investigate so many, and one of the primary ways they select is by waiting a few days to see if the person turns back up. Unfortunately, the ones who are abducted are usually killed within a day or two. SkyEye STILL presents the same type of conundrum that law enforcement has today: Spend an exorbitant amount of money or miss the chance to save those valuable lives. That was my point, and I really don’t think I made it difficult to understand. > [@Uzi](#): > > I have never at any point quantified it. You apparently have. So what is the number? The numbers I’ve been using are 661K cases in a year, 559K of which are closed without the help of SkyEye. So the number of unsolved cases that SkyEye MIGHT be able to solve is some portion of 2,000 per year. I think it is a SMALL portion of 2,000, like 10% or less–up to 200 people. If you think it’s 100%, you’re still looking at spending over $100M (if SkyEye is free) in paying police officers to save 2,000 lives. If you’ve got $100M lying around and you want to save some lives, I think there are better ways you could spend that money. > [@Uzi](#): > > One thing I know for sure, she doesn’t care one way or the other now. Again, I’ve never said any of this is okay. If you’re saying that violating people’s privacy on a large scale is okay, then you’re also saying that you’re okay with the consequences of that violation for those people. It seems to me that you get why privacy is important in some contexts, but you refuse to accept that it’s important in others, and the reason you give is, “I don’t care about my privacy when I’m outside my home.” Well, that’s fine, just like it’s fine for some people not to care who sees them naked. The problem is that you keep insisting that NO ONE should care about things that you, personally, don’t care about. And when I suggest that some DO care about things that you don’t care about, you’re response is, “They shouldn’t do things they don’t want other people to see.” In other words, your opinion matters, and anyone with a different opinion must have something wrong with them. > [@Uzi](#): > > I’ve suggested reasonable controls on such a system to prevent abuse. You’ve suggested controls that MIGHT help REDUCE abuse. However, pages and pages ago, there was quite a bit of argument given that such controls do not thoroughly prevent abuse–it still happens. At one point, you acknowledged that abuses will probably still occur; you just don’t care because of the value of the lives saved–it seems that if any lives are saved, then the number of lives ruined just isn’t a relevant factor for you (they’re probably people who do things they ought not to, anyway). Well, it’s relevant to the people you’re arguing with. And since you have NOT refuted the arguments that plenty of abuse will occur even with your controls, you don’t get to just wave off the issue by reminding us that you’ve “suggested controls”. > [@Uzi](#): > > It is more likely that a former boyfriend took and published those pictures than some eye in the sky. You really struggle with analogies, don’t you? It doesn’t matter who did what. I’m following up on your declarations about the worthlessness of privacy to a dead person. The question is whether society should still consider her privacy to have any value, since she’s dead and can’t care about it any more. Well? > [@Uzi](#): > > And we should accommodate that concern? Well, the PURPOSE of rights to things like life, liberty, privacy is to account for the fact that every person’s “concerns” matter. However, I don’t know what you mean by “accommodate”…if you mean “refrain from violating their privacy”, then I would say yes, unless there was damn good reason for doing so. If you want to violate one person’s privacy for a time to save one other person’s life, it’s probably justifiable. If you want to violate 300 million people’s privacy in perpetuity on the chance of saving a few hundred lives (and spend enormous amounts of money in the process), well, you haven’t convinced me. You haven’t even addressed the question, because you keep misrepresenting it as “one person trading privacy to save one other person’s life”. > [@Uzi](#): > > Yet, almost every one of them would say yes at the point in time they were being kidnapped. But that’s not very many people, is it? > [@Uzi](#): > > Interesting that people are only willing to do something that only benefits them directly. That is demonstrably not true, and if it were true, it would still not be relevant to my argument. > [@Uzi](#): > > Is it governments role to only cater to that selfishness? I don’t see how refraining from violating the privacy of the entire population is “catering to selfishness.” If you’re really interested, I would say that it shouldn’t be government’s role to “cater” to anyone, including people with an irrational fear of being abducted and held hostage. > [@Uzi](#): > > In order to even say this you have to quantify what level of privacy society is willing to trade for the benefits this tool can provide. I won’t say ‘you’ because for some reason you think you exist outside of society. You haven’t said, so all I’m left with is assuming that no privacy is worth the trade. You make it sound like SkyEye has a dial on it that allows you to select the level of privacy violation. I will posit that MOST people are willing to give up some amount of privacy for some amount of security. Hell, we (collectively) do it every day, whether we want to or not. I have been making the case that the benefits of THIS PARTICULAR TOOL, specifically “saved lives”, are very small in quantity (affecting a fraction of a percent of people), while the privacy violations are massive in quantity (affecting 100% of people) and in duration. So, my opinion is that this is way too much privacy to give up for too little benefit. You’re free to take that statement and extend it to “Smartass believes that there is no amount of privacy that is worth sacrificing for any number of saved lives,” but this extrapolation on your part is neither true nor relevant to the question of whether the benefits of SkyEye are worth the cost in privacy violations. You just like saying it because it makes me sound unreasonable. And let’s not forget how you keep steadfastly ignoring the massive cost IN MONEY of using this tool PLUS the cost of the tool itself. > [@Uzi](#): > > Considering that I’ve mentioned warrants and that expectations of privacy are different in your home (and other excluded places) than when you are in public, I’ll leave you to figure out my response (that I’ve said many times previously). Best I can “figure out”, any response you give will be in contradiction to statements you have previously made, which is why you don’t want to respond. We all know that expectations of privacy are different in different contexts, but YOU are the one who keeps saying that privacy is nothing compared to the value of a saved life. If you’re now saying that “in-home” privacy does have value, then how many in-home privacy violations would be justified to save a life? > [@Uzi](#): > > Decisions on whether to use this tool. Context, sheesh. The context was, that you said, “I DON’T CARE THAT SOMEONE IS GAY OR THAT THEY ARE CHEATING ON THEIR SPOUSE. I’m just not giving their concerns any weight _in my decision making_.” So, either you think it’s your decision whether or not society decides to use this tool, or you’re just making it clear that you don’t care about other people’s opinions. In either case, it should be clear why it confuses me when we’re talking about whether we should implement SkyEye and you refer to it as “my decision making”. > [@Uzi](#): > > I have no idea on how many people might be ‘outed’ by a tool that should have controls in place to prevent such activity. I suspect it will be low. Probably as low as how many people you suspect could be saved by the tool. Based on the amount of abuse that happens with the “tools” currently available, I suspect it will be quite high. You DO remember a whole bunch of posts earlier about the current ways that policing powers are being abused, right? > [@Uzi](#): > > Okay, what is the dollar cost of the ‘lost’ privacy (and I’m on record saying that people should have no expectation of privacy once outside their home, so this isn’t adding or subtracting from that amount)? You know good and well that there is no meaningful “dollar cost” of privacy any more than there is a “dollar benefit” of a saved life. I wasn’t talking about monetary cost. I was talking about quantity of violations (every person who leaves their houses) and extent (every day, all the time). And I’m comparing this to a very small quantity of saved lives. It’s not a financial calculation. That being said, if you have a number for the dollar value of a saved life, we can try to consider it against the dollar cost of having and using SkyEye. The only financial calculation I’ve been talking about so far is the cost in law enforcement people to use it. > [@Uzi](#): > > Again, why should your concerns trump the usefulness of a tool? If I were the only person who thought that privacy is important, then my concerns would not–_could_ not–trump anything. The fact is that there are so many people who think privacy is important that the idea is enshrined in our laws (and I haven’t personally been involved in any of that). It’s perfectly fine that you don’t agree that privacy is important; it’s NOT perfectly fine to suggest I’m the only person in the world who doesn’t agree with you. > [@Uzi](#): > > I can maximize the police’s time and make them more efficient enforcing laws that you as part of society have determined are of value and should be enforced. There is no call to torture the English language this way. The fact that “society” or “the government” has done something does not automatically mean that those actions represent me in any way personally. Even if it did, this is a non-starter of an argument, because is works better for my position than it does for yours: We can continue to enforce legal and constitutional privacy protections that you, as a part of society, have determined are of value and should be enforced. > [@Uzi](#): > > You keep saying privacy is important, but have no way demonstrated that it is other than for the purely selfish reasons of those who might be affected if it is violated. You keep saying that saving lives is important, but have in no way demonstrated that it is, other than for the purely selfish reasons of those whose lives might be saved. > [@Uzi](#): > > You haven’t demonstrated whether those selfish reasons are large or small… They are large to the person affected. They are small to everyone else. They are, apparently, miniscule to you personally. > [@Uzi](#): > > I’m not inclined to give their selfish reasons much weight in any decision making (Decisions on the use of such a tool, so you don’t get lost in this conversation). You’re also not in a position to make those decisions, thank goodness. Your position seems to be that a person wanting to stay alive is reasonable (nothing is more valuable than life), but a person wanting to be happy (i.e. not have their privacy violated) _while_ alive is selfish. How do you distinguish between the things that you support and the things that you dismiss as selfish? How is my desire to keep on living (regardless of how many people dislike me) not just as selfish as someone else’s desire to keep their business private? > [@Uzi](#): > > Do the police use every tool at their disposal for investigating each and every case? Or do they use some form of judgement before doing so? I addressed this earlier in this post. In case you’ve forgotten, the key point is, if they don’t use SkyEye in every case, how many of those potential saved lives are lost? My guess would be MOST of them. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/328 "2015-08-01T01:02:10Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > I thought you agreed a couple of posts ago that it’s the individual person who determines the value of their own life. If you meant that, then it might be reasonable to suppose that a prisoner might think his/her life was of little value. However, it would not be reasonable to say that outside parties, like the government, should determine that person’s life is of no value and put them to death. You were the only person here saying that without privacy life isn’t worth living. You. No one else. > [@](#): > > So, the value of their life can exist after they’re no longer around to care about it, but the value of their privacy cannot? Why does it work differently for one than the other? Unbelievable. Obfuscation. > [@](#): > > You’re free to discuss whatever the hell you want to. But if you respond to my post about one thing with a digression on another thing, then you’re not having a discussion with me. You’re ignoring what I’m saying and voicing whatever pops into your head at the time. Sorry, I thought you didn’t want this to be personal. > [@](#): > > It’s not MY topic. It’s the topic we were talking about. You follow along for a post or two, and then when you don’t have a good answer for one of my points, you change the subject. I have good answers, you don’t like them. Doesn’t mean they aren’t good. > [@](#): > > A while ago, you were talking up SkyEye’s ability to save lives, and how saving lives is worth violating privacy. However, when I argue that there aren’t going to be a whole lot of saved lives, rather than disputing the point–or yielding the point–you change the subject to “other benefits”. Lives will be saved. How many is unknown. How about answering how many people will actually feel the effects of this tool? Saying 300 million is bs as I’ve already stated that it won’t affect me and you’ve implicitly stated that it can’t be used against you. > [@](#): > > It’s the same challenge the police have now: They can only investigate so many, and one of the primary ways they select is by waiting a few days to see if the person turns back up. Unfortunately, the ones who are abducted are usually killed within a day or two. You keep saying this like I’m disagreeing when SkyEye STILL presents the same type of conundrum that law enforcement has today: Spend an exorbitant amount of money or miss the chance to save those valuable lives. That was my point, and I really don’t think I made it difficult to understand. The numbers I’ve been using are 661K cases in a year, 559K of which are closed without the help of SkyEye. So the number of unsolved cases that SkyEye MIGHT be able to solve is some portion of 2,000 per year. I think it is a SMALL portion of 2,000, like 10% or less–up to 200 people. If you think it’s 100%, you’re still looking at spending over $100M (if SkyEye is free) in paying police officers to save 2,000 lives. If you’ve got $100M lying around and you want to save some lives, I think there are better ways you could spend that money. If you’re saying that violating people’s privacy on a large scale is okay, then you’re also saying that you’re okay with the consequences of that violation for those people. It seems to me that you get why privacy is important in some contexts, but you refuse to accept that it’s important in others, and the reason you give is, “I don’t care about my privacy when I’m outside my home.” Well, that’s fine, just like it’s fine for some people not to care who sees them naked. The problem is that you keep insisting that NO ONE should care about things that you, personally, don’t care about. And when I suggest that some DO care about things that you don’t care about, you’re response is, “They shouldn’t do things they don’t want other people to see.” In other words, your opinion matters, and anyone with a different opinion must have something wrong with them. You’ve suggested controls that MIGHT help REDUCE abuse. However, pages and pages ago, there was quite a bit of argument given that such controls do not thoroughly prevent abuse–it still happens. At one point, you acknowledged that abuses will probably still occur; you just don’t care because of the value of the lives saved–it seems that if any lives are saved, then the number of lives ruined just isn’t a relevant factor for you (they’re probably people who do things they ought not to, anyway). Well, it’s relevant to the people you’re arguing with. And since you have NOT refuted the arguments that plenty of abuse will occur even with your controls, you don’t get to just wave off the issue by reminding us that you’ve “suggested controls”. You really struggle with analogies, don’t you? It doesn’t matter who did what. I’m following up on your declarations about the worthlessness of privacy to a dead person. The question is whether society should still consider her privacy to have any value, since she’s dead and can’t care about it any more. Well? Well, the PURPOSE of rights to things like life, liberty, privacy is to account for the fact that every person’s “concerns” matter. However, I don’t know what you mean by “accommodate”…if you mean “refrain from violating their privacy”, then I would say yes, unless there was damn good reason for doing so. If you want to violate one person’s privacy for a time to save one other person’s life, it’s probably justifiable. If you want to violate 300 million people’s privacy in perpetuity on the chance of saving a few hundred lives (and spend enormous amounts of money in the process), well, you haven’t convinced me. You haven’t even addressed the question, because you keep misrepresenting it as “one person trading privacy to save one other person’s life”. But that’s not very many people, is it? That is demonstrably not true, and if it were true, it would still not be relevant to my argument. I don’t see how refraining from violating the privacy of the entire population is “catering to selfishness.” If you’re really interested, I would say that it shouldn’t be government’s role to “cater” to anyone, including people with an irrational fear of being abducted and held hostage. You make it sound like SkyEye has a dial on it that allows you to select the level of privacy violation. I will posit that MOST people are willing to give up some amount of privacy for some amount of security. Hell, we (collectively) do it every day, whether we want to or not. I have been making the case that the benefits of THIS PARTICULAR TOOL, specifically “saved lives”, are very small in quantity (affecting a fraction of a percent of people), while the privacy violations are massive in quantity (affecting 100% of people) and in duration. So, my opinion is that this is way too much privacy to give up for too little benefit. You’re free to take that statement and extend it to “Smartass believes that there is no amount of privacy that is worth sacrificing for any number of saved lives,” but this extrapolation on your part is neither true nor relevant to the question of whether the benefits of SkyEye are worth the cost in privacy violations. You just like saying it because it makes me sound unreasonable. And let’s not forget how you keep steadfastly ignoring the massive cost IN MONEY of using this tool PLUS the cost of the tool itself. Best I can “figure out”, any response you give will be in contradiction to statements you have previously made, which is why you don’t want to respond. We all know that expectations of privacy are different in different contexts, but YOU are the one who keeps saying that privacy is nothing compared to the value of a saved life. If you’re now saying that “in-home” privacy does have value, then how many in-home privacy violations would be justified to save a life? The context was, that you said, “I DON’T CARE THAT SOMEONE IS GAY OR THAT THEY ARE CHEATING ON THEIR SPOUSE. I’m just not giving their concerns any weight _in my decision making_.” So, either you think it’s your decision whether or not society decides to use this tool, or you’re just making it clear that you don’t care about other people’s opinions. In either case, it should be clear why it confuses me when we’re talking about whether we should implement SkyEye and you refer to it as “my decision making”. Based on the amount of abuse that happens with the “tools” currently available, I suspect it will be quite high. You DO remember a whole bunch of posts earlier about the current ways that policing powers are being abused, right? You know good and well that there is no meaningful “dollar cost” of privacy any more than there is a “dollar benefit” of a saved life. I wasn’t talking about monetary cost. I was talking about quantity of violations (every person who leaves their houses) and extent (every day, all the time). And I’m comparing this to a very small quantity of saved lives. It’s not a financial calculation. That being said, if you have a number for the dollar value of a saved life, we can try to consider it against the dollar cost of having and using SkyEye. The only financial calculation I’ve been talking about so far is the cost in law enforcement people to use it. If I were the only person who thought that privacy is important, then my concerns would not–_could_ not–trump anything. The fact is that there are so many people who think privacy is important that the idea is enshrined in our laws (and I haven’t personally been involved in any of that). It’s perfectly fine that you don’t agree that privacy is important; it’s NOT perfectly fine to suggest I’m the only person in the world who doesn’t agree with you. There is no call to torture the English language this way. The fact that “society” or “the government” has done something does not automatically mean that those actions represent me in any way personally. Even if it did, this is a non-starter of an argument, because is works better for my position than it does for yours: We can continue to enforce legal and constitutional privacy protections that you, as a part of society, have determined are of value and should be enforced. You keep saying that saving lives is important, but have in no way demonstrated that it is, other than for the purely selfish reasons of those whose lives might be saved. They are large to the person affected. They are small to everyone else. They are, apparently, miniscule to you personally. You’re also not in a position to make those decisions, thank goodness. Your position seems to be that a person wanting to stay alive is reasonable (nothing is more valuable than life), but a person wanting to be happy (i.e. not have their privacy violated) _while_ alive is selfish. How do you distinguish between the things that you support and the things that you dismiss as selfish? How is my desire to keep on living (regardless of how many people dislike me) not just as selfish as someone else’s desire to keep their business private? I addressed this earlier in this post. In case you’ve forgotten, the key point is, if they don’t use SkyEye in every case, how many of those potential saved lives are lost? My guess would be MOST of them. -VM [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/329 "2015-08-03T21:47:11Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > You were the only person here saying that without privacy life isn’t worth living. You. No one else. I don’t recall saying that. Can you point me to where I said it? > [@Uzi](#): > > Unbelievable. Obfuscation. They’re just questions. Not sure how you believe they are confusing the issue. Maybe you could clear things up by answering. > [@Uzi](#): > > Sorry, I thought you didn’t want this to be personal. Not sure how changing the subject is personal or impersonal. If it’s any comfort, when you change the subject, I don’t take it personally. > [@Uzi](#): > > I have good answers, you don’t like them. Doesn’t mean they aren’t good. Good answers address the point that was made. > [@Uzi](#): > > Lives will be saved. How many is unknown. How about answering how many people will actually feel the effects of this tool? Saying 300 million is bs… Maybe you should be more clear when asking your question. You asked how many people will BE affected, and I said “everyone”, because everyone will have their privacy violated. If the question is how many of those people will “feel” violated, I think at least a simple majority (for myself, I think I would “feel” violated, but I don’t think I’m demographically likely to be a target of abuse based on that violation). If the question is how many of those violations will result in abuse, I don’t know, so I’ll answer Uzi-style: Abuses will happen. How many is unknown. However, I bet there will be at least 10 or 100 _times_ as many abuses as there will be lives saved. If you review this thread, you will find that there has been a LOT more evidence offered (by me and others) about the frequency that policing powers are abused than there has been evidence offered that there will be a great many lives saved. Your style seems to be more based on making declarations than offering evidence. > [@Uzi](#): > > You keep saying this like I’m disagreeing when It appears you had some sort of technical issue from this point on in your post. Best I can tell, the remainder is just quotes from my previous post. The way you cut off in mid-sentence is a little worrying…you okay? -VM ---
**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:** [August 3, 2015, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/330 "2015-08-03T22:23:27Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > Maybe you should be more clear when asking your question. You asked how many people will BE affected, and I said “everyone”, because everyone will have their privacy violated. If the question is how many of those people will “feel” violated, I think at least a simple majority (for myself, I think I would “feel” violated, but I don’t think I’m demographically likely to be a target of abuse based on that violation). By **Uzi** ’s argument, if a pervert slips a camera into the girls’ shower and does not distribute the resulting video, keeping it to himself for his private masturbatory pleasure, he has done nothing wrong as long as he doesn’t get caught. I think most us us recognize the absurdity of this conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/331 "2015-08-03T23:01:45Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > By **Uzi** ’s argument, if a pervert slips a camera into the girls’ shower and does not distribute the resulting video, keeping it to himself for his private masturbatory pleasure, he has done nothing wrong as long as he doesn’t get caught. I think most us us recognize the absurdity of this conclusion. That’s an interesting analogy, which I had not thought of. It will be interesting to see if **Uzi** is willing to address it… -VM ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2015, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/332 "2015-08-05T05:45:21Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > That’s an interesting analogy, which I had not thought of. It will be interesting to see if **Uzi** is willing to address it… > > -VM Is the the shower a public place where you could expect people to record what you’re doing? No? Then stop with the straw men. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2015, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/333 "2015-08-05T05:55:05Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > The way you cut off in mid-sentence is a little worrying…you okay? Long post, turned off the computer and then restarted the next day, then I must have hit enter at some point when submit was highlighted. I was intending to delete the whole thing as this discussion is going no where and is purely theoretical as it is unlikely this will ever be implemented (publicly). Too expensive, imaginary technology, and little public support. ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2015, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/334 "2015-08-05T22:54:24Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Is the the shower a public place where you could expect people to record what you’re doing? No? Then stop with the straw men. It’s an analogy, which is different from a straw man–it illustrates a way that your thinking on the subject of privacy tends to be overly simplistic. The question is whether you think she should “feel” violated when the picture is taken or just when it’s published. If it helps, how about if we change the scenario so it is a man taking a picture up a woman’s dress with a shoe-cam, while she’s outside on the sidewalk with, apparently, no expectation of privacy? Same question… -VM ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2015, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/335 "2015-08-05T23:08:16Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Long post, turned off the computer and then restarted the next day, then I must have hit enter at some point when submit was highlighted. Well, I’m glad you’re okay. I was afraid you might have been abducted in the middle of your post and were locked up in someone’s basement. > [@Uzi](#): > > I was intending to delete the whole thing as this discussion is going no where and is purely theoretical as it is unlikely this will ever be implemented (publicly). Too expensive, imaginary technology, and little public support. It’s a pragmatic approach, but I think you’re missing the point of the debate. There never was a scenario where this discussion led to it being implemented–_The Straight Dope_ doesn’t have that kind of power. The point is to talk through the complexities and explore arguments pro and con (and in the process, we’re fighting our own ignorance, as a group)…of course that works better if both sides \*acknowledge \*that it is a complex issue… When another poster makes a point you haven’t thought about–or frames the argument in a way that makes you think differently about it–then you’re getting something positive out of the interaction. However, when you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the other side’s points or to try to see things from different angles, you’re wasting the opportunity AND your time. Most of the benefits I’ve gotten from this board have been as a result of debates that I have _lost_. Much as it pains me to admit it. Winning is a lot more fun. Then again, mental growth is often painful. Unfortunately, the adrenaline rush of trying to WIN can overwhelm any thoughts of learning something new… -VM ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/336 "2015-08-06T06:32:24Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > Well, I’m glad you’re okay. I was afraid you might have been abducted in the middle of your post and were locked up in someone’s basement. So am I as there is no way for anyone to trace my location and rescue me currently. > [@](#): > > There never was a scenario where this discussion led to it being implemented–_The Straight Dope_ doesn’t have that kind of power. Really? And here I thought we were nailing down requirements. > [@](#): > > The point is to talk through the complexities and explore arguments pro and con (and in the process, we’re fighting our own ignorance, as a group)…of course that works better if both sides \*acknowledge \*that it is a complex issue… There is a point where the discussion loses interest. Privacy is a qualitative issue with no inherent value than what a specific person attributes to it. No where near as complex as you seem to think it is. > [@](#): > > However, when you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the other side’s points or to try to see things from different angles, you’re wasting the opportunity AND your time. I think privacy isn’t as important as you think it is. I understand completely your side of the argument. Whereas I am flexible, you are not. I have never suggested allowing current expectations of privacy to be infringed upon, yet I get stupid scenarios put up to see how I’ll answer it as if it is expected that it will trick me in some way. The fact that I take this stance should confirm that I do actually understand your side of the argument. > [@](#): > > Most of the benefits I’ve gotten from this board have been as a result of debates that I have _lost_. Much as it pains me to admit it. Winning is a lot more fun. Then again, mental growth is often painful. I am not interested in winning, but in pulling the reasoning behind someone’s argument to light so I can understand it and, if found logical, then update my internal compass with the new information. As a result, I am no longer for the death penalty and am pro abortion directly as a result of being on this board. Because you feel a certain way about privacy has little influence on me. You have yet to prove anything that would sway me from my position about the usefulness of this sort of surveillance, or how much people would actually be affected by its use. ---
**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:** [August 6, 2015, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/337 "2015-08-06T14:44:43Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > You have yet to prove anything that would sway me from my position about the usefulness of this sort of surveillance, or how much people would actually be affected by its use. I provided an example of how your stated standard for what counts as “actually affected” by the use of surveillance runs into problems. You waved it aside with an irrelevancy (demonstrated to be an irrelevancy by your very own position that privacy is a purely subjective notion). ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/338 "2015-08-06T18:19:01Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Privacy is a qualitative issue with no inherent value than what a specific person attributes to it. And this is where you’re being unreasonable. “Saving Lives” is ALSO a qualitative issue with no inherent value other than what a specific person attributes to it. You want me to give you a pass on the issue, but refuse to give me the same courtesy because “you can’t have privacy without life”. On the one hand, every person’s determination of the value of their own life is subjective. However, for most, that determination WILL VARY ACCORDING TO whether that life includes things like liberty and privacy. What this means is that adding SkyEye to all of our lives includes the following effects, for those that are alive at any given moment: Life with a small increase in security. Life with a significant decrease in privacy. You want me to acknowledge the “value” of the small increase in security, but you refuse to acknowledge the “value” of the lost privacy, because you don’t personally value it, and you hand-wave away any attempts to explain to you why people OTHER THAN YOU value it. You expect to get a pass on the fact that your personal valuation of the increase in security (“saved lives”) isn’t necessarily the same as everyone else’s. Additionally, by using phrases like “privacy is worth nothing without life”, you are basically saying that any increase is security is worth any decrease in privacy, and then calling it a strawman when I try to get you to acknowledge it–or accusing me of saying that “no increase in security is worth any decrease in privacy”, which I specifically have not said–and I specifically have not made arguments that equate to that. That is, I have not said, “Life is worth nothing without privacy”, but I HAVE said that there are probably people who feel that way–which suggests that, for people OTHER THAN YOU–privacy has more value than you personally ascribe to it. > [@Uzi](#): > > No where near as complex as you seem to think it is. Well, if you boil it down to “there is no privacy without life”, then I suppose so. But when you do that, well, you’re leaving it out a lot of things. > [@Uzi](#): > > I think privacy isn’t as important as you think it is. That’s the point. You want to declare a “level of importance” of privacy based on YOUR PERSONAL valuation of it, and you flat don’t care that other people value it more highly than you do, because I can’t give you a justification for that value that is acceptable to you. Fairness would suggest that if you don’t have to justify why I should value your life, then I shouldn’t have to justify why you should value my privacy. The whole argument is about trade-offs, but you won’t discuss them as such, because you refuse to acknowledge that the privacy violation represents a meaningful “cost”. > [@Uzi](#): > > I understand completely your side of the argument. If you did, then you wouldn’t keep attacking strawman versions of it. You’re responding to a caricature of my argument while claiming that you understand it completely. > [@Uzi](#): > > Whereas I am flexible, you are not. I have never suggested allowing current expectations of privacy to be infringed upon… Not being under continuous government surveillance while in public IS a current privacy expectation in the U.S., whether you acknowledge it or not. As I recall, very early in the thread, a link was posted to a SC ruling making _exactly this point_. Whether you think the ruling was correct or not, it DOES reflect “current expectations of privacy”. So, if you support using SkyEye, then you ARE suggesting that current expectations of privacy be infringed upon. > [@Uzi](#): > > …yet I get stupid scenarios put up to see how I’ll answer it as if it is expected that it will trick me in some way. The purpose is not to trick you. The purpose is to get you to acknowledge the implications of the stand that you’re taking with statements like “without life, there can be no privacy.” You make the statement, then back away from scenarios that logically follow from the argument that you’ve made. > [@Uzi](#): > > The fact that I take this stance should confirm that I do actually understand your side of the argument. The fact that you take a stance says NOTHING about your understanding of my side of the argument. The fact that you continually misrepresent my argument and attack strawman caricatures of it strongly suggests that you do not. > [@Uzi](#): > > I am not interested in winning, but in pulling the reasoning behind someone’s argument to light so I can understand it and, if found logical, then update my internal compass with the new information. That sounds reasonable, but what you’re doing IN THIS CASE is dismissing my argument for reasons that have nothing to do with logic. Every example that has been provided of reasons why people might value their privacy has been dismissed because it doesn’t apply to you personally. If it’s not important to you, then it is “illogical” for it to be important to anyone. It’s an arrogant position to take. > [@Uzi](#): > > As a result, I am no longer for the death penalty and am pro abortion directly as a result of being on this board. So, it’s just in THIS case that you’re not willing to seriously consider the other side’s arguments. That’s a shame. > [@Uzi](#): > > Because you feel a certain way about privacy has little influence on me. It’s not about how I PERSONALLY feel about my personal privacy. I am NOT the canonical example of the “value” of privacy. You can’t evaluate the “value” of privacy based on one person’s experience or opinions–yours OR mine–any more than you can evaluate the “value” of “saving a life” based on any one example. On the privacy side, you can offer yourself as an example of someone who never does anything outside that you would mind having the police “watching”. On the “saving a life” side, I can offer the example of someone with end-stage terminal cancer. Neither example sheds much light on the “value” of privacy OR security IN GENERAL. The reason why I offer up these examples is to illustrate the point that your personal valuation of your personal privacy (i.e. one particular person’s views) should not be the dispositive factor in debating whether SkyEye should be used to place EVERYONE under continuous surveillance. If the topic is whether Uzi would be pleased to have SkyEye implemented, there is nothing to debate: Your opinion is your opinion and you’re wholly entitled to it…and once you’ve posted it and everyone has seen it, there’s no real point in re-posting it over and over again. However, if the topic is whether the population as a whole should agree to it, then your opinion–or mine–about how it impacts you (or me) personally is of little use, unless you think everyone else is just like you. It’s just Uzi saying, “I don’t value my privacy very highly, so it is illogical for you to value yours.” > [@Uzi](#): > > You have yet to prove anything that would sway me from my position about the usefulness of this sort of surveillance, or how much people would actually be affected by its use. Neither one of us has PROVEN anything here. The difference is that, for most of the discussion, I’ve taken your position that more security (“saving lives”) is good to be valid without proof, but you’ve taken my position that less privacy is bad to be invalid without proof. To highlight this fact, in the last few rounds, I’ve been pushing back on your “security is good” position, and, rather than acknowledging the lack of consistency in your position, you’re declaring the debate to be pointless. Since you won’t apply the same rules to both sides–and I’m not willing to let you get away with it–OF COURSE the argument isn’t going anywhere. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/339 "2015-08-07T05:35:59Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > And this is where you’re being unreasonable. “Saving Lives” is ALSO a qualitative issue with no inherent value other than what a specific person attributes to it. You want me to give you a pass on the issue, but refuse to give me the same courtesy because “you can’t have privacy without life”. How perceive your life is qualitative, whether you live or not and what you do in it is quantitative. > [@](#): > > Life with a small increase in security. > Life with a significant decrease in privacy. > > You want me to acknowledge the “value” of the small increase in security, but you refuse to acknowledge the “value” of the lost privacy, because you don’t personally value it, and you hand-wave away any attempts to explain to you why people OTHER THAN YOU value it. You expect to get a pass on the fact that your personal valuation of the increase in security (“saved lives”) isn’t necessarily the same as everyone else’s. People can value whatever they want to place value upon. Just don’t expect anyone else to place the same value upon it. If I was in government and had to make a decision on this tool, I would place little credence on ‘selfish’ reasons for retaining privacy in public places. If this system was in place, and had been for years, what would your reaction be if you found out about it today? Meh? Or, OMG, did they see me bury that body! > [@](#): > > Additionally, by using phrases like “privacy is worth nothing without life”, you are basically saying that any increase is security is worth any decrease in privacy, and then calling it a strawman when I try to get you to acknowledge it–or accusing me of saying that “no increase in security is worth any decrease in privacy”, which I specifically have not said–and I specifically have not made arguments that equate to that. That is, I have not said, “Life is worth nothing without privacy”, but I HAVE said that there are probably people who feel that way–which suggests that, for people OTHER THAN YOU–privacy has more value than you personally ascribe to it. Privacy doesn’t exist without life. No point in even arguing about it. Dead people don’t care about privacy, or anything else. And I’ve not said security is worth any decrease in privacy at all. I’ve made it clear that where you have an expectation of privacy, then that remains the same. Honestly, I don’t know where you are getting this black and white view of me when I’ve consistently tried to tell you otherwise. > [@](#): > > That’s the point. You want to declare a “level of importance” of privacy based on YOUR PERSONAL valuation of it, and you flat don’t care that other people value it more highly than you do, because I can’t give you a justification for that value that is acceptable to you. Fairness would suggest that if you don’t have to justify why I should value your life, then I shouldn’t have to justify why you should value my privacy. You find it surprising that I’m arguing my views rather than yours? Odd. I understand their concerns. Heck, I sympathize with the person who wants to step out on their loveless marriage, but I don’t place much weight on that as a reason to not do something. > [@](#): > > The whole argument is about trade-offs, but you won’t discuss them as such, because you refuse to acknowledge that the privacy violation represents a meaningful “cost”. I won’t deny there is a cost, I’d argue if it is ‘meaningful’. If you did, then you wouldn’t keep attacking strawman versions of it. You’re responding to a caricature of my argument while claiming that you understand it completely. > [@](#): > > So, if you support using SkyEye, then you ARE suggesting that current expectations of privacy be infringed upon. One of the many reasons this won’t likely be implemented publicly and another as to why this discussion is relatively pointless, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > The purpose is not to trick you. The purpose is to get you to acknowledge the implications of the stand that you’re taking with statements like “without life, there can be no privacy.” You make the statement, then back away from scenarios that logically follow from the argument that you’ve made. I make that statement because it is true. Please prove that dead people care about privacy. > [@](#): > > That sounds reasonable, but what you’re doing IN THIS CASE is dismissing my argument for reasons that have nothing to do with logic. Every example that has been provided of reasons why people might value their privacy has been dismissed because it doesn’t apply to you personally. If it’s not important to you, then it is “illogical” for it to be important to anyone. It’s an arrogant position to take. I know that people care if they are found out about illegal, questionable, or other activities they don’t want some other person to know about. All of these are selfish reasons. Give me some reasons that aren’t as self-serving and I might care a bit more about it. When a friend tells me that he was caught by his wife with another woman/man, I am sympathetic, but I really can’t feel sorry for him if she kicks him out. Heck, if he was a good friend I’d offer the couch and help in moving his shit. But if he whines she is being unfair I’m going to tell him to shut the f\*\*\* up and deal with the consequences of his actions. Whether he is found out by the eye in the sky or one of her friends isn’t relevant, although the former would be an egregious use of the system. > [@](#): > > So, it’s just in THIS case that you’re not willing to seriously consider the other side’s arguments. That’s a shame. Don’t confuse discount with consider. > [@](#): > > It’s not about how I PERSONALLY feel about my personal privacy. I am NOT the canonical example of the “value” of privacy. You can’t evaluate the “value” of privacy based on one person’s experience or opinions–yours OR mine–any more than you can evaluate the “value” of “saving a life” based on any one example. Shall we talk about imaginary people then? How much weight should I give to imaginary people’s privacy? If we don’t use real examples, then what should we base our opinions upon? > [@](#): > > On the privacy side, you can offer yourself as an example of someone who never does anything outside that you would mind having the police “watching”. I’d prefer if no had to watch anyone. I’m saying that I don’t do anything that I know of that anyone else would consider worth bothering me over. And if I did, I’d own it. > [@](#): > > It’s just Uzi saying, “I don’t value my privacy very highly, so it is illogical for you to value yours.” The difference being I’ve made it pretty clear why it doesn’t matter so much to me. ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/340 "2015-08-08T00:05:07Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > How perceive your life is qualitative, whether you live or not and what you do in it is quantitative. If the topic is “lives saved”, then we’re not talking about “whether you live or not”–unless you are suggesting that SkyEye will also be birthing babies–rather, we are talking about _how long_ you will live. If someone murders me, it won’t mean that I never lived; it will mean that my lifespan has been shortened. If you stop the murderer, you’ve not “given me my life”, you’ve _added to the length_ of it. > [@Uzi](#): > > People can value whatever they want to place value upon. Just don’t expect anyone else to place the same value upon it. Agreed. > [@Uzi](#): > > If I was in government and had to make a decision on this tool, I would place little credence on ‘selfish’ reasons for retaining privacy in public places. So, you would forget the significance of your previous statement and assume that your opinion about the value of privacy is the correct one, and all of the people who are unhappy with your decision are just selfish. How do you justify saying that it _is not selfish_ to value my life but it _is selfish_ to prefer a life where my privacy is respected by the government? I would say that _both_ are selfish, and I would further say that there’s nothing wrong with that: It’s human nature. > [@Uzi](#): > > If this system was in place, and had been for years, what would your reaction be if you found out about it today? Meh? Or, OMG, did they see me bury that body! If _no one_ knew about it, then that would mean the system wasn’t being used at all. Once it starts being used, then–at a minimum–the people whose lives are saved and the ones who are abused would probably become aware. I say probably because it IS possible to have your privacy violated and not be aware (e.g. hidden camera in your shower) that you’ve been violated. So, to your question, my reaction would not be, _what have I done that I might be going to get in trouble for?_ It would be something more like, _I want to see the statistics on the good that it’s doing (used properly) and the harm that’s coming from however many abuses of the system are occurring_. That may not be a satisfying answer to you, but it’s an honest one. > [@Uzi](#): > > Privacy doesn’t exist without life. No point in even arguing about it. Dead people don’t care about privacy, or anything else. And if SkyEye only violates the privacy of people who are dead, that would be a relevant argument. Since SkyEye actually violates everyone’s privacy, you’re leaving me to interpret how this observation is relevant. The possibilities that I can think of are [ol] [li]You are implying that every person whose privacy is violated will also have their life saved by SkyEye, and they won’t mind because their privacy would have been useless to them if they were dead. I’ve dismissed this possibility because I don’t think you’ve made this particular ridiculous argument.[/li][li]You are ignoring the people whose privacy is violated but their lives are NOT saved by SkyEye. This is the possibility that I think represents your position.[/li][/ol] If I’m wrong about it being number two, then please clarify your position for me… Best I can tell, we’re talking about something in the 100s of thousands of people giving up privacy for every life saved. That’s an awful lot of people who are still alive and able to value their privacy that you don’t seem willing to consider. You’re only willing to consider the one person whose life is saved and the fact that _their_ privacy would have been useless (going forward, not historically, right?) to them once they’ve died. I’m accusing you of making an unreasonable argument because you refuse to acknowledge those people who are still alive, no thanks to SkyEye, and enjoying less privacy. > [@Uzi](#): > > And I’ve not said security is worth any decrease in privacy at all. I’ve made it clear that where you have an expectation of privacy, then that remains the same. You’ve been provided with the Supreme Court opinion that clearly states that placing people under surveillance violates their current, existing (legal) expectation of privacy. Which means that our where I have an expectation of privacy (now) is NOT the same as where I have an expectation of privacy with SkyEye. You’re making a statement that is in direct contradiction to the evidence already presented in this thread. > [@Uzi](#): > > Honestly, I don’t know where you are getting this black and white view of me when I’ve consistently tried to tell you otherwise. I don’t have a view of you. I’m trying to make reasonable interpretations of _your arguments_, as noted above. Several of your arguments contradict themselves. If I say, “I’m not a racist; I just don’t like black people.” You’re going to discount one side of that sentence, because it can’t all be true. In the same way, you can’t say, “Saving a person’s life is worth the privacy violation, because privacy is useless to a dead person”, without me assuming that you think the privacy of all the people who are not dead is of no value. Maybe I’m misinterpreting your position…the fix for that is for you to explain how I can reconcile your statement with a less black-and-white interpretation of your opinion on privacy. > [@Uzi](#): > > You find it surprising that I’m arguing my views rather than yours? Odd. No, I find it disappointing that your views are so dismissive of the views of other people. If we were talking about whether to have SkyEye trained on just your house, then I would expect the conversation to center on Uzi’s feelings about privacy. However, since we’re talking about having it trained on everyone, I would think that you would leave room in your thoughts for how other people feel about _their_ privacy, without making it a requirement that they justify those feelings to you. > [@Uzi](#): > > I understand their concerns. Heck, I sympathize with the person who wants to step out on their loveless marriage, but I don’t place much weight on that as a reason to not do something. This statement is near impossible for me to respond to, because you make it sound like we’re debating “whether Uzi should take a particular action”. We’re not; we’re debating whether the government should take an action that affects everyone, but it sounds like you’re talking about something else altogether. Add to that the vagueness of “to not do something” and the whole sentence is impossible to meaningfully place into the context of this discussion. > [@Uzi](#): > > I won’t deny there is a cost, I’d argue if it is ‘meaningful’. Well, it’s clearly not meaningful to you. I guess the key question is whether you give a shit that it’s meaningful to a lot of the people _other than you_ who will be affected. Specifically, even if you disapprove of their motives or how they’re living their lives, do you give a shit that they don’t want their privacy violated? It sure seems like the answer is no. > [@Uzi](#): > > One of the many reasons this won’t likely be implemented publicly and another as to why this discussion is relatively pointless, isn’t it? In the context of the previous discussion, it sounds like you MAY be conceding the debate. OR you’re just declaring that you’ve had an epiphany and realized that the discussion was pointless from the start. I can’t tell which. > [@Uzi](#): > > I make that statement because it is true. Please prove that dead people care about privacy. Please see above. The issue is not the one person whose life is on the line; it’s all the other people whose lives are not on the line, but whose privacy is. > [@Uzi](#): > > I know that people care if they are found out about illegal, questionable, or other activities they don’t want some other person to know about. All of these are selfish reasons. Give me some reasons that aren’t as self-serving and I might care a bit more about it. I can’t give you a reason why someone cares about their simple right to stay alive that isn’t self-serving, so I sure can’t give you a reason why someone cares about quality of life that isn’t also selfish. Why do you think that wanting to stay alive is less selfish than wanting to have the right not to be under surveillance? On what basis would you say that “saving someone’s life” isn’t catering to their selfish desires? > [@Uzi](#): > > When a friend tells me that he was caught by his wife…Whether he is found out by the eye in the sky or one of her friends isn’t relevant, although the former would be an egregious use of the system. I think this right here is a very key point of disagreement, because I think whether he was caught by SkyEye or his wife’s friend is EXTREMELY relevant: Yesterday, I was perusing the thread about the guy that shotgunned a drone that he thought was invading his privacy (it was an interesting thread until it got hijacked by yet-another-gun-control-debate). You might think that I would be very concerned about this “violation of privacy”, but, to be honest, I’m NOT all that concerned about it, and there are two reasons: [ol] [li]A drone fly-by is a temporary phenomenon and the scope of observation is small in both geography and time.[/li][li]More importantly, to the extent that there is an invasion of privacy, it is being done by a private citizen, NOT by the government. Private citizens don’t have the power to abuse other citizens that government representatives (police, gov’t officials, and such) do. If a private citizen harms you, you have solid legal recourse. If the government harms you, you’re far more likely to have no recourse at all.[/li][/ol] So, being observed by other people is, potentially, an annoyance. And if you’re observed cheating (and you get tattled on), I expect it will result in no small inconvenience. However, in my opinion, it’s small potatoes compared to being placed under surveillance by the government. For me, the difference between SkyEye and the wife’s friend is a critical difference. Honestly, it didn’t previously occur to me that you would see them as equivalent. > [@Uzi](#): > > Shall we talk about imaginary people then? How much weight should I give to imaginary people’s privacy? If we don’t use real examples, then what should we base our opinions upon? The problem is not with using a real example. The problem is when you take a sample set of one or two people and extrapolate it to the entire population. You keep wanting to debate just Uzi’s privacy or just Smartass’ privacy and ignore a whole bunch of people who aren’t anything like you or me, but whose lives and privacy rights are (theoretically) of equal “value”. > [@Uzi](#): > > I’m saying that I don’t do anything that I know of that anyone else would consider worth bothering me over. And if I did, I’d own it. That’s all well and good. It sounds like there aren’t any areas of your life that are likely to put you at risk of being abused by misuse of SkyEye. However, hypothetically, in the future you could find yourself dating the ex-spouse of a cop (or a SkyEye tech), and you could find yourself in a position where someone would consider ANYTHING worth bothering you over. I have had some acquaintance with a few cops who are real pieces of work…and others who were wonderful people. The idea of the former having something like SkyEye available to them (legally or illegally) is a little terrifying. > [@Uzi](#): > > The difference being I’ve made it pretty clear why it doesn’t matter so much to me. And I–and others–have offered up dozens of reasons (with examples) of why it matters more to people other than Uzi. Granted, they were all selfish, to some degree or other. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/341 "2015-08-08T02:57:14Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > So, you would forget the significance of your previous statement and assume that your opinion about the value of privacy is the correct one, and all of the people who are unhappy with your decision are just selfish. Because you haven’t given any examples that aren’t selfish. > [@](#): > > How do you justify saying that it _is not selfish_ to value my life but it _is selfish_ to prefer a life where my privacy is respected by the government? I would say that _both_ are selfish, and I would further say that there’s nothing wrong with that: It’s human nature. Certainly. But lets examine a couple of scenarios. You’re the boss. Employee calls in and says: “I don’t want to come to work today because I’ve been up all night playing computer games and I’ve nearly leveled up.” Or, “My wife has gone into labor and I need to take her to the hospital”. Both pretty selfish reasons. Which one are you likely to listen to and accommodate? So, when the answer to why someone wants privacy is to cheat on their wife, I really don’t have much concern for their reason. > [@](#): > > If _no one_ knew about it, then that would mean the system wasn’t being used at all. Didn’t know about the NSA surveillance. No one hurt by it? Still waiting for that answer, btw. If no one was hurt, then what are your concerns with a system everyone knows about? > [@](#): > > So, to your question, my reaction would not be, _what have I done that I might be going to get in trouble for?_ It would be something more like, _I want to see the statistics on the good that it’s doing (used properly) and the harm that’s coming from however many abuses of the system are occurring_. I can’t argue with that as I’d do the pretty much the same. > [@](#): > > Best I can tell, we’re talking about something in the 100s of thousands of people giving up privacy for every life saved. That’s an awful lot of people who are still alive and able to value their privacy that you don’t seem willing to consider. Are the 100’s of thousands you mention the whole 300 million or just the ones who would care about this system? > [@](#): > > I’m accusing you of making an unreasonable argument because you refuse to acknowledge those people who are still alive, no thanks to SkyEye, and enjoying less privacy. How do you ‘enjoy’ privacy? You enjoy your activities, etc. What activity is ‘privacy’? > [@](#): > > You’ve been provided with the Supreme Court opinion that clearly states that placing people under surveillance violates their current, existing (legal) expectation of privacy. Did you not catch me saying that is one of the reasons this discussion is pointless? We are arguing theoretically here. Most people also know even if the government isn’t recording you when the go outside, someone else might well be doing so. So, really doesn’t the decision say that you have an expectation of privacy from the government, but from no one else? > [@](#): > > If I say, “I’m not a racist; I just don’t like black people.” You’re going to discount one side of that sentence, because it can’t all be true. If you say it, then yes. If you think it and nothing in your actions indicates what you think, then are you? You’re actions make you what you are, not your thoughts. Now if you want me onboard with your side on privacy, wait till they come up with mind reading. > [@](#): > > However, since we’re talking about having it trained on everyone, I would think that you would leave room in your thoughts for how other people feel about _their_ privacy, without making it a requirement that they justify those feelings to you. They get to vote. They don’t have to explain why they vote in any particular fashion because voting is private. If they say they they want privacy, then they should explain what they mean by that and why. ‘Because’ isn’t a sufficient answer. > [@](#): > > This statement is near impossible for me to respond to, because you make it sound like we’re debating “whether Uzi should take a particular action”. We’re not; we’re debating whether the government should take an action that affects everyone, but it sounds like you’re talking about something else altogether. Add to that the vagueness of “to not do something” and the whole sentence is impossible to meaningfully place into the context of this discussion. OMG. Will this make it easier, “If I was the one in the government making these decisions”? Who the hell do you think I’d be referring to? Do you think ‘Uzi’ is Obama’s StraighDope account that I have the authority to implement this tool? If I was in the government and someone came up to me and said I don’t want you to do X, then I’m going to ask them for reasons. ‘Because’ isn’t a sufficient reason. Because God said so is no reason. Because it is against the law and here is the statute, is a good frikken reason (that I’d have to find a way to change or skirt if I thought what I needed to do was truly necessary). > [@](#): > > Well, it’s clearly not meaningful to you. I guess the key question is whether you give a shit that it’s meaningful to a lot of the people _other than you_ who will be affected. Specifically, even if you disapprove of their motives or how they’re living their lives, do you give a shit that they don’t want their privacy violated? It sure seems like the answer is no. I don’t care about how they live their lives or what secrets they have. That is their responsibility to deal with. Their motives only interest me when what they do affects others. > [@](#): > > I think this right here is a very key point of disagreement, because I think whether he was caught by SkyEye or his wife’s friend is EXTREMELY relevant: > … > For me, the difference between SkyEye and the wife’s friend is a critical difference. Honestly, it didn’t previously occur to me that you would see them as equivalent. No, because caught is caught. How doesn’t matter. Don’t want to get caught doing something, then don’t do it. Whatever that activity is, legal or not, if they don’t want to get caught, then DON’T DO IT. Or, do it and don’t get all butt hurt that there are consequences when discovered. Notice I am not saying they shouldn’t be with their gay lover? If that is what they want, then do it. I’m happy for them. > [@](#): > > The problem is not with using a real example. The problem is when you take a sample set of one or two people and extrapolate it to the entire population. You keep wanting to debate just Uzi’s privacy or just Smartass’ privacy and ignore a whole bunch of people who aren’t anything like you or me, but whose lives and privacy rights are (theoretically) of equal “value”. You are making assumptions. > [@](#): > > However, hypothetically, in the future you could find yourself dating the ex-spouse of a cop (or a SkyEye tech), and you could find yourself in a position where someone would consider ANYTHING worth bothering you over. And I could, hypothetically, need rescuing after a kidnapping or getting lost in the woods while hiking, or need video evidence that the kid jumped out in front of my car and there was no way to avoid him, or that I was no where near that robbery, or that I didn’t push that cop to the ground so there was no reason for them to shoot me…Frankly, I’d rather deal with the jealous boyfriend because at least then I can use the same tool to prove that he tracked me, came to my house and I was defending myself thus explaining the axe in his head. Hypothetically, that is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739.md?page=18)