# 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:** 18
**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:** [August 10, 2015, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/342 "2015-08-10T14:26:48Z")
Interesting court ruling [here](http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/124659.P.pdf) that relates directly to this issue. In a nutshell, there were a string of robberies in Baltimore over a long period of time. Police found two suspects and obtained a court order directing cell phone companies to turn over nearly a year’s worth of data. This data showed where each suspect’s cell phone was during those months – nearly 30,000 data points per suspect. The appeals court ruled 2-1 that the comprehensive nature of the information collected by a court order (which was not a search warrant) infringed on the suspects’ Fourth Amendment rights as an unreasonable, warrantless search. But because the police acted in good faith by obtaining a court order, the evidence could not be thrown out, and the convictions of the two men were upheld. If courts find that tracking two suspects’ movements every day over 9 months is an infringement of their Fourth Amendment rights, it is once again obvious as hell that the government can’t monitor every citizen in a city in perpetuity just in case one of them commits a crime. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/343 "2015-08-10T20:18:09Z")
What if they had obtained a warrant instead of a court order? Note that the cell-phone companies might want to submit this sort of information in certain circumstances - in the case of terrorism perhaps. By supplying a portable communication service these companies are facilitation all sorts of private communication, which might also help people to commit crimes. They might want to provide this sort of evidence if it can prevent or detect terrorism. In a few decades from now, significant numbers of people will have lifelogs; permanent, continuous records of practically everything they do and say and look at. I doubt that anyone will ever be required to surrender their lifelogs for analysis just to prove their own innocence; but some will volunteer the information if they think it absolves them. Other witnesses might volunteer their own memories in evidence to convict others. This popular sousveillance will constitute a kind of Eye of Sauron by the back door. Before the century is out we will need to re-appraise our concepts of privacy comprehensively. ---
**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 12, 2015, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/344 "2015-08-12T14:34:12Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > 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. Actually, for public-policy purposes, it’s not very difficult to quantify both. As I noted earlier in the thread, the “dollar benefit of a saved life” is the point where sucking X amount of money out of the rest of the economy produces, on average, one extra death as a result of people economizing a bit more on health care, driving instead of flying, accepting greater risks on the job, etc. Most economists put the figure in the low seven-digit (i.e. a few million dollars) range per life saved. As for the dollar benefit of privacy, we can start with that estimated $180 billion loss to the tech industry caused by the NSA’s shenanigans, add the value of various industries that depend on privacy (porn being the most obvious, but by no means the only, example), and throw in an estimate for the value of business deals lost because of the difficulty of conducting negotiations in public (dunno how to even begin to figure that out, but even a tiny percentage of business deals in general takes us into the multi-billion-dollar range). The conclusion is the same one I reached earlier – the burden of proof is on **Uzi** to show that the concept would save at least several thousand lives per year before the books get even close to balancing. Even then, the more basic issue of [fundamental damage to society’s ability to self-correct](http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/) must be addressed. ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/345 "2015-08-13T01:46:41Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Because you haven’t given any examples that aren’t selfish. Okay, how 'bout this hypothetical: Wayne and Dianne are married. Wayne is abusive of Dianne and she wants out, but she’s scared of what he’ll do to her if she tries to leave. Back when I was a kid, Dianne would probably be screwed. However, nowadays, there are often shelters for abused spouses that will basically “hide” them. So that’s what Dianne does, she sneaks out and goes to a shelter for battered women. Unfortunately, Wayne has a buddy who works in the SkyEye dept of his local police station. This buddy is responsible for quality control, so he can go view the footage and note it down as checking some aspect of the quality of the feed. Wayne tells him that he’s really worried about Dianne, so the buddy tracks her and tells Wayne where she went. Wayne goes to the shelter, has a Postal moment, kills Dianne and several bystanders. By the way, I would say that it’s selfish of Dianne to want society to support her desire to get out of a bad marriage (even though, it’s her own fault for making the bad decision to marry her abuser). However, I’m thinking that maybe it’s not the same _kind_ of selfish that you’re talking about…but, see below. > [@Uzi](#): > > Certainly. But lets examine a couple of scenarios…Both pretty selfish reasons. Which one are you likely to listen to and accommodate? Which one would you? And how would you make the distinction? If you think about it, the answer probably doesn’t have much to do with whether the request is “selfish”. And that was my point: You’re saying “selfish” when I think you mean something else…but I can’t figure out what that something is. You’re making a distinction between privacy and other rights based on privacy representing “selfishness”, and I can’t understand how it is more or less selfish than anything else. > [@Uzi](#): > > Didn’t know about the NSA surveillance. No one hurt by it? Still waiting for that answer, btw. Since you’ve been given examples of people that were/are being hurt, I don’t know what you’re waiting for. > [@Uzi](#): > > If no one was hurt, then what are your concerns with a system everyone knows about? I guess I made a distinction that was too subtle for you. What I was suggesting was that the only way that it could exist without anyone knowing is for it not to be used AT ALL, for good or bad, in which case it may as well not exist. But you CAN’T start getting the benefits without also “turning on” the abuses as well. > [@Uzi](#): > > Are the 100’s of thousands you mention the whole 300 million or just the ones who would care about this system? I’m referring to 100s of thousands of privacy violations _per life saved_. > [@Uzi](#): > > How do you ‘enjoy’ privacy? You enjoy your activities, etc. What activity is ‘privacy’? I’m using “enjoy” in the sense of “to have the benefit of”. And you’re being WAY too literal-minded. > [@Uzi](#): > > 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? There are two distinctions that you are refusing to acknowledge: One is the difference between “being seen” and “being under surveillance”. If ANYONE is recording my every move when I’m outside my house, then I am under surveillance. That is NOT the same as someone catching 30 seconds of footage of me walking the dog. The other is the difference between private transgressions and public ones. If a private citizen violates my privacy, depending on the violation, they are subject to criminal penalties AND I can probably sue. If the government violates my privacy, I may be able to get evidence thrown out of court, but I can’t cause the bad guys to be punished and I most likely cannot sue anyone over it, either. This is what I mean by “no recourse”. For me, these are two very big reasons why you can’t talk about someone catching some footage of me on their cell phone as if it were logically equivalent to SkyEye. The two are incomparable. > [@Uzi](#): > > 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. With all due respect, you’re making my point for me. If you’re willing to violate the privacy of any number of people to save one life, then your ACTIONS suggest that you don’t believe privacy has any value at all. The fact that you later claim that this is not, in fact, your position just isn’t very convincing–and I can’t read your mind; I can only respond to your argument. > [@Uzi](#): > > They get to vote…If they say they they want privacy, then they should explain what they mean by that and why. ‘Because’ isn’t a sufficient answer. Well, in THIS forum, nothing is a sufficient answer for you. You’ve gotten a whole lot more here than just “because”, and you’ve hand-waved every bit of it away. btw, taking a whole bunch of arguments–whether you agree with them or not–and summarizing them this way is extremely dismissive AND arrogant. You can disagree with what other people have said WITHOUT pretending that they have said nothing. > [@Uzi](#): > > OMG. Will this make it easier…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… You’re babbling. My complaint is that you make unreasonable statements, but you COVER that unreasonableness with vagueness or misrepresenting a whole chunk of the discussion. In this particular case, you said, “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 would be perfectly reasonable if we were talking a decision _BY UZI_ about whether UZI should or should not do something. Corrected, the sentence would be more like, “I sympathize with the person who wants to step out on their loveless marriage [which is NOT illegal, by the way], but _I don’t think the government should place much weight on that as a reason to not not place the entire population under surveillance._” I am just tired of you pulling little “tricks” like this to make your arguments sound more reasonable than they are. > [@Uzi](#): > > …‘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). And now you’ve carried it so far that you’ve completely confused yourself. What we’re debating is government surveillance, NOT whether Uzi might decide, as a private citizen, to try to watch everyone else. > [@Uzi](#): > > 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. This is just plain unresponsive. I asked you whether you give a shit that other people don’t want their privacy violated. Nothing about secrets or motives. > [@Uzi](#): > > 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. So, you just decided to completely ignore everything I said about the difference between gov’t action and private action…also, a very dismissive and arrogant way to argue. This whole “caught is caught” thing is such an oversimplification of the IDEA of privacy, I can’t help but think it’s deliberate. If a guy puts a camera in his shoe and uses it to film up women’s skirts, would you say, “If you don’t want to get \*caught \*on camera that way, you should never wear skirts outside your house?” > [@Uzi](#): > > 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. Yes, that sounds very generous of you, but if they’d rather keep their “gayness” secret, well they’re just selfishly not “owning” their own behavior, right? You’re okay with people being gay, but they’ve got no right to be _secretly_ gay…because no one should do things that they don’t want everyone to know about. I know that I don’t want to live in YOUR world. > [@Uzi](#): > > You are making assumptions. In this case, it’s YOU making assumptions, and ME pointing it out. > [@Uzi](#): > > And I could, hypothetically, need …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. Right…you’ll be able to kill a police officer with an axe and then live happily ever after. Good luck with that. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/346 "2015-08-13T01:48:04Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Interesting court ruling [here](http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/124659.P.pdf) that relates directly to this issue. Well, if SkyEye existed, this sounds like it would open the door pretty wide for every kind of abuse of the system. Not very encouraging. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/347 "2015-08-13T02:02:11Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Actually, for public-policy purposes, it’s not very difficult to quantify both… I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but I don’t think this is the kind of “value” that \*\*Uzi \*\*is talking about. If he were willing to consider these kinds of arguments, he wouldn’t be so steadfastly ignoring your previous posts on the subject. Having said that, if he does decide to address this sort of “value comparison”, it’s clear to me that you would be a far better person than me for him to be having THAT debate with. > [@Steve\_MB](#): > > The conclusion is the same one I reached earlier – the burden of proof is on **Uzi** to show that the concept would save at least several thousand lives per year before the books get even close to balancing. I agree. And yet he THINKS that the burden is on me (or us) to show that privacy has some value. And it seems that he thinks that because arguments that he has ignored apparently don’t count. > [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Even then, the more basic issue of [fundamental damage to society’s ability to self-correct](http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/) must be addressed. THIS is a part of the argument I really wish we could _get_ Uzi to pay attention to and respond to. However, since he’s ignored previous references to it, I’m not all that hopeful. Probably too “nebulous” of a concept for him. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/348 "2015-08-13T02:54:11Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Actually, for public-policy purposes, it’s not very difficult to quantify both. As I noted earlier in the thread, the “dollar benefit of a saved life” is the point where sucking X amount of money out of the rest of the economy produces, on average, one extra death as a result of people economizing a bit more on health care, driving instead of flying, accepting greater risks on the job, etc. Most economists put the figure in the low seven-digit (i.e. a few million dollars) range per life saved. As for the dollar benefit of privacy, we can start with that estimated $180 billion loss to the tech industry caused by the NSA’s shenanigans, add the value of various industries that depend on privacy (porn being the most obvious, but by no means the only, example), and throw in an estimate for the value of business deals lost because of the difficulty of conducting negotiations in public (dunno how to even begin to figure that out, but even a tiny percentage of business deals in general takes us into the multi-billion-dollar range). I’ve already answered this. The NSA system was designed to collect data in computer systems and communications. Because of this, buyers outside (and probably) the US didn’t want to buy potentially compromised tech from US companies. That won’t happen with this sort of video system as it doesn’t need access to other computer systems. The only potential financial impact here would be the result of the surveillance and the cost of the system itself. So, a comparable number from the NSA would be the cost resulting from the data collected and its use. Which I’ve asked for and not gotten an answer on. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/349 "2015-08-13T03:06:00Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > THIS is a part of the argument I really wish we could _get_ Uzi to pay attention to and respond to. However, since he’s ignored previous references to it, I’m not all that hopeful. Probably too “nebulous” of a concept for him. You guys aren’t really for democracy, are you? You elect politicians who make laws and then you don’t want to live with those laws. Rather than work to have them changed, you’d rather they were broken. So, which laws should we follow and which shouldn’t we? I’m for fixing it such that anything preventing you from doing things that could only harm you should be thrown out. If this system was used to find every person using drugs and then charge them for doing so, who would be left outside the jails to pay for those in jail? The laws would likely get changed far quicker than is occurring now. I’m no angel, btw. I’m just willing to live with the consequences if I get caught breaking one (mostly jaywalking and traffic related). ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/350 "2015-08-13T03:54:18Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > Wayne goes to the shelter, has a Postal moment, kills Dianne and several bystanders. Wayne has a restraining order on him. When Wayne gets within X amount of distance from Dianne the system raises an alarm and automatically sends the police to the exact location of Wayne and prevent him from breaking the order thus preventing him from having a postal moment. At the same time as the police get the alarm a message (or call) is made to Dianne saying that Wayne is within the restricted area allowing her to act before he gets close enough to do her harm. > [@](#): > > And that was my point: You’re saying “selfish” when I think you mean something else…but I can’t figure out what that something is. Self-serving? > [@](#): > > You’re making a distinction between privacy and other rights based on privacy representing “selfishness”, and I can’t understand how it is more or less selfish than anything else. I don’t want someone looking at me all day because if make me nervous. I can understand two gay people wanting to keep their relationship secret or the fact that they are gay at all. No ones business and I don’t think that is selfish as it hurts no one. Trying to keep that relationship secret from your spouse? Selfish. > [@](#): > > I guess I made a distinction that was too subtle for you. What I was suggesting was that the only way that it could exist without anyone knowing is for it not to be used AT ALL, for good or bad, in which case it may as well not exist. But you CAN’T start getting the benefits without also “turning on” the abuses as well. I think if the system is designed and managed correctly with the appropriate controls in place, then the potential for abuse is low. Please note that I say 'designed and managed correctly with the appropriate controls in place". I agree with you that if not done then there is potential for abuse. > [@](#): > > The other is the difference between private transgressions and public ones. If a private citizen violates my privacy, depending on the violation, they are subject to criminal penalties AND I can probably sue. If the government violates my privacy, I may be able to get evidence thrown out of court, but I can’t cause the bad guys to be punished and I most likely cannot sue anyone over it, either. This is what I mean by “no recourse”. One of the controls should be that it is illegal to use this system outside the agreed uses. Whatever penalties should be appropriate for what it was used for. If Wayne goes postal, his buddy should be up on equivalent charges for assisting in that activity. > [@](#): > > With all due respect, you’re making my point for me. If you’re willing to violate the privacy of any number of people to save one life, then your ACTIONS suggest that you don’t believe privacy has any value at all. I’m asking YOU what value it has. I’ve already said, I don’t think this is any different than what can happen now. Whether it is the government or someone else isn’t relevant to me. > [@](#): > > btw, taking a whole bunch of arguments–whether you agree with them or not–and summarizing them this way is extremely dismissive AND arrogant. You can disagree with what other people have said WITHOUT pretending that they have said nothing. Sorry, didn’t realize that you were a millennial. Here’s a couple of happy faces for participating.:):):):)🙂 > [@](#): > > In this particular case, you said, “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 would be perfectly reasonable if we were talking a decision _BY UZI_ about whether UZI should or should not do something. Corrected, the sentence would be more like, “I sympathize with the person who wants to step out on their loveless marriage [which is NOT illegal, by the way], but _I don’t think the government should place much weight on that as a reason to not not place the entire population under surveillance._” No, you are being pedantic. As we are discussing this system, it is obvious the system would be implemented by the government and that when I am saying that I’d discount a person’s reason for privacy when is to hide his extramarital affairs, then I am referring to those who would be in a position to make that determination. If I was that person, then I wouldn’t put much weight on their reason for wanting privacy. > [@](#): > > I am just tired of you pulling little “tricks” like this to make your arguments sound more reasonable than they are. Maybe my arguments are more reasonable than what you are reading into them? > [@](#): > > This whole “caught is caught” thing is such an oversimplification of the IDEA of privacy, I can’t help but think it’s deliberate. If a guy puts a camera in his shoe and uses it to film up women’s skirts, would you say, “If you don’t want to get \*caught \*on camera that way, you should never wear skirts outside your house?” No, I’d say if you don’t want to get caught with a camera on your shoe, don’t put a camera on your shoe. One activity is likely illegal, the other isn’t. > [@](#): > > …because no one should do things that they don’t want everyone to know about. No one should do things in public they don’t want anyone knowing about as someone could find out about it regardless of this system. You are making a bunch of assumptions that the system will capture then doing something inherently ‘gay’, that someone will bother to watch to see that they are doing, and then is willing to act upon that information and further do all this and not get caught doing it. I’m think hiring a private detective to follow the person you want to ‘out’ would be easier. > [@](#): > > I know that I don’t want to live in YOUR world. f Yes, we all live in your paranoid world where government can’t be trusted and people have to keep secrets rather than actually fixing and taking responsibility for their issues. But again, you are assuming that someone will regularly be using the system inappropriately rather than it being an outlier. But, then I have no way to argue that won’t happen as I’m not the one designing the system. Maybe your paranoia is justified. > [@](#): > > Right…you’ll be able to kill a police officer with an axe and then live happily ever after. Good luck with that. One that breaks into my house without a warrant and has been shown to have been stalking me? Yeah, pretty much. And if I had any trouble with his cop buddies, I’d just use the system to get them to stop doing it. ---
**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 13, 2015, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/351 "2015-08-13T03:55:53Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > I’ve already answered this. The NSA system was designed to collect data in computer systems and communications. Because of this, buyers outside (and probably) the US didn’t want to buy potentially compromised tech from US companies. That won’t happen with this sort of video system as it doesn’t need access to other computer systems. The only potential financial impact here would be the result of the surveillance and the cost of the system itself. So, a comparable number from the NSA would be the cost resulting from the data collected and its use. Which I’ve asked for and not gotten an answer on. You **did** get an answer, which I have just repeated. The NSA’s data collection cost the tech industry about $180 billion. This cost is entirely the result of privacy violation – there is no other reason for buyers to care about the tech being “compromised” – and thus sets a floor on the dollars-and-sense public-policy value of privacy. > [@Uzi](#): > > You guys aren’t really for democracy, are you? Not really. The founders of the American Republic weren’t sanguine about the concept of two wolves and a lamb voting on the dinner menu, either. > [@Uzi](#): > > we all live in your paranoid world where government can’t be trusted Indeed, we all do live in the real world, whatever adjectives one cares to attach to it. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/352 "2015-08-13T05:56:39Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > You **did** get an answer, which I have just repeated. The NSA’s data collection cost the tech industry about $180 billion. This cost is entirely the result of privacy violation – there is no other reason for buyers to care about the tech being “compromised” – and thus sets a floor on the dollars-and-sense public-policy value of privacy. They care about potential hackers getting into their systems and screwing with things. What systems do you anticipate will be compromised by implementing a camera in the sky that would prevent US businesses from selling their products? ---
**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 13, 2015, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/353 "2015-08-13T14:36:03Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > What systems do you anticipate will be compromised by implementing a camera in the sky You said it yourself – it would be an open invitation for cyberstalking hackers. ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/354 "2015-08-14T01:00:20Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Wayne has a restraining order on him… Of course. I forgot about the SkyEye feature that automatically scans the facial expression of any woman leaving her residence and, if she looks frightened, automatically issues a restraining order against her husband or boyfriend. What _you_ forgot is that Superman, realizing that Lex Luthor had acquired a piece of Kryptonite, was actually wearing his anti-Kryptonite underwear the whole time, and was just pretending to be weak and helpless. If you decide you’re ready to engage in a grown-up discussion of this topic, please let us know. > [@Uzi](#): > > Self-serving? In that case, please explain to me how wanting your right to privacy protected is more self-serving than wanting your right to life protected. How are you making this distinction? > [@Uzi](#): > > I don’t want someone looking at me all day because if make me nervous. I can understand two gay people wanting to keep their relationship secret or the fact that they are gay at all. No ones business and I don’t think that is selfish as it hurts no one. Trying to keep that relationship secret from your spouse? Selfish. Okay, for the sake of this discussion then, let’s assume that we’re only talking about gay people who don’t have a spouse but still want their gayness to be a secret from _most_ of the people they know. > [@Uzi](#): > > I think if the system is designed and managed correctly with the appropriate controls in place, then the potential for abuse is low. Please note that I say 'designed and managed correctly with the appropriate controls in place". I agree with you that if not done then there is potential for abuse. The problem is that the “appropriate controls” you’ve described so far are in place for other police powers, and yet there are still all kinds of abuses. Which means to me that your suggestion that “the potential for abuse is low” is wildly optimistic. > [@Uzi](#): > > One of the controls should be that it is illegal to use this system outside the agreed uses. Whatever penalties should be appropriate for what it was used for. If Wayne goes postal, his buddy should be up on equivalent charges for assisting in that activity. There are two problems here: One is that it is notoriously difficult to catch and punish abuses of police powers. The police are never all that good at policing themselves, and the system is weighted in their favor. You can act like a government intrusion on privacy is no different from a private intrusion, but, in practice, this is very much \*not \*the case. Second, while it’s good to know that Wayne and his buddy might be punished (assuming that the buddy’s involvement can be proven, which is a trickier assumption than you seem to realize), Dianne will still be dead. Justice is as useless to a dead person as privacy is. In this case, the violation of her right to privacy while she was alive has enabled the violation of her right to life. Now, she has neither. Given that there are WAY more battered women than there are kidnap victims in people’s basements, I’d think this particular example would be more meaningful to you. That is, if you are as concerned about “saving lives” as you claim to be. If you were a kidnap victim, and SkyEye could save you, but SkyEye would also result in, say, two women being hunted down and killed by abusive husbands, would you say that was a fair trade? > [@Uzi](#): > > I’m asking YOU what value it has. I’ve already said, I don’t think this is any different than what can happen now. Whether it is the government or someone else isn’t relevant to me. This is the quality of argument that I expect to find in religion threads: “A person can drown in their bathtub, so I don’t think dropping them in the middle of the ocean is any different than what can happen now.” Right now, John Smith is not under continual surveillance. When he’s out in public, at any given time, he could be in front of a security camera or someone’s cell phone. However, most of the time, he is not being filmed, and when he IS being filmed it is by people who don’t know him and have little ability to find out who he is. If John is secretly going on gay dates, it is a possibility that he gets outed, but if he’s careful, it’s not very likely. With SkyEye, John is always under surveillance. It’s near impossible that he could be careful enough that there is no video evidence of his gay dates. And the nature of that evidence makes it MUCH easier to find out who he is, where he lives, where he works, etc. So, in both scenarios, it CAN happen that John gets outed against his wishes, but that doesn’t mean the two situations are equivalent, or even remotely similar. > [@Uzi](#): > > Sorry, didn’t realize that you were a millennial. Here’s a couple of happy faces for participating.:):):):)🙂 My _children_ are millennials. As for me, I’m just disappointed that I try to get you to argue with a _little_ integrity, and you think I’m fishing for attaboys. > [@Uzi](#): > > No, you are being pedantic…I wouldn’t put much weight on their reason for wanting privacy. In that case: **Given how few people are abducted and held hostage, I don’t see any reason for me to try do anything about it.** Have to admit, your way of arguing is much less mentally taxing than mine. > [@Uzi](#): > > Maybe my arguments are more reasonable than what you are reading into them? It’s a possibility, but if you keep expressing them this way, I’ll never know, will I? > [@Uzi](#): > > No, I’d say if you don’t want to get caught with a camera on your shoe, don’t put a camera on your shoe. One activity is likely illegal, the other isn’t. Last I checked, being gay and/or having an affair are not illegal activities. Not that it matters: You clearly are not _missing_ my point; you’re actively avoiding it. > [@Uzi](#): > > You are making a bunch of assumptions that the system will capture then doing something inherently ‘gay’… I’m assuming that it will capture everything they do while outside the cover of a roof. Since that’s the way the system was described, I think it’s a reasonable “assumption”. As to “doing something inherently gay”, I don’t have any idea what you’re talking about…I assume it would be different than “doing something contextually gay”, whatever that means… > [@Uzi](#): > > …that someone will bother to watch to see that they are doing, and then is willing to act upon that information and further do all this and not get caught doing it. Doesn’t sound like much of a stretch to me, unless you think that “bother to watch” and “is wiling” represent strenuous activities. As for whether they get caught, what difference does it make? The damage is done. > [@Uzi](#): > > I’m think hiring a private detective to follow the person you want to ‘out’ would be easier. How is finding and hiring a private detective easier than watching SkyEye video? Sorry, I meant to say “bothering to watch”. Not only do I think that the PI is probably NOT easier, it is definitely WAY more expensive. > [@Uzi](#): > > f Q > [@Uzi](#): > > Yes, we all live in your paranoid world where government can’t be trusted and people have to keep secrets rather than actually fixing and taking responsibility for their issues. Not sure about the word “paranoid”, but I would say that otherwise this is a reasonably accurate description of the real world. It’s full of imperfect people finding less-than-optimal solutions to conflicting desires. What, you think it’s a coincidence that antidepressants are [the most commonly prescribed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidepressant) drugs in the U.S.? > [@Uzi](#): > > But again, you are assuming that someone will regularly be using the system inappropriately rather than it being an outlier. It’s not just an arbitrary assumption. Pretty much all of the current “tools” in the hands of police are regularly used inappropriately (cites in support of this were presented pages and pages ago, and you ignored them); why would this one be any different? > [@Uzi](#): > > But, then I have no way to argue that won’t happen as I’m not the one designing the system. Maybe your paranoia is justified. If a dog has bitten several of my neighbors, thinking that it’s likely to bite me is not paranoia; it’s a reasonable conclusion based on evidence. Similarly, if I predict you’re going to ignore the key points of my argument and slaughter a pack of strawmen, I’m not acting paranoid; I’m expecting you to continue established patterns. > [@Uzi](#): > > One that breaks into my house without a warrant and has been shown to have been stalking me? Yeah, pretty much. And if I had any trouble with his cop buddies, I’d just use the system to get them to stop doing it. Fair enough. I will concede that in your law-and-order fantasy world, SkyEye will be a wonderful boon to your well-behaved, pragmatic, and hopelessly oppressed citizens. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/355 "2015-08-14T01:01:00Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > You said it yourself – it would be an open invitation for cyberstalking hackers. Like any other system out there? You bank, your tax records, etc? ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/356 "2015-08-14T04:25:11Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > Of course. I forgot about the SkyEye feature that automatically scans the facial expression of any woman leaving her residence and, if she looks frightened, automatically issues a restraining order against her husband or boyfriend. Geez, buddy, and you’ve accused me of overestimating how many lives will be saved by this system now here you go and do the same in reverse. > [@](#): > > If you decide you’re ready to engage in a grown-up discussion of this topic, please let us know. You’ve accused me of a lot of things in this discussion where I’ve tried to be civil. Frankly, you’re the one who isn’t arguing like a grown-up. You are employing tactics that rather than disprove my arguments you point to me and accuse me of being immature. But, I’ll agree with you here in this case, if Wayne has a good buddy that is willing to skirt the law, then it is possible that Dianne would be in danger in this particular scenario. Now will you admit that a tool like this could be used to enforce restraining orders and protect Dianne far better than the existing method of trusting the person who has the order against them from violating it? > [@](#): > > Okay, for the sake of this discussion then, let’s assume that we’re only talking about gay people who don’t have a spouse but still want their gayness to be a secret from _most_ of the people they know. The assumption is that implementing this tool has an increased chance of outing that person. I think it is a very small chance for the vast majority of people who are in this particular situation. > [@](#): > > The problem is that the “appropriate controls” you’ve described so far are in place for other police powers, and yet there are still all kinds of abuses. Which means to me that your suggestion that “the potential for abuse is low” is wildly optimistic. And how are those controls monitored? Two people, a cop and citizen, meet on the street and the cop shoots the citizen. What do we have to say what happened? > [@](#): > > There are two problems here: One is that it is notoriously difficult to catch and punish abuses of police powers. The police are never all that good at policing themselves, and the system is weighted in their favor. You can act like a government intrusion on privacy is no different from a private intrusion, but, in practice, this is very much \*not \*the case. When did I ever say that the police will ever be anything other than users of the system? This shouldn’t be under the control of any law enforcement agency, but an independent part of government that ‘polices’ the users of the system. > [@](#): > > Given that there are WAY more battered women than there are kidnap victims in people’s basements, I’d think this particular example would be more meaningful to you. That is, if you are as concerned about “saving lives” as you claim to be. Yes, and most of them actually live to get restraining orders which can be better enforced by this system and prevent further issues. > [@](#): > > So, in both scenarios, it CAN happen that John gets outed against his wishes, but that doesn’t mean the two situations are equivalent, or even remotely similar. And? Who is the party that is going to out him and why? What are the odds of it happening? I’m going to guess less than the amount of people who could be saved by using this system. I’m not saying it can’t happen, but how often can it happen before someone speaks up and better controls are in place (that should have been in place to prevent it from happening in the first place)? > [@](#): > > Last I checked, being gay and/or having an affair are not illegal activities. Not that it matters: You clearly are not _missing_ my point; you’re actively avoiding it. Yes, and the system isn’t there to look for gays or people having affairs. Someone taking a picture of you when you are outside is legally allowed. Someone hiding cameras in washrooms or attempting to look up a person’s skirt is illegal. Using this system to look for gays or people having affairs or anything not allowed for it to be used for should be illegal. > [@](#): > > Doesn’t sound like much of a stretch to me, unless you think that “bother to watch” and “is wiling” represent strenuous activities. As for whether they get caught, what difference does it make? The damage is done. What damage? What are the odds of any of this happening? > [@](#): > > How is finding and hiring a private detective easier than watching SkyEye video? Sorry, I meant to say “bothering to watch”. Not only do I think that the PI is probably NOT easier, it is definitely WAY more expensive. Uh, someone has decided to track a specific person. They can do it using SkyEye, where their activity will be tracked and should be hardened against such activity and illegal, or they can hire a PI to legally follow that person. Or are you suggesting that the government will just fish the entire system and start randomly outing people? > [@](#): > > Not sure about the word “paranoid”, but I would say that otherwise this is a reasonably accurate description of the real world. It’s full of imperfect people finding less-than-optimal solutions to conflicting desires. And most people are afraid of letting their kids out of their sight today when you and I grew up, they actively kicked us out of the house to stop annoying them. Is the world more dangerous now or is it just paranoia based upon media hype? > [@](#): > > What, you think it’s a coincidence that antidepressants are [the most commonly prescribed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidepressant) drugs in the U.S.? I personally don’t drink or take drugs other than that required to resolve a physical medical issue. I don’t know why people use antidepressants other then maybe they are spending too much time trying to hide shit no one else really cares about? Better yet, I don’t know. > [@](#): > > It’s not just an arbitrary assumption. Pretty much all of the current “tools” in the hands of police are regularly used inappropriately (cites in support of this were presented pages and pages ago, and you ignored them); why would this one be any different? I’m sure I’ve answered this previously. But what measures are in place to ensure that current controls are effective and being followed? How is this activity being monitored? Or are we still just relying on someones word that it is so? Might this be why people want the police to wear video cameras to better monitor what they are doing? > [@](#): > > If a dog has bitten several of my neighbors, thinking that it’s likely to bite me is not paranoia; it’s a reasonable conclusion based on evidence. And just because a dog has bitten someone somewhere doesn’t mean that every dog will do the same thing. Or should we just get rid of dogs? You live in supposed free society even with all these abuses. The same paranoia that you fear is probably the same one that makes people want to collect guns and fear their neighbors. I don’t think the solution is more secrets, but better visibility to what is actually occurring. If people aren’t getting kidnapped and kept in basements this system would prove that. If you are worried about your kid going missing, this system will find them. > [@](#): > > Fair enough. I will concede that in your law-and-order fantasy world, SkyEye will be a wonderful boon to your well-behaved, pragmatic, and hopelessly oppressed citizens. Oppressed how? People breaking the laws that elected representatives have put in place are caught? Don’t blame the tool used to help enforce those laws, blame the people who implemented the laws and those who elected them. ---
**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 14, 2015, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/357 "2015-08-14T12:38:46Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > a tool like this could be used to enforce restraining orders and protect Dianne far better than the existing method of trusting the person who has the order against them from violating it? > [@](#): > > The assumption is that implementing this tool has an increased chance of outing that person. I think it is a very small chance for the vast majority of people who are in this particular situation. So, it somehow can identify people in one situation, but not in another, based entirely on whether or not admitting the implications happens to be convenient for your argument. By describing the system as a Lawful Good magical artifact (which works for good but not for evil) rather than a technological device (which works mechanically and impartially), you’re putting it beyond the scope of rational analysis (which, admittedly, isn’t really working out for you). > [@](#): > > When did I ever say that the police will ever be anything other than users of the system? This shouldn’t be under the control of any law enforcement agency, but an independent part of government that ‘polices’ the users of the system. That is, theoretically, how the system that are supposed to prevent existing abuses are supposed to work – the operative words being “supposed to”. Rather than put all sorts of elaborate safeties on the gun before you hand it to the monkey, it’s better to simply not give a monkey a gun in the first place. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying it can’t happen, but how often can it happen before someone speaks up and better controls are in place (that should have been in place to prevent it from happening in the first place)? How, exactly, are people supposed to do that once the system is abused, given the obvious fact that Job One of the abusers will be to use the system to undermine attempts to hold them accountable? (i.e. “Okay, we got the list of people at the ‘SkyEye Accountability Conference’. Let the ratfucking commence!”) > [@](#): > > Using this system to look for gays or people having affairs or anything not allowed for it to be used for should be illegal. Good thing the government never does illegal things, then. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > What damage? What are the odds of any of this happening? Judging from the government’s track record. 100%. > [@](#): > > Uh, someone has decided to track a specific person. They can do it using SkyEye, where their activity will be tracked and should be hardened against such activity and illegal, or they can hire a PI to legally follow that person. This is another example of how friction in the system, like friction in a car’s brake pads, is a feature, not a bug. A world where the government has to spend significant resources and send personnel to conduct surveillance reduces their ability to overdo it and increases the chance of getting caught if they do it illegally. > [@](#): > > And most people are afraid of letting their kids out of their sight today when you and I grew up, they actively kicked us out of the house to stop annoying them. Is the world more dangerous now or is it just paranoia based upon media hype? [The Master Speaks.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2404/is-the-world-more-dangerous-now-than-when-we-were-kids) (Upshot: The danger level fluctuates up and down; overall, “media hype” is closer to the mark than “more dangerous now”.) > [@](#): > > I don’t think the solution is more secrets, but better visibility to what is actually occurring. You are, of course, welcome to share as much of your life as you wish (provided that you don’t insist on getting in my face about it). > [@](#): > > Oppressed how? People breaking the laws that elected representatives have put in place are caught? Don’t blame the tool used to help enforce those laws, blame the people who implemented the laws and those who elected them. Again, you are ignoring [a crucial issue](http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/) which I have repeatedly raised. ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/358 "2015-08-14T19:02:09Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Geez, buddy, and you’ve accused me of overestimating how many lives will be saved by this system now here you go and do the same in reverse. Sorry, I forgot to put up my “SARCASM” sign. Rather than seriously consider the scenario that I presented, you just decided to change the scenario, which depended on features and uses of SkyEye that have not been part of any of the previous discussion. > [@Uzi](#): > > You’ve accused me of a lot of things in this discussion where I’ve tried to be civil. You continually ignore or misrepresent the arguments that I put in front of you. Doing that using polite phrasing does not make your behavior civil; it makes it disingenuous. > [@Uzi](#): > > Frankly, you’re the one who isn’t arguing like a grown-up. You are employing tactics that rather than disprove my arguments you point to me and accuse me of being immature. I’m calling you out when you don’t play fair. That’s what grown-ups do. We aren’t having the kind of argument where we can “prove” or “disprove” our cases, but we CAN discuss the relative merits of our positions. In that spirit, I have been trying to be _very_ diligent about responding to all of your arguments. You have ignored or misrepresented most of mine. It’s why the argument goes nowhere: You refuse to concede any ground or acknowledge any valid points that I make. Instead, you do these weird reframings of the argument, or you pick one sentence and argue against just that sentence as if it had appeared with no context. The most frustrating thing you do is, in the middle of an ongoing exchange on one particular element of the argument, you respond to my last post as if the previous parts of the exchange never happened, so that it also is completely out of context. For the record, taking a piece of someone’s argument completely out of its context IS a kind of “misrepresenting the argument”. The frustration and annoyance you are feeling are a result of me _deliberately_ punishing you for this kind of behavior. You could be a LOT less polite (I don’t put too much stock in courtesies), but try harder to play a fair game, and this interaction would be a lot more rewarding for both of us… > [@Uzi](#): > > But, I’ll agree with you here in this case, if Wayne has a good buddy that is willing to skirt the law, then it is possible that Dianne would be in danger in this particular scenario. So, this feels like a breakthrough. This kind of thing is exactly what I think has been missing from your side of the argument. Thank you. > [@Uzi](#): > > Now will you admit that a tool like this could be used to enforce restraining orders and protect Dianne far better than the existing method of trusting the person who has the order against them from violating it? This is problematic in the context of the existing discussion. We’ve talked about a system that captures everyone on film, but doesn’t actively identify or track individuals. They are _effectively_ tracked by the ability to “rewind the tape”. Having the system able to automatically identify and track individuals implies adding a level of functionality (and intrusiveness) to the system that simply hasn’t been on the table before now. I think adding that it into the mix would be very challenging technically. The “best” solution I can think of would be something like ankle trackers, which SkyEye would then home in on. Of course, to track proximity, the “restrainer” and the “restrainee” would both have to have trackers. Since we don’t require people with restraining orders to wear them now, I think it would be quite a challenge to make this a legal requirement–and even more of a challenge to require it of the “restrainer”. > [@Uzi](#): > > The assumption is that implementing this tool has an increased chance of outing that person. I think it is a very small chance for the vast majority of people who are in this particular situation. I disagree, for all the reasons previously discussed. > [@Uzi](#): > > And how are those controls monitored? Two people, a cop and citizen, meet on the street and the cop shoots the citizen. What do we have to say what happened? You’re mixing contexts here. We don’t have “controls” to specifically prevent cops from shooting citizens, that I’m aware of–certainly not in the sense of the “controls” that you’ve suggested to prevent abuse of SkyEye. What we have are controls on illegal surveillance, searches, and other privacy violations (search warrant requirements, probably cause requirements, etc.). And, generally, those controls aren’t actively monitored. Rather, someone has to complain about a violation, and the complaint is, ostensibly, investigated. Alternatively, someone uses evidence that procedures were not followed in an attempt to get evidence thrown out of court. A key point here is that in the area of privacy violations, once someone has been harmed, there is no practical “undoing” of the harm; the only possibility is some kind of recompense, and it is notoriously difficult to get any meaningful recompense from the government (police illegally search you; if they find anything, you may get it thrown out as evidence against you, but–regardless of whether they find anything–they don’t go to jail, and the city does not give you a big cash settlement). > [@Uzi](#): > > When did I ever say that the police will ever be anything other than users of the system? This shouldn’t be under the control of any law enforcement agency, but an independent part of government that ‘polices’ the users of the system. This isn’t as big a distinction as you seem to think. The police are a part of the government. The agency you’re describing is a part of the government. At some level, they report to the same boss. The requirement, one way or another, is for the government to monitor to itself, and this has been a fraught issue pretty much forever. It’s the REASON that "modern’ constitutions, like the American one, are designed to specifically limit government/policing powers. Whatever “sticks” you put in the hands of the government, the citizenry are pretty much defenseless against. You can call this paranoia, if you like, but I’m no more paranoid than the guys who drafted the Constitution. > [@Uzi](#): > > Yes, and most of them actually live to get restraining orders which can be better enforced by this system and prevent further issues. If by “most”, you mean a majority, I agree. However, the numbers here are quite large: The most recent [statistics I have found](http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf) with a quick search estimate 2,340 women killed in 2007 by an “intimate partner”. And that’s just the number who wound up dead; the numbers that wind up hurt but alive are pretty staggering. I’m not looking to open up a new topic here. The point is that you keep asking for examples of the “value” of privacy that aren’t vague or nebulous. I think this counts as one, and I also think that it highlights that there are real tradeoffs (where actual lives are at stake) involved in giving up “privacy” for more “security”. > [@Uzi](#): > > Who is the party that is going to out him and why? If you’ve been following any of the news/debates over gay marriage, then you should know the answer to your question. In the part of the country where I am from, a LOT of the people are fundamentalists AND bigots. Which means that a lot of the police force, prosecutors, etc. are also fundamentalists and bigots. > [@Uzi](#): > > What are the odds of it happening? I’m going to guess less than the amount of people who could be saved by using this system. I’m not saying it can’t happen, but how often can it happen before someone speaks up and better controls are in place (that should have been in place to prevent it from happening in the first place)? If you consider all the ways that people can be abused, I would say the odds get pretty high, definitely higher than the number of lives saved. As far as “preventing”, well, we keep supposedly trying to prevent abuse of the current policing powers. Trying and failing. Which is why I’m against “giving” them more powers. > [@Uzi](#): > > Yes, and the system isn’t there to look for gays or people having affairs. That may not be the intent of having it, but it certainly CAN be used that way by unscrupulous people. Microphones were not invented for the purpose of spying on people, but they certainly do get used for that purpose. If you look at the history of technology, it seems that most inventions have more unintended consequences than intended ones. > [@Uzi](#): > > Someone taking a picture of you when you are outside is legally allowed. Someone hiding cameras in washrooms or attempting to look up a person’s skirt is illegal. Using this system to look for gays or people having affairs or anything not allowed for it to be used for should be illegal. The ways that policing powers are currently abused are illegal, but the abuses still happen. Please keep in mind, making something illegal doesn’t keep it from happening, nor does it provide a way to undo the damage. It merely provides a way to punish offenders. If the offenders are the government, history suggests there won’t be a great deal of punishing going on. > [@Uzi](#): > > What damage? What are the odds of any of this happening? In the scenario we were discussing, the damage is the consequences of our hypothetical person’s gayness being made public (or revealed to the wrong people). As to the odds, I would say they are about the same as the odds that police will do things like conduct illegal searches and surveillance or otherwise abuse citizens. And we know those things happen on a pretty regular basis. FTR, we DON’T know that a bunch of people are regularly being kidnapped and held hostage in basements. > [@Uzi](#): > > Uh, someone has decided to track a specific person…Or are you suggesting that the government will just fish the entire system and start randomly outing people? See, you quietly transitioned from “someone” to “the government”. I would not expect that there would be a government program to do this, but I would expect that any number of “someones” who work for the government would abuse the system, in spite of the fact that such abuses would be illegal. > [@Uzi](#): > > And most people are afraid of letting their kids out of their sight today when you and I grew up, they actively kicked us out of the house to stop annoying them. Is the world more dangerous now or is it just paranoia based upon media hype? The world is less dangerous now, but a lot of people are more afraid because of media hype. In fact, I would say that the world seems to be getting less dangerous every day, which means that there is less NEED for something like SkyEye. You’re saying that parents are irrationally afraid. But you’re also arguing as if YOU are irrationally afraid that loads of people are being abducted and we need SkyEye to deal with the problem. It’s seems like a bit of a disconnect to me. > [@Uzi](#): > > I personally don’t drink or take drugs…I don’t know why people use antidepressants…I don’t know. People take antidepressants because they are unhappy and can’t figure out what to do about it. In a lot of cases, I personally think it is because of unresolvable conflicts. People face many kinds of conflicts–an example that comes to mind would be, “I want to have a good relationship with my Southern Baptist family, BUT I also want to act on my gay feelings/desires.” Keeping that gayness a secret from one’s family may not seem like a logical or smart solution to you, but it also isn’t really any of your (or the government’s) business. That’s the POINT of protecting privacy, particularly from government intrusion–freedom is _supposed_ to include the freedom to make bad choices (as long as you’re not violating someone _else_’s rights in the process). > [@Uzi](#): > > I’m sure I’ve answered this previously. But what measures are in place to ensure that current controls are effective and being followed? How is this activity being monitored? Well, we have the same kind of “controls” that you’ve suggested for SkyEye. As for monitoring, see my comments above. Again, the problem is that you ultimately are depending on the government monitoring the government. Saying that it’s _one part_ of the government monitoring _another part_ of the government doesn’t resolve the issue. > [@Uzi](#): > > And just because a dog has bitten someone somewhere doesn’t mean that every dog will do the same thing. We’re talking about the same dog here. > [@Uzi](#): > > Or should we just get rid of dogs? Since the dog in question is the government, unfortunately, this isn’t really a viable option. > [@Uzi](#): > > You live in supposed free society even with all these abuses. It’s true. Not everyone gets abused. I personally haven’t really been abused. I also haven’t personally been kidnapped. > [@Uzi](#): > > The same paranoia that you fear is probably the same one that makes people want to collect guns and fear their neighbors. The people that you are referring to aren’t fearful of their neighbors; they’re fearful of their government. Big difference. > [@Uzi](#): > > I don’t think the solution is more secrets, but better visibility to what is actually occurring. If you’re talking about less _government_ secrets and more visibility of government actions, I’m totally on board. If you’re talking about not letting _citizens_ keep secrets, I most definitely am NOT. > [@Uzi](#): > > If people aren’t getting kidnapped and kept in basements this system would prove that. If you are worried about your kid going missing, this system will find them. These particular benefits of the system don’t sound very compelling. Particularly the part about gathering evidence that a particular crime hasn’t happened. > [@Uzi](#): > > Oppressed how? People breaking the laws… Oppressed because they are not free to live their lives outside of your government scrutiny. Oppressed because anything they do in public will be recorded and, potentially, held against them–including things that are NOT against the law. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/359 "2015-08-14T19:05:40Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Rather than put all sorts of elaborate safeties on the gun before you hand it to the monkey, it’s better to simply not give a monkey a gun in the first place. This wasn’t really the strongest argument in your post (and there were a number of strong arguments there), but it was definitely my favorite. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/360 "2015-08-14T22:34:11Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > If by “most”, you mean a majority, I agree. However, the numbers here are quite large: The most recent [statistics I have found](http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf) with a quick search estimate 2,340 women killed in 2007 by an “intimate partner”. I misquoted that statistic. It was 2,340 _total_ victims, 1,640 of which were women, which means that the other 700 were men. This particular dataset does not appear to allow for people that might consider themselves something other than “man” or “woman”. I apologize for any convenience that may have been caused by my error. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739/361 "2015-08-14T22:56:03Z")
Er, that should have read “inconvenience”…I’d apologize again, but I’m not sure that I can. -VM [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-ok-with-a-real-life-eye-of-sauron-for-mass-surveillance/723739.md?page=19)