Petty crime = child molestation, kidnapping, murder. Got it.
The right to privacy: fluff. Got it.
I have already explained a much more reliable way to keep surveillance managed (by maintaining reliance on methods that make the process of surveillance a sufficiently difficult and costly PITA for the government that they are forced by practicalities to limit it to cases of genuine necessity). Governments cheat on rules and laws all the time; they cannot cheat on reality.
I note that you seem to have no answer to that proposal.
The rationale is to solve crimes and save lives. Anyone who believes that government rationales and reasons are necessarily congruent is incompetent to be out in public without a keeper, much less to help shape public policy.
I’m not too married to my opinion, I remain to be convinced otherwise. I do feel uncomfortable about it but I mentioned that I cannot actually see where the harm comes from. If the police stop and search you, I can articulate harm, however small, that a person shouldn’t have to go through. But if its an eye in the sky…well…I really don’t want it but I cannot claim that I am harmed, in any way whatsoever, by such a thing
One can concoct a semi-realistic but still wild circumstance that putting a GPS on someone can create harm. One can easily say that attaching a device to someone may not necessarily be harmful, but it takes away that person’s choice and is a rights violation. But just looking at you from the sky? I want to deny that to the police, but I cannot right now find a good reason to
I just can’t see the eye, being completely non-intrusive, is analogous to a search.
I’m not understanding how you see a hidden GPS device on a single car is more intrusive than the wide-area surveillance system.
In my mind, a GPS device attached to a car is less intrusive for these two main reasons: the target of the investigation will not usually know (but might discover) a GPS tracking device attached to his car; whereas a wide-area surveillance system would be public knowledge very quickly. A GPS device can track only one person; a wide-area surveillance system tracks everyone.
So, I think that a WASS is more intrusive on the basis that it tracks everyone, and everyone will know it. How do you figure that a GPS tracking device on a car is more intrusive?
Say a police dude comes to your house while you (and your wife, kids, etc…) are at work. Rifles through your paperwork, peers inside all your drawers, copies your hard drives etcetera, then leaves everything exactly the way it was before leaving. When you come home, you have no idea anyone was ever there. Assume, for the sake of the hypothetical, that they were wearing full-body NBC suits and also were trained ninjas, such that you can not even get trace evidence of their passing.
Was that a search ? If not, why not ?
I think I agree with you, but I’m not really clear here. What’s the difference between a rationale and a reason? Can you dumb it down, or maybe give an example?
Lots of people have been murdered, and the murder successfully made to appear as an accident. Nobody even knows, save the murderer alone.
Were these murders?
In objective terms, yes: the successful secret search is a search, and the successful disguised murder is a murder.
In practical terms, it doesn’t matter what you call it. The perpetrator got away with it.
You’re asking the classical “a tree falls in the forest” question. It isn’t answerable, and thus isn’t particularly useful to us.
To me, physically attaching a device on you or something you own is more intrusive than looking at you while you’re in public. There’s a physical barrier to putting the item on that is not there with the Eye of Sauron.
If you want to say that one is hidden and one is known, then I think even a known surveillance is less intrusive than an unknown surveillance if the known is by sight and the unknown is by attaching a device. In the end, if the police are doing it and will use it against you in court, the only difference is one was by sight and the other was by attached GPS.
Most Americans don’t want to live in a country like that, particularly if it might be run by someone as judgmental as you seem to be. Of course, our reasons for not wanting to live in a country like that are just “fluff”–no point discussing them.
What if you’re gay, and you don’t want your parents or your employers to find out?
What if you’re having an abortion, and don’t want ANYONE to find out?
I know, I know, you shouldn’t do anything that you don’t want filmed and archived. If you’re not proud to share it with the world, then you just shouldn’t do it.
Hey, at least I acknowledge your arguments, rather than just dismissing them as fluff. If I could get a hand-wave out of you, it would be exciting progress. Or if I could get you to stop deliberately distorting everyone else’s arguments.
Speaking of which, I checked your sites about unsolved murders and missing persons (NOT the same as “kidnappings”, by the way). I didn’t see anything in the information provided to indicate how many actual criminal acts were involved or how many could have been solved by SkyEye. I’m pointing this out, because your argument seems to suggest that they all represent criminal acts that could be solved by SkyEye.
You erect strawmen faster than anyone I’ve ever seen. My question: Where do you get all the straw? Does it come right out of your head?
You keep saying that “logging” can be used to track misbehavior. What you keep failing to address is “who polices the police?”. This is like saying that SysAdmin won’t compromise our data because there are logs. And who’s in charge of the logs? Why, the SysAdmin, of course.
When you put powerful tools like this in the hands of government, the question is not whether their use CAN be monitored; the question is who has the authority to monitor and do something about transgressions?
Still have more straw, huh? The idea is NOT that no one is ever trustworthy. The idea is that when government officials are untrustworthy, the public has little ability to catch or punish…or to seek redress when they’ve been harmed. The fact that government misdeeds will be recorded in a system that only the government has access to is small comfort.
And you think that someone has made this argument? Let me clear this up for you:
[ol]
[li]If you say, “Someone’s life is in danger. If you give up your privacy for one week, we can save that person’s life.” Like most people, I would agree to this with no real soul-searching required.[/li][li]If you say, “Someone’s life may be in danger at some point during your life. If you give up your privacy for life–and everyone else does, as well–there might be a chance we can save someone.” Then the answer is no.[/li][/ol]
Some notes on this:
If we were to solve all of the cold cases you referenced, those people would still be dead. It would not be a “saving of lives”–EXCEPT for the small number of cases where the perpertrator might have gone on to kill again. My understanding is that the vast majority of killers are NOT serial killers.
If you were to find all of those missing people, most of them would not be victims of kidnapping. Again, the number of “saved lives” would be much smaller than your numbers suggest.
In this removal of privacy from people that you suggest, the VAST MAJORITY of minutes of privacy lost would be saving zero lives. In the cost-benefit analysis you claim to be mentally performing, you are dismissing all costs as “fluff” or irrelevant, and you’re WAY overestimating the benefits in terms of “lives saved”.
You’re entitled to believe that privacy is not particularly valuable. However, that does not make referring to it as a “nebulous right” fair play. It is actually possible to disagree with someone without being flagrantly disrespectful of their position. I’m still waiting for a post from you that shows you understand this.
-VM
I see. If the police told you that they had a court order to attach a GPS device to your car, but you could not remove it, do you think the device is intrusive?
I think you’re understating the significance of the continuous recording and track-back ability. If you put a tracker on my car, you can track its location (and most of my movements) from then on. And yes, that’s intrusive. The key point, though, is that your ability to track me doesn’t start until there’s some kind of suspicion.
However, with SkyEye, as described, you can track me (even outside of my car) back to last week or last year–way past the point in time when you became suspicious. You did not wait for a reason to intrude on my privacy; you started intruding on it when SkyEye launched and you’ve continued to do so ever since.
To me, the fact that you can “travel back in time” and observe me before there was any reason for suspicion makes this system more intrusive.
Conceptually, in my opinion, one is roughly comparable to getting a warrant and searching my house. The other is like searching my house every day, but agreeing not to look at the results unless a warrant is issued later; but if a warrant IS issued, then the results of all those daily searches are now in play.
And I think this is where the LEGAL (as opposed to philosophical) argument would lie: Continuous monitoring is (conceptually) like repeatedly searching someone without any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing to justify the search. I think the question of whether the search involves physical touching of the person or their things is kinda tangential.
-VM
That’s a search, because by definition, they were searching. Would I object to it? That’s impossible to answer because I wouldn’t know about it. If I did know about it? Sure, I’d consider it a search and I’d object. I think if I had the choice to vote on the legality of that prior to its implementation, I’d vote against it for the reason that I consider it a search
But I don’t think the analogy works because the Eye would be looking in public areas. The GPS is more akin to your ninja police, as the SCOTUS even ruled that it constituted a search. In that sense, I’d rather they post a cop outside my property and look into it with binoculars each day than have them secretly go through my things inside the house.
I do, but if its court ordered, I can’t really object
Here’s where I’d disagree with that analogy. I disagree that continuous monitoring of a public space by way of sight is akin to a search as conducted by a warrant.
Whether warranted or not, a daily search of my house is intrusive. Daily recording of an area through the Eye, to me, is not intrusive. I don’t agree its like a warranted search. I don’t even agree its like a warranted secret GPS device that you don’t know about. I think looking at you through a lens is far less intrusive than either of those things. And that’s why I have a hard time denying that ability to the police
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned much in this thread is the sheer number of bad laws that we have in the U.S. that would be much easier to enforce, particularly “vice” laws. For instance, imagine what a tool for cracking down on prostitution it could be.
And what about the statutes of limitations? What if someone was a prostitute this time last year, but now has turned their life around, then we decide to do a crackdown?
Imagine what a tool it could be for Drug Warriors (and how the whole thing would escalate when the drug dealers inevitably fight back)…
-VM
The fact that we’re talking about public space definitely makes the whole conversation trickier and more confusing. However…
The question is what you mean by “intrusion”. The fact is, the SkyEye would be FAR MORE effective at tracking your movements than the GPS would be (whether or not you know about it). So, less “intrusive”, but more complete tracking of your movements? Less “intrusive”, but able to reach back in time to a time before you were under suspicion of doing anything wrong?
To me, the amount of “intrusiveness” is more about the result (how much you know about me) than the means (how you got the information).
As a thought experiment, if we required every person to have a GPS tracker on their cars at all times and kept a record of all movements (for the sake of arbument, a warrant would be required to pull the data), that might be a better comparison. However, I would still say that was less intrusive because people do things in public, outside of their cars, that the GPS couldn’t track but SkyEye could.
-VM
You seem to forget that I don’t care that people are watching me, nor do I care to watch you or anyone else because I don’t care what you do. You are the one afraid of what others will see and that they will be judged for it. You are the judgmental one.
Unlikely that anyone will use this tool for such a thing as there would be logging and tracking withing the system.
This is the first post you’ve actually addressed my arguments on the benefits of the system rather than what you perceive as the drawbacks, so don’t be go all martyry on me.
Where was the last time the victim was seen? Follow the person to where the murder or kidnapping happened then follow anyone in that area at that time back to wherever they live so they can be questioned. This is another tool to help solve crimes, it won’t do it for you.
Geez, you’ve even elected dog catchers in the past in the US, so create another post for a data commissioner or something. If you don’t have it now, I’d be surprised. Make it a subset of the Supreme Court or something sufficiently independent that other governmental departments can’t co-op it.
You have your attorney request a warrant from a judge to gain access to your data feed so you can see who has accessed your files. Or maybe you get free access all the time for just you.
So, everyone gets one free murder before they should be caught? I’d want the killer of one of my family members caught. I’d like potential murderer knowing that it is very likely they will be caught.
How do you know before hand which people just ran away from home and which are sitting in someone’s basement dungeon?
You just did it by saying you’d sacrifice 1 week of surveillance if you were sure that someone could be saved. If the system was implemented, someone would be saved. I think we can both agree on that. Look around where ever you are right now and pick a person you’d like to have saved but won’t be able to because you value your privacy (when you are out in public) more than them. Someone, somewhere, will have to live without having that choice.
Legalize prostitution.
A question for the sentencing phase of her trial. But, I’m sure if it was legalized now, there would be no one looking back in the past.
Frankly, laws should have an expiry date on them so that they come up for regular review at least once every couple of decades.
Legalize all drugs. Drug dealers have nothing to fight back over.
Well, that’s a relief. Thanks for easing my mind.
Been kinda focused on convincing you that there ARE drawbacks. See, if you would be willing to acknowledge ANYTHING from the other side, the conversation might move forward, as opposed to being stuck in a rut of you giving me my daily admonition not to cheat on my wife if I don’t want to get caught.
In terms of missing people, we don’t even know there IS a victim. Not everyone who disappears has been kidnapped. And you dodged my point. Except for the cases where someone has been kidnapped and is freed, none of the other people in your statistics represent lives that can be saved; they represent criminals who can be punished. Not that we don’t want to do that, but it is dishonest for you to suggest that these numbers represent a number of lives that SkyEye would save. THAT was my point.
Since I don’t have the authority to do that, can we talk about whether the SkyEye thing is a good idea if we fail to follow your good advice? Because all of my arguments are based on the actual USA I currently live in, not the theoretical one you are positing, with a modified government structure.
No. But catching the killer won’t save the dead person’s life, as you seem to be suggesting. The victim will remain just as dead, no lives saved.
Thanks for sharing. But it still doesn’t fit into your talk of “lives saved”. I’m pointing out issues with your argument, and you’re trying to start a different one. As it turns out, I’m not that easily confused.
How do you? The point is that, of the 90,000 lives you claim SkyEye will save, the vast majority are NOT sitting in someone’s dungeon and finding them won’t “save their lives”. In some cases, it might ruin their lives. I understand that you have an irresistible desire to try to challenge me by changing the subject. Unfortunately, I have an irresistible desire to see you defend the arguments you’ve already made.
If the system were implemented so that it only tracked me, then no one would be saved. If it tracked everyone, some people might be saved. You totally missed the math part of what I was saying:
[ul]
[li]One person gives up a week of privacy to save one life = no-brainer.[/li][li]300 million people give up a lifetime of privacy to save…how many lives? A few thousand, maybe? And how many ways will the system be abused? How many people will be hurt by the unintended consequences? I don’t know, but this one is far from a no-brainer.[/li][/ul]
You can disagree with my position, but pretending to not see the difference between these two points is pretty indefensible.
Right now, there are 3 people within my view. I assume you’re not suggesting that 1 out of 3 Americans are destined to be kidnapped. Maybe if I walk around the city long enough, I’ll see enough people that, statistically, one of them might be saved by your system. I think I’d have to do a lot of walking–and everyone that I see on that walk would have to give up a lot of privacy for that one “save”, and who knows how many of them would end up being abused by this system, one way or another.
If ANY are abused by the system, then you have to consider that against the saved lives. And just saying “the system shouldn’t be abused” doesn’t really count as considering them, does it?
-VM
Actually, I agree with every one of your points. Again, I don’t have the authority to make these changes. Which leaves me, in the context of this thread, to consider the idea of SkyEye without these changes being made.
I think there could be an interesting discussion of whether SkyEye belongs in a utopian society. However, that’s not what we’ve been talking about in this thread, and I’m thinking that’s been pretty obvious from the start.
-VM
Let me guess: the only thing the name “Hoover” means to you is a vacuum cleaner.