That does not square with experience.
For example, one of the many bits of dirty NSA laundry that has come to light is “LOVEINT” – personnel using their surveillance tools to spy on significant others. Now, stalking is a crime, so one would assume that if the world worked as you rather Pollyannishly assume, these people would be in prison. Nope – at most, they got a few slap-on-the-wrist administrative “punishments” like being transferred to another diocese, er, department.
There was some talk of recording the mileage of cars, in California, for licensing and registration purposes. If someone only drove a few miles in a year, he’d pay less than someone who drove 10,000 miles in the same year.
This was roundly shouted down as an intolerable intrusion into the privacy of every Californian driver.
We refused even the idea of allowing the monitoring of the distance we drive. The monitoring of our every destination would be that much less tolerable!
This could easily controlled: Skyeye data is only kept for 90 days. It would be inadmissible in court if it was older.
I think this is your weakest argument: don’t use a crime-solving tool because the drug dealers might fight back? An argument could be made that it will lower the drug arrests. Currently users are arrested more often than dealers because they are easier to catch. What if it became easier to find the dealers and they can busted instead?
I missed that part of the legislation enacting SkyEye…how do we make sure the data isn’t kept longer?
Sorry, I wasn’t really trying to develop an argument…about given up on that idea in this thread, since the key points of the arguments keep being ignored. At this point, I think I may be just stubbornly refusing to let Uzi have the last word–because he doesn’t deserve to get it by flinging strawmen around…
In my opinion, the Drug War has been a losing proposition for the same reason that Prohibition was: There are too many otherwise law-abiding citizens who want to smoke pot, or snort coke, or rave on X, etc. Catching drug dealers has never worked because there’s always enough demand to “pull” in those willing to supply it. The Drug War merely guarantees profits to criminals.
So, unless we choose to become a police state (which I think Uzi would support), the Drug War is unwinnable. But something like SkyEye could be used to escalate the conflict. On both sides. When we first declared “war” on drugs, I think it was rhetorical. In my opinion, this would be one more way of it becoming the real thing.
Having said all that, I agree that there are stronger arguments to be made: I just was surprised to realize that no one had broached the general subject of “bad laws” in this thread.
-VM
What bums me the most is that an argument close to his could be constructed that was reasonable and rational. It’s sad how damn close he has come to a valid point, while still missing the bull’s eye entirely.
David Brin, science fiction writer and real scientist, is currently assembling an anthology of stories dealing with a totally open society, a possible future where everyone can see everyone, pretty much all the time. (My literature prof is the editor!) Total surveillance really does have certain advantages, and Uzi is right that stopping crime would be one of them. Brin deals with that, and a number of other issues. It will be interesting to see how the various stories in the anthology balance out. Will there be at least one token “Shit, this is a dystopia!” cautionary tale? I can’t imagine the anthology would be balanced without one.
In the Akron pilot they mentioned that the data is kept for only 90 days. How do we ensure they don’t keep it longer? Well, how do we ensure that suspects are read their Miranda Rights? How do we ensure that cops get warrants before entering a home? We (or rather the judges) generally throw out evidence that wasn’t gathered legally/correctly. It seems to largely work.
Some decades ago, in Los Angeles, the police formed a special Intelligence unit, to collect dossiers on suspected gang members.
The courts told them to knock it off, and ordered the destruction of the records. One policemen flouted the ruling and took all the records home with him, and stored them in his garage. He got caught out, and there was a nasty legal come-back.
So, we have at least that much precedent: the police cannot always be trusted to dispose of data collected on the populace, even when the law requires it.
Say a chef in a restaurant pisses in your soup, but adjusts the seasoning so you can’t taste it, and also brings it to the boil so you won’t catch anything nasty. You’ve absolutely no way to tell that you’re consuming another man’s urine. Is that OK?
You’re missing the point I was trying to make, which is that a search is a search is a search, even if you don’t or can’t know it happened. And, as such, requires a warrant.
[QUOTE=Yog Sosoth]
But I don’t think the analogy works because the Eye would be looking in public areas.
[/QUOTE]
So ? The GPS also “looks” in public areas. Public is not the antithesis of search. Again, my point is that such a search requires a warrant. Since you can’t issue a blanket warrant for the entire city in perpetuity, the Eye of Sauron is unusable.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Say a chef in a restaurant pisses in your soup, but adjusts the seasoning so you can’t taste it, and also brings it to the boil so you won’t catch anything nasty. You’ve absolutely no way to tell that you’re consuming another man’s urine. Is that OK?
[/QUOTE]
Obviously not. Boiling soup ? What kind of unwashed Visigoth would do that ?!
OMG. Of course, I would not like to have people watching me all the time when I am outside my home. The nuisance of it is minor even when thought of, though. I’m interested in why people think it worse than it actually is.
You are joking, right? We know someone has reported a person missing. Normally a report like that doesn’t occur is this was normal behavior for that person. You have no way of knowing the reason the person is gone.
Typical. Implement a comprehensive IT system without the supporting competent people and processes. I will agree with you that without such limits on the system it can and would be abused because monkeys will inevitably throw shit.
I’m just as happy that a killer is caught, if you must know.
Sorry with my feeble attempt to confuse you with multiple uses for such a system.:rolleyes:
So, if you had to give up two weeks of privacy to save someone, then they’re toast?
I have no idea on how many would be hurt by such a system if it was abused. Unless you think it would be used to commit murder or kidnap people, then the scales seem to lie on the positive side of its use.
How many people were abused by the data the NSA collected? The reason I ask is because that was a system designed by default to be hidden rather than the sort of system we are discussing. Obviously, the former would be more likely to be abused and should serve as a bench mark for what type of abuses can occur. There is a difference between what you can imagine and what actually does happen.
Again, OMG. Any system can be abused. That doesn’t mean we throw them all out or stop using them. Your potential to be embarrassed vs someone’s life is a no brainer for me. 10000 people being embarrassed vs someone’s life is also a no brainer. Once embarrassed they can get over it.
Feel free to enlighten, oh wise one.
Such a system can be used to save lives and to solve crimes. Preventing abuse by those using the system inappropriately is doable if people chose to put the appropriate controls in place. What then am I missing here?
I just want to check… It’s not your position (or is it) that any amount of disruption/invasion to everyone’s life/privacy/personal space is an acceptable price to pay for solving just one crime, is it?
I mean, this isn’t an ‘if it saves just one life, any price is worth it’ argument, is it? Because that argument doesn’t wash in other contexts such as gun control, airline safety, product testing etc. There is always a point at which we accept a risk because the cost of preventing it is too great.
Uzi - can you explain why you would find the police search your house without a warrant objectionable, in a way that doesn’t use “fluff” or “nebulous” justifications?
This is a particularly ridiculous argument given the effects (e.g. unemployment) that arise from politicians and bureaucrats using surveillance to “embarrass” their foes. That right there negates the “buuuut peepul could die!” argument by making it equally applicable to both sides:
[QUOTE=Terry Pratchett]
You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many.
[/QUOTE]
I note that this has already happened as a result of the government’s cyberspace Eye-of-Sauron policies:
No more than someone saying that they’d give one weeks worth of privacy to save a life.
I agree. There is always a cost vs benefit argument to be made. My argument is that what nebulous thing you are losing doesn’t cancel the benefits such a system can accrue to society. That someone may have this used against them in some way other than if they had committed a crime, is of lesser concern to me than the increased capability of the police to solve the crime or prevent a crime from continuing or becoming worse.
Why should I? I’ve never advocated for someone entering your house without a warrant. I have no desire to change that and for those that value their privacy (whatever that is), they still have it there. I don’t expect privacy walking down the street, nor should you.
I’d hardly call $180 billion in economic damage, and the harm up to and including death that inevitably results, “nebulous”.
You can’t describe why you think it is wrong for police to violate one’s privacy?
If you can’t even inform the class about why you think any kind of privacy is important, how are we to debate an issue of privacy?
How about you argue why privacy is important (you’re position) and I’ll argue why I think this tool is important, mkay? I don’t think I need to prove that all privacy needs to be disposed of to make my case for this particular tech’s benefits.
Why would anyone die because of this? The $180B you speak of is what the US could potentially lose, other companies around the world would benefit to that amount. Chalk that up to a bad idea from one of your paranoid countrymen to create a hidden system with no oversight to properly evaluate the risks. What I was asking was how did the data collected harm anyone? I personally don’t know.
Everyone here has argued why privacy is important. You’ve dismissed the substance of all those arguments by saying that they are “fluff” and “nebulous.” I want to know if there’s any argument at all for the right to privacy that you do not consider to be fluff or nebulous.
I’m not actually sure that you believe in the concept of privacy, so I’m inviting you to explain if/why you believe that people have some kind of right to privacy. So I ask again, if the police violate someone’s privacy in a most egregious way, why do you believe that is wrong?