For the purposes of this topic, I define “intrusive” as what is physically and emotionally bothersome to me, something that makes me change how I live in order to avoid it, something that affects me without my being able to prevent it, and something that I spend time thinking about because it affects me negatively. The Eye, because its looking at me, does not bother me as much as someone attaching a device to my car. I agree that it is more comprehensive, but I’m fine with that because I don’t perceive it as being more bothersome.
I am less worried about the amount of information of mine being sucked up by law enforcement than I am about seeing and feeling actual signs of surveillance. If there was a cop posted at every neighborhood corner, that would bother me, even if I’m only being watched when I’m in sight range. If a satellite looks at me from a thousand miles, that doesn’t bother me as much, even if more information is being collected.
There’s also a dam and a president, but I’m guessing you mean J. Edgar?
You’re right, it does, but that’s why it makes me feel uncomfortable. Not enough to be against it because I understand the argument. I’m just saying to me, it doesn’t feel as intrusive, so I care less about it
After all this effort, by me and others, I’m scratching my head over how you can NOT understand that for people other than you, this could be way more than a nuisance.
I’m not talking about a particular person. I’m talking about what the data say, in response to your claim of all the thousands of lives to be saved. You were suggesting that every missing person case was someone who had been abducted and could be saved by SkyEye. Not saying that there would be no cases like this, but the number is WAY smaller than you suggest–and the number of people who would be inconvenienced or potentially harmed by being found is higher than you acknowledge. Some interesting articles on the subject:
Not that I’m fascinated by the topic, but you don’t get to just throw out a claim of “missing people” as representative of the number of lives that SkyEye would save.
In which case, maybe we’re more in agreement than I thought. You just seem to think that the problem of government incompetence is not only solvable, but that I can solve it.
It’s not a question of whether catching criminals makes us happy. It’s a question of whether the “good” of catching more criminals is worth the “bad” of mass surveillance. And it’d be nice if you’d cut down on the advertising copy and stay engaged in the actual argument.
If we’re having a debate about birth control, chiming in every now and then with something like “sex feels good” or “unwanted children are a problem” will just make you come off as either clueless or obsessed.
What you’re doing is throwing handfuls of spaghetti at the wall and hoping something sticks. If it doesn’t, you just throw another handful, without stopping to consider that maybe your pasta is undercooked. Changing your argument every time a point is challenged is what people refer to as “moving the goalposts”. It’s particular egregious here, since no one has argued that there are not multiple uses for the system. Someone has argued that it will save thousands and thousands of lives, and that justifies the intrusion on everyone’s privacy.
“There’s no evidence that rubbing this stuff on my Johnson will make it larger.”
“I guess you don’t care about having smoother, more attractive skin, and a little extra lubrication.”
“Don’t try to confuse me. You’re selling this as penis enlargement cream.”
“Sorry with my feeble attempt to confuse you with multiple uses for such a product.”
Someone’s entitled to some eye-rolling here, but it’s not you.
I pointed out two extreme ends of a spectrum. It would have been interesting to see where you think the “threshold” is for “lives saves” vs. “privacy violated”. All you did was assume that one of those two represented MY threshold. I’m wondering if it is even theoretically possible to argue on the merits, or are you only capable of answering with personal digs at me?
So, as someone has already mentioned, you seem to be suggesting that one life saved would justify any amount of privacy violations and personal humiliation for any number of other people? Wait, I know what comes next: “It’s for the children.”
Given the secrecy around the NSA’s activities, I think you know good and well that no one knows how much it’s been abused. That’s part of the point, but we DO know that the number of times is greater than zero.
Oh, the irony.
Please show me where I’ve suggested that we should “throw out all systems” or “stop using them”. I’m pretty sure I’ve only been arguing against the specific “system” that we’ve been referring to as SkyEye.
You’ve pounded this straw man to the point where the straw is no longer recognizable as such. It’s now a dust man. How long will you continue to pound this dust before you feel you’ve extracted the needed amount of vengeance from this poor bastard?
Wow, so this really is a “tree falling in the forest” thing for you…not that there’s anything wrong with it, but we obviously really disagree on what we consider to be an intrusion.
For me, what you’re talking about is more about “intimidation”. If the ninjas search my house, I’m not intimidated because I don’t know it happened, but I would still say (when I found out) that my privacy had been violated and, thus, there was an intrusion.
Having said that, I can kinda see how you parse “intrusive” that way. Would it change what you’re saying if we talk about “violation” rather than “intrusion”?
I’ll admit some of its cognitive dissonance. I know I should care more, but I don’t, and I can’t force myself to care. Simply put, I don’t care if they look at me from the sky and no amount of reasoning can get me to care. Its just too much of a faraway concept for me to muster any energy thinking about it. The worst part is, if the Eye appeared in the sky tomorrow, I’d probably start caring but by then it would be too late
We can talk about violation, but because I don’t feel the violation intimately, I would still fail to drum up any passion on it. I can know its a violation, but I will still act as if it doesn’t affect me
YogSosoth: No problem. That’s entirely a subjective view, your own opinion, and is entirely valid.
Others here have a very different view, and are having some difficulty in communicating that to others who reject their view, for reasons that are, themselves, not communicated effectively.
If everyone in this thread spoke solely of how they, themselves, believe, we wouldn’t have that problem, at least.
Unless you are doing things you are a)ashamed of, or b)illegal, then I can’t see how. You know my answer if you are doing either of these things.
Like any other tool this one can help to resolve a subset of all cases. It isn’t a magic bullet.
You’re suggestion is then to not investigate missing person reports? How does a cop decide that he should, or should not, investigate your report? Wouldn’t it be better if the cop could track down the missing person and ask them personally if they want to be found?
That is the number that could potentially be saved. Compared to your unknown number of who could be harmed (or why they would be).
Again, you think I’m saying you specifically. I’m not. Just because you personally can’t solve it doesn’t make it unsolvable.
It’d be nice if when we are discussing things we are discussing apples or oranges. My apples of solving crimes and saving lives are on a different level than your oranges potential privacy violations. You put them on the same level as being equal when they clearly are not.
You posted it as a threshold. I answer it and you accuse me of moving goal posts?
I don’t equate one life to one privacy violation. So, yes, it would take a lot of these violations to equal one life. Why? Because I don’t consider a camera watching me when I am outside a privacy violation. So 1 will always be greater than 0 for me. So, what quantifiable level of privacy violations equals one life to you?
You do? How? Or do you just ‘feel’ that it must be so, so it is? Don’t misunderstand me, I agree with you that the covert system is probably going to be used nefariously. I’m just interested in how you know that it has been.
You trust that other systems can be implemented with controls sufficient to manage them, but not this specific one. I’m baffled.
Ah, and there is the misunderstanding: I thought you were debating when, in fact, you are witnessing. Thanks for clearing that up.
If you were debating, then there would be possibility that a good argument might change your mind…or fight some ignorance…
Well, there are those who can’t see, and there are those who work very hard at not seeing.
I’d like you to backpedal with more specificity. Compared to the numbers you cited earlier, how many “lives saved” per year are you now claiming to be in this subset?
If I were making that suggestion, you would know, because it would say so in the text of my post. For future reference, that’s a good general rule to follow in determining whether I’ve suggested something.
If you had actually looked at any of the cites I provided, it would have struck you how many police–and how many man-hours–it would take to do this. Even with SkyEye. In general, police try to determine which “missings” represent someone at risk. Really, if you’re not going to look at the cites, the conversation gets boring. Besides, it’s the polite thing to do, even though we all know that you’re going to determine that it’s “nebulous fluff”.
Not it isn’t, and I’ve provided evidence why it isn’t. Where is your evidence?
You’re using the imperative mood in a conversation with me. “Elect better people”, “Enact better laws”. If you’re not meaning it that way, you should speak more clearly. If I respond to your post with “Fuck you”, no one’s going to buy my story that I didn’t mean you personally.
More to the point, your argument is childish. I’m saying that I am very concerned about the negative impacts of SkyEye in the real world I live in, and your response is a peevish, “Change your world.”
You seem to have an endless supply of straw men. The question is how many actual oranges should we trade for how many of your “potential” apples. I haven’t said otherwise, but you haven’t stopped accusing me of it.
Please show me where I said it was a threshold. I posted two examples and described one as an obvious yes and the other as not-an-obvious-yes. The intent was to make you distinguish between the two. Obviously, my intent failed, because you are not considering my arguments; you are just perusing them for places to perch your endless army of straw men.
How many violations come in a lot? 100? 1,000,000? 300,000,000? We are talking about everyone who goes out in public, right?
Oh, then why are we talking about counting them?
It depends on the potential and types of abuse. I’ve said repeatedly in this thread that the track-back ability is critical in how I look at the issue. It’s too powerful and the violation would be happening to everybody. So, while I can’t say exactly where the line is, for me, this is well past it. And yes, my distrust of police and politicians plays into that, and yes, in spite of the fact that this could be “easily” solved by the simple expedient only having honest police and government officials, which you have so helpfully pointed out.
If you didn’t look at any of the cites when they were posted earlier, I don’t see any point in re-posting them now. Your free to ignore or forget the earlier parts of the thread, but that doesn’t entitle you to suggest that I am delusional. Actually, go ahead and keep suggesting it. I’m not too concerned that anyone who actually reads all the posts will believe it.
Creepy isn’t it? You can refer to multiple things as “systems” and yet they aren’t exactly the same…solar systems, circulatory systems, healthcare systems…
I can tell you I was really relieved to learn that cholesterol is not a concern wrt the health of the solar system.
Tell me where I claimed that it would solve 100% and I’ll answer this. Tell my why you’d assume I meant 100%?
Kettle meet Pot.
And with this system they don’t have to rely on their judgement as much. That same judgement you call into question on their ability to be trusted with this tool.
That you think I mean you personally essentially tells me why you are worried about privacy. You, and I mean you specifically, seem to think that people give a crap what you are doing day in and day out that they’d watch you for it. I, on the other hand, realize that I am one of 7 billion people on this planet and know that I am not doing anything worth while that someone would spend time watching me do it. And if I was, I’d make damned sure that I wasn’t doing anything they could hold over me.
And yet you haven’t quantified anything other than to say surveillance equals ‘bad’.
In other words: A threshold.
As I’ve said, I don’t expect privacy when I am outside, so infinite might be a better answer.
You posted what you considered a reasonable violation of your supposed rights to save a life. There is obviously a threshold then. Is it one time the government records you walking your dog or a thousand? One time you stepping out on your wife, or ten times? This tool could save someone’s life. Do we agree? Yet you object to it on the basis of it violates your right to privacy. What makes your right to privacy more important than that person’s right to live (a far higher right in my mind). Now if you can tell me of a way to do both, I’m all ears.
Without that there is no point.
No doubt that their activities when they are outside would be recorded. Again that is the point. That it is a violation of their rights is the debate, isn’t it?
I did and didn’t find examples of people harmed by it. I saw how it screwed money from US corporations but not because of information they may have collected on those businesses and used against them.
That you have difficulty understanding what system is referred to in this context explains much.
I always try to speak honestly, even when it may get me in trouble or people might hate me. For example, during a job interview, the guy asked me where I expected to be in 5 years. I was looking at a picture of his family on his desk and I really wanted to say “Doing your wife” but I fought off the urge. Unfortunately, I said “Doing your son” instead. I did not get that job ;):D:p
If I present an argument to a Christian against the existence of the Biblical God, along with evidence to back up my argument, and the Christian responds by claiming that everything I’ve said is “nebulous fluff” and continues to believe in their Biblical God, the series of events does indicate that I have made a bad argument. It means I’ve wasted my time talking to someone who wasn’t really listening.
There’s a reason why that particular example is the one that comes to mind for me in this instance.
Tell me where I suggested you made such a claim.
What, do you feel like your arguments are being misrepresented? I imagine that must be really frustrating.
If you think I’ve misrepresented you, why don’t you clear things up by saying how many lives you think SkyEye will save? You know, in the spirit of quantifying (a word I know you like) the benefits, so that we can meaningfully compare it against the 300 million Americans who will have less privacy every time they exit their houses.
You didn’t look at the numbers, did you? From the NPR Interview:
If you immediately try to investigate everyone with SkyEye, that’s going to be a monumental task. If you wait to see if they’re “serious”, well, a lot of the serious ones will already be dead. It’s the ongoing problem with Missing Persons cases: Most of them don’t represent someone at risk, and it’s hard to tell which ones do. This problem of “mistaken” reports is too big for you to blithely assume SkyEye will solve it. You keep talking about rescuing kidnap victims trapped in someone’s basement as if there were a lot of that going on. All the data that we have suggests that there is very little of that going on.
My point is that you are supporting a massive privacy violation (because EVERYONE is violated) for what is a small problem (there aren’t very many kidnapping victims to save). Not to say that catching criminals is of no value, but when we’re talking about massive privacy violations, most Americans are much more likely to acquiesce for the purpose of saving lives than they are for “just” catching criminals.
So, for instance, if there were several kidnappings in an area, and you say, “Turn on SkyEye”, I think you’d have a better chance of convincing me. If, however, you say “Turn on SkyEye everywhere all the time, in case there are kidnappings”, well you haven’t convinced me the problem is big enough to justify the abuses that are enabled by the solution.
I don’t think that’s an outrageous position for me to take. However, I DO think it’s outrageous that your response is, “There shouldn’t BE any abuses, so quit talking about how much you enjoy nebulous fluff.”
Hmm, how could I have so blatantly misunderstood you? I wonder…
[QUOTE=Uzi]
93: Maybe you should learn how to drive, and cross the road at a crosswalk.
93: So far the harms you have listed is you getting caught for breaking laws that you feel don’t apply to you.
93: Again, your concerns seem to be that you can’t break laws without someone seeing you do it.
129: …you just don’t want to admit what you don’t want others to see…
137: I wanted to know what it is you are worried others will see you doing…
181: I’m just interested in how you compare a potential slight or blow (depending on what silliness you were up to) to your dignity against the missing people I’ve listed above?
181: Contrary to what you seem to believe, few people care that you are meeting your girlfriend at the cafe.
181: Rather than worrying about being caught littering, you just don’t want someone to find out you’ve been cheating on your wife!
201: I’m not sure you understand responsibility for your actions. If you do it, own it. Don’t want to own it? Don’t do it. Don’t want to get caught cheating on your wife, then don’t cheat on your wife or divorce her.
201: They get to suffer so that you can meet your girlfriend at the cafe.
236: 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.
250: So, if you had to give up two weeks of privacy to save someone, then they’re toast?
250: There is a difference between what you can imagine and what actually does happen.
250: Your potential to be embarrassed vs someone’s life is a no brainer for me.
[/quote]
…especially considering how careful you are not to personalize statements about people in general…
It sure seems to me that every time I try to talk about what privacy is or how it can be bad for it to violated, you answer with a suggestion that I’ve done something and am afraid SkyEye will catch me. Clearly, I must be misunderstanding you because of some kind of deep-seated paranoia on my part.
Privacy is a thing. If a person’s every move is captured and recorded when they are outside of a building, that person will have less privacy than all Americans have today. The quantity of people who’s privacy you want to lessen is about 300 million Americans. The quantity of privacy they would lose is about 7.3 kilograms.
The threshold would be the place where the answer changes from “no-brainer yes” to “NOT no-brainer yes” (another threshold would change to “hell no”). Since the two examples I give are WAY far apart, why would you assume that one of them represented the threshold (as opposed to considering the threshold might be somewhere in-between), and why did you assume the particular one that you did? You could have as easily assumed that the SECOND item was my threshold.
You’ve explained repeatedly that you don’t think your personal privacy “outside” is of any particular value. Got it. No need to say it again. The issue is whether that is true of everyone. I, and others, have suggested numerous situations where people OTHER THAN YOU (or me, for that matter) might see the kind of privacy they currently have as valuable. Rather than acknowledge this could possibly be true, you just keep suggesting that I’m having an affair and am afraid I’m going to get caught.
Clearly, if SkyEye would only violate your personal privacy, you’d give it a thumbs up. The issue is the 300 million Americans who might not feel that way, and the question is whether you are capable of understanding why they might feel differently from you on this issue. And I have no idea whether you are capable of that because you consistently respond to my posts by suggesting that I’m personally guilty and/or paranoid.
Which leads me to speculate that you are deliberately avoiding a legitimate debate or you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
The issue here is not a “number of times” it is a “percentage of times”. Continuous surveillance means that I’m being violated 100% of the times I leave the house. Not 1 time out of ten, not 50 times out of 100, but every single time. I cannot count how many times I’m not being violated, because there aren’t any. In the same way, I can’t count how many people aren’t being violated, because there aren’t any.
Rather than talk about me, let’s talk about 300 million Americans. In answer to your question of how much of everyone’s “outside” privacy Americans should be willing to give up in order to save some lives, I don’t know (just like you haven’t told me how many lives will be saved), but I think the threshold should be something significantly less than “all of it, for everyone”.
Yes, of course. If 300 million Americans acquiesce to a continuous, unending privacy violation, at least one life may be saved.
No, I object to it because it violates every single American’s right to privacy. A subtle distinction, to be sure.
You seem to be forgetting that this is a violation of “that person’s” right to privacy, as well.
If you want to talk about single cases–and it really seems like you do–the correct way to frame it is not ME trading privacy for HIM/HER being saved. It’s ME trading a whole lot of privacy (and potentially being subject to abuse from misuse of the surveillance footage) against a remote possibility that it may one day save MY life.
If you want to talk about the effects on more people than just me or you–which is what I really prefer–then it’s EVERYONE trading a whole lot of privacy (and some fraction of them being abused from misuse of the footage) against saving the lives of some small FRACTION OF A PERCENTAGE OF EVERYONE.
Please talk to me like I’m stupid. It’s really endearing.
You should note that “failing to save someone’s life” is not violating their right to life. Killing them is. We’re talking about the state violating someone’s right to privacy ostensibly to prevent a criminal from violating their right to life. No one wants the state to violate their right to life. But a great many also don’t want the state to violate all their other rights in order to protect them.
Agreed, it is the primary source of any benefits AND abuses.
You tell me. Sometimes, you seem to be saying that they have no privacy rights once they leave the house. At other times, you seem to be saying that those privacy rights exist but they are of no value, so that ANY benefits from SkyEye would justify violating them.
I am saying that they have privacy rights and that they are of value, and that SkyEye represents an awful lot of violation, which will invite a lot of different kinds of abuse, for a relatively small number of “lives saved” and I-have-no-idea number of criminals caught.
Tired of posting the same things over and over. Please read Kobal2’s Post 86 and proceed from there.
The fact that you have ignored or dismissed things that people have contributed to the discussion doesn’t entitle you to claim that nothing has been offered.
Since I’m already in a quoting mood, let’s review this exchange:
It sure seems to me that when you say, “other systems can be implemented with controls sufficient…” you’re suggesting anything called a “system” can be. The implication of your argument is that if there are any “systems” (like, say, a system for recording 911 calls) that I think it’s okay for police to have, then I should be okay with police having anything that is a system (like, say, a system for continuous surveillance of the entire population).
It’s a ridiculous argument, and I gave you a ridiculous response. Alternatively, I’m just too goddamned stupid to understand your brilliant homages to reason and argumentation.
Except in this case, you’re the Christian. You believe in your rights and no amount of reasoning convinces you that the negatives are far outweighed by the positives.
A subset of the numbers I’ve posted above. Anyone who is actually interested in discussing this seriously would know that not every one of those cases can be resolved by any one tool.
Again, you say this like it isn’t happening in some form already. The vast majority of these people don’t even notice what exists now.
Do you not know why I refer to this as a tool? Because like any tool it has its uses and its drawbacks. If this is a sledgehammer, I don’t use it to drive finishing nails. I can, but I have to be mighty careful not to damage the molding.
Geez, I wonder why I brought the saving lives thing up? Hmmm.
Because there would be no way to track a person back to where they were last seen if we turn it on after the fact.
Strawman. Never said there wouldn’t be any abuses. I said that that activity on the system should be tracked to help prevent and find any abuses.
Its the way I write. Sorry if it is confusing. I’ll try to be more specific in the future.
I am honestly interested in why people have a problem with being watched when they are currently being watched in an adhoc fashion now. I’d prefer not to be watched as well, but normally I don’t even think on it unless I notice a camera.
The energy lost when people think on it?
I assumed both were your threshold. One on the positive side, one on the negative side. I also assumed because of the side of the argument that you are on that no surveillance is your default stance. So, why is it you are baffled when I question where you draw the line for surveillance being worth the loss of privacy?
I keep mentioning these examples because they are the only ones that have some quantifiable measure to them. Otherwise, you have not said how a camera miles in the sky can possibly affect you in any meaningful way. To say your ‘privacy’ is being violated with no definition on what that means or how it harms you, or anyone else, is ‘fluff’.
‘Feel that way’. Feelings are good in songs and TV soap operas.
More than one and you know that. Yet, I am not a fortune teller, I know from how many are missing that a subset of them will be saved. I know that a subset of the unsolved murders will be solved. I know that a some of those who will be convicted now, would have been cleared if this tool was implemented.
I know that more than I can possibly know how many people’s feelings will be hurt by some nasty man looking through a camera at them while they walk down the street.
I try to avoid that argument as it is a selfish one. I hope people will look at saving others as a form of the golden rule with them potentially being saved in return.
Should the state force me to wear a seatbelt or a helmet? I think so. I’m not thinking of their well being, but the cost to society to support them when they are on life support, etc. I envision this tool in the same way.
I don’t think anyone should have an expectation of privacy when they leave the house. 2. I am acknowledging that you and others think there are privacy rights being violated and that the violation of same isn’t enough to warrant not using the tool.
You’re example of the NSA system damaging the credibility of your IT industry doesn’t apply to this system, so I’m not sure, other than the cost of the system itself (which I agree could be astronomical) what damage you are referring to?
Attempting to handwave away a devastating case based on the closest available real-world analogy to the proposal doesn’t exactly enhance the credibility of your argument. In any case, you haven’t even tried to handwave away the economic damage caused by the embarrassment issue which you yourself conceded to be a problem.
As for the cost of the system itself, it is clearly going to run several orders of magnitude above the “value of one life” computed based on statistical determination that diverting X amount of resources from the productive economy produces Y deaths from various side effects of decreased wealth (people don’t care for themselves as effectively, are more willing to accept overwork and hazards, etc). The exact numbers vary, but there’s general agreement that the calculated “value of one life” is in the mid-seven-figure (i.e. several million) dollar range. Thus, it won’t do to make vague pronouncements about saving lives – you have to prove, based on a realistic minimum estimate of what something like this would cost, that the system would save at least a few thousand lives per year.
Monitoring communications by itself would not have caused the loss of business. Allowing backdoors into your equipment that you want to sell internationally does. The equivalent for discussion would be the government requiring roofing materials to be transparent to this tool.
I have no idea how much it would cost. If you said 100 billion or a trillion, I’d not be surprised. The other issue is the cost of storage for high resolution video and the amount of bandwidth needed to send it to earth if you were covering everything. I’d be surprised if this was even feasible at this time.
