You don’t believe most of the Muslim world wants to destroy America. “Death to America” is not a figure of speech.
Honestly, on this issue, I don’t. What makes it an “untenable” argument? What does a perfectly sane, educated, and rational person need to hide from the government?
So we’re in agreement that Snowden should have gone to Congress, then.
No, not when Obama has ramped up prosecutions and the CIA and NSA are specifically exempt from whistle blower laws under the guise of state secrets and there is no evidence this is anything other than embarrassing to the government.
I’ll stick with it being the duty of all citizens until Congress demonstrates it can be trusted with anything.
The belief that “most of the Muslim world wants to destroy America” is an absolutely false and absurd, paranoid fantasy, and a very dangerous one (dangerous to America, never mind the rest of the world). There are probably fewer Muslims (proportionately, anyway) who actually want to destroy America than there are non-Muslim Americans who want to destroy America. There are only a handful of loons (who, because they are loons, are mostly pretty incompetent) throughout the whole world who actually want to do this. (And there is absolutely no chance that they will ever succeed.)
And yes, “Death to America”, in most contexts, is a figure of speech. It means something like “We strongly object to certain policies of the American government).”
I’m saying that the potential for abuse is something that ought to be factored into one’s evaluation of privacy vs. security.
No. I don’t.
.
Absolutely nothing…
Provided, of course, that person does not mind his personal life laid bare to strangers.
Provided the perfectly legal behaviors that person engages in are not at some point made illegal.
Provided the surveillance is not abused for political ends.
Provided every individual member of the government with access to that person’s personal information is entirely trustworthy to maintain its confidentiality.
Provided the technology that holds said information also remains secure.
Solove argues that “when engaged directly, the nothing-to-hide argument can ensnare, for it forces the debate to focus on its narrow understanding of privacy. But when confronted with the plurality of privacy problems implicated by government data collection and use beyond surveillance and disclosure, the nothing-to-hide argument, in the end, has nothing to say.”
:shrug:
I totally get that you don’t agree with that perspective. But disagreement does not make your philosophical opponents idiots.
.
andros and njtt-Are you REALLY willing to risk the lives of 330 million Americans on the premise that people, who have done it before, won’t try again to massacre innocent Americans?! If so, I’m glad sane people, who actually care about this country and its citizens, are in charge.
Can’t imagine why he didn’t hang around.
If terrorists no longer use cellphones or the internet that would tend to make their targets that much safer actually.
Then the above-mentioned whistleblower law is irrelevant, because Snowden isn’t a whistleblower. He didn’t go to Congress or another proper authority with evidence of illegal activity; he fled the country and turned over classified information about legal programs, to a foreign newspaper, with the intent to embarrass the government.
Smapti-He ALSO endangered 330 million lives! But I suppose you’re cool with that, am I right?
We’re not talking about “strangers” here. We’re talking about the government, and frankly, I can’t imagine that I’m interesting enough that the government would be interested in my personal life unless I did something illegal to warrant that attention.
Completely irrelevant unless the Constitutional ban on ex post facto laws is abolished, which is such a remote possibility as to not even warrant consideration.
Even without this program, the government has more than enough information about me to “abuse me for political ends” if they so desired. The government knows where I live, where I work, how much money I make and have ever made, what kind of car I drive, where I was born, who I’m related to, what political parties I’ve been registered as a member of, where I bank, what stocks/investments/retirement funds I have, my height and weight, they have photographs of me on file, all of my public school transcripts, whether I’ve ever been charged with a crime or issued a ticket, and it would be trivial for them to access my credit report or bank statements and find out what I spend my money on and who I owe money to. The fact that there’s no evidence of the government politically persecuting people with the information available outside this program is good evidence that they’re not doing it with the information available via this program.
See above. We see no systematic problems of people at the IRS selling bank statements, the DMV giving out addresses, etc.
There are over 300 million people in this country and the amount of data that is collected on them is vast - so vast that the overwhelming majority of it will likely never be viewed by a human being. The NSA isn’t just picking through random citizens’ internet metadata to find out what kind of porn they like. I stand by my assertation that the only instance in which the NSA is likely to look at any data they’ve collected on me, or on any other person, is if I’m suspected of committing a crime, and therefore that the only reason a rational actor would be concerned about this program is that they’re worried they’ll get caught.
The STASI weren’t interested in anyone either unless they objected to the system. Ditto Winston Smith. There’s nothing to worry about as long as you go along with the system.
Fortunately, the Stasi is not an institution that has any authority in the United States of America, so we don’t have to worry about them.
Each of those 330 million Americans are at risk every day of their lives. I am interested in the calculus of risk, and have said not one thing about where I stand personally on the issues of government surveillance, personal privacy, or Edward Snowden.
Friend, the signal-to-noise ratio is bad enough in here without your misrepresenting my position and namecalling. I’d really appreciate it if you’d tone it down a little.
Dude, the fuck? Smapti’s on your side.
Sorry to break this out, but I get the feeling that you are using the term “government” in a way that suggests it is not comprised of people. The US government is an institution, certainly, but not an entity. It is made up of a collection of idiots and geniuses, foolish people and wise, venal and upright. And yes, they are strangers to me, in large part (the only folks I know personally working for our dear Uncle are DOE and DOD; I’ve lost touch with my peeps in the intel community since I left it).
Yes, we have put laws in place to limit the authority and ability of those people we have chosen to operate our government. We have laws in place to keep them from abusing their power. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you feel that because of those laws, and because they are the “government,” there is no risk of abuse of power. I’m not sure that’s an entirely sound assumption.
Moreover, you seem to be suggesting that the institutions we have in place, including the rule of law, will always exist in their current form. I tend to agree with this in practice, though not in theory. You’re probably right that ex post facto laws and even habeas corpus are likely to remain intact in our lifetimes; but its certainly no guarantee. What do you think the odds are? Are they more or less than being blown up on US soil by a foreign terrorist?
But rhetoric aside, I’m not concerned about pogroms, executions, and feral children wandering the wasteland with bladed boomerangs. I’m more concerned about soft power, manipulation, and political leverage. You make the argument that because all the personal information you mention has not yet been used against you, it will never be. I’m not sure that’s logically sound. As well, you argue that your boringness (and that of the vast majority of us) makes you safe. Will you always be boring? What of those who are not?
Of course they aren’t. In a very few years, however, that sort of information will be button-push. I’m certainly not trying to argue that anyone will ever want to look up your porn habits…but just because it is difficult to do so now is not, IME, a sustainable argument.
(my emphasis)
I think that might be the part that I’m most concerned about, from a purely philosophical POV. “Suspected of” is not the same as “guilty of.” It is entirely possible for someone to be *suspected *of a crime, have his or her entire life spread on a table, turned over, and trampled on, and then released to go pick up the pieces because, oops, just kidding. It happens all the time.
For the most part, I consider that just a part of a legal system that cannot every be perfect. It sucks. But in broader terms, we are not very far removed from the Red Scare, which again returns to abuse of political power.
You have nothing to hide, so you have nothing to fear. Firstly, I’m not certain that means you are comfortable with sharing your life with anybody or everybody. And secondly, I’m not sure you can say with absolute assurance that you will never have anything to hide, particularly when the standard is merely “suspicion of wrongdoing.”
Again, at the end of the day, it’s a calculus of risk. And in all sincerity I still do not know where my calculations end up. But I do think that both the short- and long-term repercussions of sacrificing privacy and personal liberties are greater than you credit them.
Irrelevant question. It is my right whether some blowhard on the Internet thinks I “need” to do it or not, period, end of debate.
Well, ya came to the right place. Your ignorance will now beg (in vain) for mercy as it gets fought into oblivion: