Create an Account
username: password:
 
  MemeStreams Logo

MemeStreams Discussion

search


This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: Its not about the surveillance... . You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.

Its not about the surveillance...
by Decius at 7:48 pm EDT, May 11, 2006

The tin foil hat crowd has always assumed that the NSA was either directly monitoring domestic communications in the US, or at least that a foreign ally was doing it and sharing the results with them. This never really bothered me, because I assumed that the NSA wouldn't care about anything I would ever do. The NSA is mostly concerned with warfare, in which the rules of civil society don't really apply, and the only rules that matter are the ones prohibiting genocide and sadistic treatment of people. If I was ever interested in commiting espionage on behalf of a nation state, I would assume that all the rules were off and I would act accordingly.

The problem is that terrorism breaks down the barriers between what was once the domain of war and the domain of law enforcement. In the wake of 9/11 we have vigorously engaged in information sharing between domestic law enforcement and intelligence. So, wereas we might not have a problem with the NSA spying domestically in the context where they are really only looking for Soviet Spies, our feeling might be different if they are really looking for anything illegal, and sharing that information with local authorities. What we have now is somewhere in the middle, and its likely to erode further.

The minute someone says that we could have caught such and such a child abuser or murderer if the NSA had only shared the information with the police, its over. They'll start sharing it, and they'll share more and more, and you'll have the surveillance state.

Some people embrace this. They figure it is inevitable. It probably is. And they figure they aren't going to break the law, so why should they worry. I think our system often produces the wrong laws, and too many of them, and whats more, the aura of omnipresent suspicion and fear that accompanies the knowledge of the panopticon of the police state sucks the life right out of a culture. Its no longer reasonable to conceive of such a place as a "free country."

Whats worse, it is inevitable as these loopholes widen and the information sharing spreads that these systems will be used for political and economic manipulation, criminally.

This is the challenge our generation faces. How can you avoid creating a police state in an environment litered with terrorists and murderers and child abusers when omnipotent technology is at hand and it can help fight them? Is it even possible?


 
RE: Its not about the surveillance...
by finethen at 12:58 pm EDT, May 12, 2006

Decius wrote:

This is the challenge our generation faces. How can you avoid creating a police state in an environment litered with terrorists and murderers and child abusers when omnipotent technology is at hand and it can help fight them? Is it even possible?

So I see you like Multitude, huh?

Well put.


 
RE: Its not about the surveillance...
by oaknet at 4:14 am EDT, May 14, 2006

This is the challenge our generation faces. How can you avoid creating a police state in an environment litered with terrorists and murderers and child abusers when omnipotent technology is at hand and it can help fight them? Is it even possible?

Your concerns are valid. But "an environment litered with terrorists and murderers and child abusers"? Really? Take a look out your window. Where are all these people? Social paranoia, fed by the tabloid media hungry for scraps of news, encouraged by agencies of control, is a dangerous state of mind. "The monster under the bed is coming to get you! Come to Daddy's arms ... "

We need to assess the level of risk - and that means not listening uncritically to agencies who gain most from maximizing those risks. We do this every day. Whenever we get in a car we are implicitly using risk assessment as a means to balance the - not inconsiderable - risk over loss of freedom. And the idea that all risks can and should be removed is a nonsense in civil liberties as it is in security or audit or everyday life.

What do you think the chances are of dying quietly at home in an domestic accident against being killed by all these imaginary legions of terrorists, murderers or child abusers?

Of course, your concerns are valid. But don't lose your freedom to the Bogey Man.


There is a redundant post from ubernoir not displayed in this view.
 
 
Powered By Industrial Memetics