
The state of democratic control over surveillance in France - liotier
http://serendipity.ruwenzori.net/index.php/2013/07/05/ce-nest-pas-illegal-cest-a-legal
======
oleganza
Things will start shifting when people understand that "legitimate" and
"illegitimate" labels are irrelevant. Government is just a privileged group of
people with a monopoly on violence. It is an institute of violence. All things
you don't like are direct products of the first principle: these guys can use
violence to get what they need, others cannot. When you stop thinking in terms
of laws and start thinking in terms of negotiation, voluntarism and coercion,
you will understand where 99% of social problems are coming from.

Ask yourself a question: in practical terms, what power do you as a citizen
have? Government can do all sorts of shit to you, but the worse that can
happen is that someone somewhere as a scapegoat will be fired, or not re-
elected, or not having a bonus in the end of a year. And non-governmental
person will have hard time going through labyrinths of bureaucracy where no
one is ultimately responsible for anything (ultimately, "voters deserve the
gov they elect", the best excuse ever).

You as a person, if you misbehave, you'll get all sorts of troubles from
government that no government official will ever get from you. Your bank
account can be frozen. Your passport can be revoked. Your business is never
fully compliant with myriads of laws and their interpretations and can be shut
down any day. Your taxes are not always perfectly declared because the whole
process is so complex, you can never do it "right".

You can vote for some dude or gal and blame them on the internet. But that's
not power at all. You cannot vote for not having a government. You only vote
for someone to control parts of your life.

The truth is: it does not matter what government does good to you. Only thing
that matters is how conflicts are resolved. In your private life you resolve
conflicts on voluntary basis. You pay for service if you like it and don't pay
if you don't. You can go writing about how Facebook is not nice to you, but
you can always sign out and they will not run after you. Also, Facebook does
not have guns and trained professional sadists.

Government "solves" conflicts by force. Only government has trained sadists
with well-oiled guns. Only they can shoot people and get away without
imprisonment. Only government bullshits everyone how it is important and how
loving government is the same as loving society. If you disagree with the
government, you have no power and a gun pointed at you. All the time. You
don't (re-)negotiate with government like you do with a waiter in a
restaurant, your landlord, employer, employee or a business partner.

If you dislike the war on drugs, the most effective way to protest would be
not to support it with your money. But you cannot. You MUST pay your taxes and
you MUST use your local currency (with hidden tax called inflation). You, of
course, can run away and live under another government with all the same
features.

If you think that government is legitimate, then you must have some theory of
justice. I don't have any theory of rights or justice, I'm just pointing out
the violence that government tries to hide. If you are okay with it, then
please don't get upset when government spies on you or kicks you in the ass.
It's just how things tend to be when you allow violence to be at the root of
your ideology.

~~~
skue
When you're young, it's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction to authority. But go
spend any significant time in a developing nation that lacks basic
infrastructure, get close to the people living there, learn about their
struggles and their dreams, and then come back and tell me that the solution
is to abolish government.

~~~
smokeyj
> When you're young, it's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction to authority.

When you're old, it's easy to be an obedient minion.

> But go spend any significant time in a developing nation that lacks basic
> infrastructure, get close to the people living there, learn about their
> struggles and their dreams, and then come back and tell me that the solution
> is to abolish government.

Just because government isn't the answer doesn't mean destroying it is.

> But go spend any significant time in a developing nation

These developing nations seems to have plenty of government and regulation to
go around considering their non-existent economy. Shouldn't they be fat and
filthy rich by now?

~~~
GHFigs
_These developing nations seems to have plenty of government and regulation to
go around considering their non-existent economy._

Which nations are you referring to, specifically?

~~~
smokeyj
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country#List_of_deve...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country#List_of_developing_economies)

------
simias
TFA won't load here, here's what lemonde has to say about it (in french,
obviously): [http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2013/07/05/matignon-
as...](http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2013/07/05/matignon-assure-que-
les-interceptions-de-securite-sont-faites-dans-les-regles_3443078_3224.html)

------
biot
Ceci n'est pas un prisme.

------
wwhitman
It may be easier to make a list of countries that don't do mass surveillance.
Are there any?

~~~
Svip
Andorra or San Marino maybe? I hear Liechtenstein doesn't have a big
intelligence agency. In fact, more people are employed in American
intelligence gathering than there are people living in Liechtenstein.

------
wittysense
Oh man, Error Theory comes to legal systems. HLA Hart is spinning in his
grave.

I am absolutely not surprised. I've been whistling the Cowboy Bebop Intro
since before I could spell "legal nihilism."

This planet is a joke. And it's because probably .3% of You (here in this
"hacker community") will know half of what I'm talking about. Snowden playing
hop-scotch around Europe is "hacker news."

lulz argue over the flippantness or "integrity" of headlines until you realize
you've described your own simulation.

~~~
wittysense
SRSLY.

Previous poster said all of that -- all of language, all of that "thinking
outloud" \-- ultimately to stick you with the oh-you-shouldn't-be-surprised "I
don't have any theory of rights or justice, I'm just pointing out the violence
that government tries to hide."

Of what Noam Chomsky has said time and time and time, and time, and time, and
time, and time time time time motherfucking time again: "See, people with
power understand exactly one thing: violence."

It's like you GUYS ACTUALLY do not read, and if you do, we ALL know EXACTLY
what it is you've read.

We are not prepared. We "hackers" today will be the anthropologists of this
dystopia; nothing more.

It's like you're all hiding the belief that philosophy has not progressed
since the time of Plato, and you don't want to admit it. Now I have to watch
you all become your own little Socrates, from pg all the way down to the
bottom of the barrel -- "hey, get a degree in philosophy sneee! it'll make you
more well-rounded! sneee! haha! we're life hacking with the remnants of the
failed capitalism cut us some slack -- play ball! sneee!"

Call it rambling, because you CHAPS just overanalyzed a whack-a-mole game
(i.e., Snowden) all over my Web. Would MOST of you PLEASE go read a modern
legal philosopher?

~~~
wittysense
...

This response is exactly the problem: "Live and let live." In the face of
anarchy, this is not a mature or safe philosophy to hold for oneself or to
recommend to others.

You have to understand that we are talking about (A) a legal system and (B) a
moral system. We generally have moved away from absolutist moral systems, thus
becoming more "error prone" there. At the same time, we all fully admit to the
_belief_ that morality is "fuzzy" or "vague." So we allow for interpretation.
However, no one will say thus vagueness entails a lack of any coherent system
all together. So, they deduce that it must come from some supernatural
substratum. Whatever. Belief in whatever you want in terms of metaphysics, but
we are still in agreement about the phenomenological structuring of morality:
it is underpinned by our capacity to agree or disagree. The moral system is
available in virtue of our capacity to go one way or the other. Of course, the
only "response" to a moral nihilist is to "slap" that person.

That's all within the framework of morality. What happens when we say it is
METAPHYSICALLY impossible for there to exist disagreements at the LEGAL level
of critical thinking? So ASSUMING that morality is the bedrock of legal
systems, we're suggesting supervenience of properties related to the "spooky"
properties that belie moral disagreement. Thus, legal systems (assuming the
parasitic nature of the legal on top of the moral) become "error prone" and by
John Mackie's argument: essentially erroneous.

We admit that law can be an artform. Who wants to allow for Dadaist lawyers ?

"That's a-legal" is just a can of worms, and you hackers are going to fuck it
up.

~~~
oleganza
How exactly can I "fuck it up" if I simply refuse to participate in someone's
schemes and refuse to violently intervene in anyone's affairs (unless I have
no choice in self defense, but I don't justify violence in self defense - I
tend to avoid being in such situation in the first place)?

How can peaceful (even ignorant) people fuck things up? Unless they pull the
trigger, it's _someone else_ who is to blame. E.g. one who pulls the trigger.

~~~
wittysense
No guns or triggers are involved when they draft these laws or play these very
critical decisions at an international legislative and economic level.

Guns don't sell guns.

~~~
oleganza
You didn't answer my question. How I "fuck things up" exactly?

Laws don't kill, right. People do. I point out that people kill only because
they believe that law is "good". I point out that assumption and highlight how
dangerous it is.

