
Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy - hawkharris
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/opinion/surveillance-a-threat-to-democracy.html?_r=0
======
analyst74
No, surveillance is not a threat to democracy, people not caring about
democracy is what threatens democracy.

Democracy has never been a right, it's always been a privilege that people
demanded, and guess what, when people stop demanding it, power will naturally
collude.

~~~
Pherdnut
I'm still not seeing how that makes warrantless secret surveillance with gag
orders and secret courts reporting to special committees not a threat to
democracy.

~~~
veidr
OP means they aren't in and of themselves a problem if the citizens do their
job and hold their democratic government accountable and force it to abide by
their collective decisions.

I don't agree, though; I think _secret_ surveillance is in and of itself anti-
democratic. However, OP is correct too, in the sense that once it is revealed
that secret, illegal surveillance is going on, if the subjects of a
functioning democracy don't care or take any action, that is probably even
more corrosive to a democratic state (since presumably there will eventually
always be people like Norden^W Snowden, and nothing stays secret forever).

------
alan_cx
I would suggest its a threat to society, even humanity it's self.

Social interaction only works because we have the ability to keep secrets. We
hide our true feelings and intents to enable the great machine to work. If
those views became known to all, you'd be in trouble. Worse still, what if you
really knew every one else's views. Even worse than that, say a few people
knew your real views, then used them to manipulate you.

Our ability to keep things private is vital.

I hope that some people think I'm talking about interpersonal relationships,
and that other people think I'm talking about international diplomatic
relations. If government expects to be able to keep secrets and privacy, it
had better understand my need for it too. If it doesn't want its privacy
abused, then it had better not abuse mine. We both need and value it.

~~~
malandrew
I'm curious if you can even attach a quantitative value to information
omission and lying through experiment. I suspect that there is some sort of
nash equilibrium achieved that creates more overall welfare in a system with
information omission and lying than an identical system minus the information
omission and lying. I'm curious what quantity of omission/lying (assuming it's
measurable) produces the greatest overall welfare even if some individual
actors may fare more poorly in said system.

------
ccarter84
Glad the NYT Editorial board has stepped up and been so blunt.

"But Americans should not be fooled by political leaders putting forward a
false choice. The issue is not whether the government should vigorously pursue
terrorists. The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by
less-intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms and
basic rights. Far too little has been said on this question by the White House
or Congress in their defense of the N.S.A.’s dragnet. "

~~~
gohrt
> "The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by less-
> intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms and
> basic rights. "

No, NYT, the question is _how_ _which_ security goals can be achieved without
trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights.

There is no security goal that justifies destroying freedom, as freedom is the
motivation for our security goals.

~~~
mpyne
Go ask the villagers in the unadministered lands of Afghanistan and Pakistan
how their freedom from government is working out for them.

It's easy to say that security is completely unimportant when it's not your
daughter being beaten and raped for being seen outside without a veil.

~~~
sliverstorm
More like, it is easy to say that security is completely unimportant when you
have spent your entire life in such a cocoon of security, you don't know what
life is like outside of it.

------
gcv
Surprised and pleased to see the NYT editorial board take this stance,
considering it has traditionally supported the Obama administration.

According to a poll cited in today's WSJ and LA Times
([http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-republicans-
democ...](http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-republicans-democrats-
nsa-poll-20130612,0,2973289.story)), Democrats tend to support NSA
surveillance, whereas Republicans tend to oppose it — a complete reversal of
the situation under the Bush 43 administration. In other words, a majority of
voters likes surveillance, as long as it is being conducted by their preferred
political party.

~~~
tzs
You talk about liking surveillance in your final sentence, but about
supporting surveillance earlier. There is a significant different between
supporting something and liking something. I support visiting the dental
hygienist twice a year, for instance, but I don't __like __visiting the dental
hygienist.

Assuming we are talking about supporting, rather than liking, then it is quite
rational to support surveillance when done by your own party. I choose
politicians to support based on my belief that they largely share my values
and goals and are smart enough and educated enough to act in ways that help
further the advancement of those values and goals.

However, I recognize that politicians who succeed in getting elected gain
access to information that is not available to me. That information will
occasionally make the correct action in some cases appear to be against my
values when judged by someone with the information I have, but actually in
accord with my values given the extra information the politician has.

To put it simply, you are more likely to trust the politicians you support
than the politicians you do not support, and so you are more likely to give
politicians you support the benefit of the doubt if they occasionally do
things that __appear __to go against your shared values.

------
Fice
Why do people who knowingly trust their data and communications to a few
corporations expect any privacy in the first place? Why do people who, as it
now appears, care so much about surveillance use Skype and Facebook? It is not
the government, but careless consumers who are killing democracy.

------
malkia
If surveilance threathens your choice, then it's a threat to the democracy,
but then US has never been a real democracy, but a representative one. As such
it's congresmen and senators that might be threatened by it since the do our
real voting for us.

~~~
alexqgb
Uh, thanks, but intelligent, educated people who are attentive to civic life
(e.g. a significant portion of the HN readership) don't need to have the
difference between a pure democracy and a representative one spelled out in
detail each and every time the word "democracy" comes up in conversation.

~~~
slg
I think it is important in this instance because that is the real heart of the
problem. The US government is increasingly making decisions that go against
public opinion. Something like PRISM would have a much higher chance of
getting through Congress than being approved by national referendum. It seems
like at some point the US government has gone from ruling on behalf of the
people to simply ruling the people.

------
clarkmoody
It would be nice if people realized that the United States was built upon the
premise that the individual is sovereign, not the states. Your rights come
from God, not government. Many think they have all the freedom they need,
since they can drive (most places) with no papers and download whatever apps
they want on their phones.

The government is heading down a very dangerous path and has been for a long
time. Members of both major parties are too blame, for they have allowed
government to grow to a scale that is far too large to leave room for the
individual to be truly free.

~~~
malkia
I'm an atheist, there is no God for me.

~~~
betterunix
It is just a figure of speech, don't be pedantic about this.

~~~
gnaritas
Your rights come from God is not a figure of speech; it's a statement of
belief in God and it's not pedantic to point this out.

~~~
betterunix
No, it is a figure of speech and it is pedantic to claim that it is about
belief in any deity. It is similarly used in this context: "God gave you legs,
now move your ass out of my way!" It is nothing more than a way to express the
idea that rights are something people are born with, regardless of who is in
power or what sort of government rules over them. That is how the founding
fathers (another figure of speech, nobody is claiming that any of those men
are any living person's father) used the term.

~~~
gnaritas
You're absurd.

------
redwood
Surveillance is reflexive. It has no doubt already changed, irreversibly, how
we all communicate. We hesitate more, we collaborate less. This is the
immediate, intrinsic downside---an economic impact, even---that isn't being
discussed. This loss alone makes the surveillance state a net sink on our
society. Let alone the threat to democracy ,the potential abuse of power.

We need to show Obama and the other leaders that standing up against
irrational fear of inevitable crime _IS_ a tenable political position

------
unclebucknasty
> _The issue is not whether the government should vigorously pursue
> terrorists. The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by
> less-intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms
> and basic rights..._

There is another issue that hasn't been discussed enough, and this quote from
the article simultaneously refers to the need to discuss "balance" between
security and freedom, while also unquestioningly keeping alive the idea that
there is a grave threat and hence need for outsized security.

So, the question is also, what is the true scale and number of these so-called
"terrorism threats"? And, how do you measure the required balance without a
true assessment of the actual threat (vs. assuming it)?

After 9/11 we went into this permanent "War on Terror" war-footing, wherein
this notion of an overwhelming threat of terrorism was simply assumed (ex. by
this article).

But, when, if ever, do we question whether that posture still makes sense (or
ever did, for that matter)?

~~~
Udo
On that note, if the US had a 9/11 event every month, that would still be less
dead people than we lose to suicides, which was at 1.6% the number 10 cause of
all deaths in 2010. Of course, every death is one too many, but imagine we put
the same amount of money into mental health research and treatment that we are
currently pumping into the by-definition-unwinnable "war on terror".

Less people die by terror than by any remotely significant event category. I
imagine the last few years will go down in the history books as a good example
why the primary product of terror is fear and hysteria, and direct damage
caused is purely incidental. Of course the indirect damage terrorized
societies do _to themselves_ is stupendously expansive.

~~~
mpyne
If people honestly cared about the _overall_ risk to them every nation would
be powered by nuclear with perhaps a smattering of renewable generation in
areas where it clearly made sense.

~~~
peterpathname
nonsense. even ignoring the undeniable nexus between weapons and civilian
power programs, where I live, nuclear power would be more expensive and much
slower to roll out.

~~~
mpyne
Slower to roll out, yes, but the change would have happened long ago so we'd
be talking about incremental upgrades anyways, not new construction
everywhere.

As far as cost, nuclear has the fewest deaths per unit energy generated (yes,
even including renewables) and is only more expensive than fossil-fueled
solutions which would be disfavored due to carbon emissions concerns.
Renewable can be less expensive (which is why I mentioned it).

The current nuclear cost estimates include some rather insane design margins,
containments, redundant system after redundant system which could all probably
be reduced a bit without appreciably affecting deaths/TW-hr, which would make
it cheaper.

Also, a major portion of the expense is from very restrictive contamination
handling requirements to keep radiation exposure to the workers themselves at
extremely low levels. These levels could probably also be increased without
detectable increase in cancer rate (in fact, it may even reduce cancer
incidence; see radiation hormesis). Would we really say that nuclear workers
absolutely much be safer than coal plant workers, coal miners, etc.? We do
now, and this also makes nuclear more expensive.

Besides, if it's true that there is an undeniable nexus between all civilian
nuclear power programs and nuclear weapons programs then it is probably
imperative to take much stronger action against Iran than we are currently
taking, since we can't trust their assurances that their program is strictly
for civilian power generation. Unless of course, we're willing to allow them
to further destabilize the whole Middle East region.

------
kingkong
Very relevant
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jxaune1z3k](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jxaune1z3k)

