I can see where both of you come from, but I'm tending towards ferdo's view. So far there is, to my knowledge, no historical precedent of a large data collection effort for the purpose of law enforcement* that has not ultimately led to a bad outcome for those whose data was collected. (I'm talking about non-ongoing, so full-picture historical retrospection.)
I mean, even my own state (which has about as good a rule of law as they come) has in the past implemented a dragnet that kind of went awry. At least, according to the people that lived through "Rasterfahndung", it seems inevitable that the presumption of innocence goes out the window pretty much as soon as eager law enforcement personnel has access to large databases[1].
* The inevitable asterisk: It seems that it might be possible to keep things from going awry if there is a specific warrant signed by a judge for every _individual_ act of "listening in". Not a warrant for tapping a service provider, but a warrant to look at the data of a single user at that provider. But this is moot, since we are already way past any point where it would have been possible to stop at that.
I don't demand that you agree with me, or even remotely expect it. How could I? You know hardly anything about what I believe. I fully respect people who have militantly anti-government perspectives on NSA surveillance; those perspectives make sense to me, even if I share them only partially.
What I don't respect are people who have no earthly clue what they're talking about telling me how repellent my views are.
> militantly anti-government perspectives on NSA surveillance
This points to a flaw in the logic of governance that results in accumulated errors when it's used as a precept. The NSA is the interloper in American society and a latecomer to government. The existence of the NSA has no foundation in the so-called social contract that we all share. It's essentially a lawless institution at this point.
The NSA and those that support it that are militantly anti-social. Citizens insisting on their rights aren't the problem. Those that demand or facilitate the infringement of our rights are the actual problem.
By "militant" I don't simply mean strong-held beliefs, but also unquestioning acceptance of stories that reaffirm those beliefs. I don't think strong opposition to NSA surveillance automatically makes one "militant".
Apply the concept of "unquestioning acceptance of stories that reaffirm beliefs" to those people that rationalize receiving a salary from some aspect of the Surveillance State.
In practical terms, the problem with asserting ambivalent, balanced, middle ground positions is that white sees grey as black, and black sees grey as white.
Ah. Are these your true colors you are showing us?
You know what bugs me about your political posts? I've been thinking about this for a while, exactly what it is about the way you state your opinions that gets under my skin. Could it be the way that you always manage to sound so reasonable and eloquent? And indeed you do argue against some future possible abuse. Yet you manage to defend some currently reprehensible state of affairs. And you'll argue a minute point to death until your opponent concedes defeat meanwhile the larger issue has gotten lost many turns of the screw back. I have wanted to debate you so many times but given how well known you seem to be and also the way you seem to be held in high regard around here I have been very wary.
You could have written a post about the TLS keys and spared us the (not very surprising) insight into your ambivalence. But you didn't. Why not?
I'll unhappily dignify this comment. Obviously, the reason is that my point was that even someone who was ambivalent about FISA process should still have a problem with Google giving up their keys.
I don't know what you thought my "true colors" were, but if you thought they included an unwillingness to tell the authors of comments like these to go fuck themselves, now you know.
The fu comment and how it's tolerated on HN provides a true window into how the real world works.
And why people on the outside never know the true story of why someone in power (say the government) or PG does what they do. Which is why sometimes it seems wrong and doesn't make any sense or it seems there is an easy alternative.
They only know what they read about it or what they are told or what they understand or have been educated about.
You say something that almost certainly would get a user with lower karma hellbanned but it's totally tolerated.
Now a user who is new to HN may wonder why you can get away with that and then feel that it's ok for them to do the same.
PG (or whoever has hellbanning powers) decides that you are either to big to fail or the benefit that you provide to the community outweighs whatever detriment a comment like this poses by letting you continue on HN saying things like that. You most likely don't even get a warning from the cop. "Ok sarge I'll tone it down".
It's like being tenured or something in academia.
I love this stuff. I like the fact that at least some people on HN can say whatever they want (the freedom of speech we are all supposed to have) without fear of either downvotes or being banned from HN.
And while that doesn't mean I want to have a bunch of FU or abusive language thrown about (which would almost certainly detract and make me leave) it is an illustration of the power of the primadonna in organizations.
(By the way Steve Blank was totally like this at the company that I worked with him at. Untouchable.)
He used swearwords, but that's a superficial test. The provocation was worse-- the casual assumption of lack of integrity, after this whole useless subthread started with someone deliberately misinterpreting his use of "ambivalent" and then trying to pull the if-you're-not-with-us-you're-against-us trick. No real discussion can follow such a reply.
Ugh. No need to be so condescending. Thanks for deigning to respond though.
> Obviously, ...
There's nothing obvious about it. Why do you think your ambivalence about the FISA process is germane to the discussion we should be having? You should be aware that it'll trigger an off-topic response and derail the discussion as you see it has done.
> comments like these ...
The person was only (in a bit of a soap opera-ish way I will acknowledge) suggesting that you maybe should give reevaluating your position a try. Is that so unconscionable?
I intend no hostility towards you. I appreciate your energy and your knowledge and insights. Now getting back to the issue at hand, dang them pesky spooks!
It's just that they recognize your financial interest in Jay-Z and are sickened by your support for the Playa state. Look into your Lexus and change, man!
Not to be unkind, but I'm honestly repulsed by your ambivalence. Ambivalence is assent, in police state logic. Your opinion, backdated:
"I'm ambivalent about the Stasi's need to request that postmasters allow access to all mail."
"I'm ambivalent about the KGB's need to request that all phone lines be tapped."
Make a choice: either be in favor of the American Police State or oppose it.