I am afraid. I am very afraid.

[tomsnowman123]

How exactly is anarchy a feasible option for a human society?

I'm sure many people thought that about the US's democracy in the early days.

I believe it's feasible. It gives people what they want, no need to worry about a higher power controlling them, they can be the individuals they want to be. The whole process would take a long time to explain, it would be a long post.

Just to clarify, I support a green-anarchy. Not some of those other one's out there, some of which I think are terrible.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

This technology is not fiction. This technology exists. This technology is being used. This is technology that can so easily be used to control the citizens of a nation. This technology is East-Germany's dream - only 15 years after Communism fell, the West is under more surveilance than the East-Germans were.
You can trust your government to not do it, sure, but when you do, think of this: This technology will not go away. In order to not share my fears, you will have to trust the government for 50 years. For 100 years. For ever. I don't trust my goverment that they will not use an existing powerful technology in this way.

I hear that the Illuminati and Freemasons have their hands all over it.

 

[BasketCase]

Government isn't the problem vis a vis the ways new technology allows one to spy on people.

The incident foremost in my mind is when a policeman spotted a wanted felon on the road and pulled him over. The felon is arrested, the officer enters the booking info into the computer in his car....

....and somewhere along the line, he makes a typo.

As a result, some completely innocent guy in some other STATE receives a permanent entry on his criminal record (actually, he never even HAD a criminal record before the cop screwed up). An innocent person is now flagged as a felon, and as far as I know, to this day he has not been able to fix it.

Cybercrooks, identity thieves, and plain old human error are the real problems with modern technology. Government is not, and I can prove it:

George Bush sucks!
I work for Osama Bin Laden!
I am a terrorist!

Let's see if I get arrested.

Edit: will post again in a sec, somebody's at the door.

 

[tomsnowman123]

George Bush sucks!
I work for Osama Bin Laden!
I am a terrorist!

Ah, but if you say that in an airport, you will get arrested. And I still think government is a problem.

 

[Atropos]

Ah, but if you say that in an airport, you will get arrested. And I still think government is a problem.

Have you read J. S. Mill? Very maximalist approach to freedom of speech in all regards, but made an acception for cases in which the words can be interpreted as incitement to violence. The context, in his view, was all-important. Thus it would be quite legitimate to detain someone in an airport who claims to be a terrorist (since there is a real risk that that person may hurt others) whereas, in other circumstances, there is more leisure to investigate whether the person is really going to hurt others (which, I think we can agree, no one has a right to do) or is just goofing off.

I agree that government is a problem. The question is: What is the most effective means of limiting that problem? We are all willing to tolerate a certain amount of surveillance for our own safety and draw the line at more surveillance. So: How much is the minimum necessary?

 

[BasketCase]

I think it's about more than just surveillance. Governments do a whole lot of things, such as run the local fire department, keep the electricity and water running, and send police to make life miserable for scumbags who break into your house.

Anarchy of any kind means you're on your own when somebody with more warm bodies and more guns tries to abuse you.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Anarchy of any kind means you're on your own when somebody with more warm bodies and more guns tries to abuse you.

There are possible solutions to that.

Have you read J. S. Mill? Very maximalist approach to freedom of speech in all regards, but made an acception for cases in which the words can be interpreted as incitement to violence. The context, in his view, was all-important. Thus it would be quite legitimate to detain someone in an airport who claims to be a terrorist (since there is a real risk that that person may hurt others) whereas, in other circumstances, there is more leisure to investigate whether the person is really going to hurt others (which, I think we can agree, no one has a right to do) or is just goofing off.

Yeah, the airport may be taking it too far, since if you let it go and something happens, well, let's just say the outcome could be very bad. But please, don't group me with the extreme leftists (communism). That is not where I lay on the political scale.

 

[malclave]

When you can find my personal data in the census info I'll oppose that too.

So, since (AFAIK) there has been no credible allegation that the NSA is storing personal data in the phone call database, that's okay?

The govt. does not take who gets what mail in a giant database last I heard. Anyway, existing and where you are located is not covered under a basic assumption of privacy.

And (again, AFAIK), since the government does not store the contents of a phone call in a giant database, that must be okay.

 

[Commy]

Whaddya mean turn into a fascist police state?

UK is already there. Has been since the 80s.

EDIT: Pointless creating new laws. Security Services are immune to prosecution, ie they can break laws at will and have been doing so for nearly a century. Probably longer if you consider Crown based intel services (ie not state security).

All they got to do is paint "National Security" on ANY issue and that's it. No invesitagation, no questions, no press reports, nothing... except websites based beyond their control (even then, they can block direct access).

What? I'm shocked!
And Western "democratic" countries could blame Russia for human rigths breaching?

 

[EdCase]

George Bush sucks!
I work for Osama Bin Laden!
I am a terrorist!.

Ah, but if you say that in an airport, you will get arrested. And I still think government is a problem.

If your dumb enough to say that in an airport, you deserve to be arrested.

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom to be an asshat.

 

[The Yankee]

(I remember the DDR - and BDR (?) - we had to learn all of the old names in our German II class. Then the Soviet Union fell...)



They must have very tired ears, then.

Actually, I think it's been shown that it's only the phone records, not the exact conversation. Even then, it might be searching for key individuals.

Ah, but like Rik pointed out, even if you trust this government, do you trust the next? Do Bush supporters trust Clinton (or any Democrat) should she/they come to power in 2009?

Things like using a credit card to buy a Metrocard are all for convenience and all...but it does create a lot of records that one may not have much control over.

I don't think it's all horrible. But...these must be the advances of technology. Good comes with bad. And hopefully the easier it is to monitor people, the easier it will be to combat unwarranted monitoring.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, I'm consider myself an upstanding citzen, and i have nothing to hide, so the government can track me all it wants, in fact it kinda makes me feel safer. Its when they start telling me that what i think is wrong that I look to Geroge Orwell for answers

 

[malclave]

Ah, but like Rik pointed out, even if you trust this government, do you trust the next? Do Bush supporters trust Clinton (or any Democrat) should she/they come to power in 2009?

Big question is "trust to do what?"

Unless actual evidence (not just repeatedly crying "Wolf!") arose to the contrary, I would trust a President Rodham-Clinton, or a President Gore, etc.*, to act in the best interests of the United States within the limit of the letter of the law.



* maybe not a President Dean... after all, he's on record as "hating Republicans and all they stand for", and I don't know if he'd be able to get past his hatred.

 

[The Yankee]

Big question is "trust to do what?"

Unless actual evidence (not just repeatedly crying "Wolf!") arose to the contrary, I would trust a President Rodham-Clinton, or a President Gore, etc.*, to act in the best interests of the United States within the limit of the letter of the law.



* maybe not a President Dean... after all, he's on record as "hating Republicans and all they stand for", and I don't know if he'd be able to get past his hatred.

Ah, but that's just a nice retort to any argument that someone would make that this administration should be trusted, given how much some of them would hate a new Clinton administration and all those conspiracy theories stemming from the previous president.

Hopefully, one would be President by being somewhat trustworthy and hoping that there are enough checks through the Constitution and other members of the executive branch to curtail any kind of wrongdoing with such technologies.

 

[malclave]

Ah, but that's just a nice retort to any argument that someone would make that this administration should be trusted, given how much some of them would hate a new Clinton administration and all those conspiracy theories stemming from the previous president.

Some no doubt would. Many of those are probably on blogs I frequently read.

Partisan rhetoric aside, I always felt the Vince Foster (etc.), "Wag the Dog", etc. theories were about as credible as... that Jesse Macbeth video that debuted on the web recently

As far as the impeachment... I thought at the time that the lawsuit should have been postponed until after he was out of office, but that if strong enough evidence of perjury was there, that the House would not be out of line to impeach. Personally, I don't feel the evidence presented was quite strong enough to warrant impeachment. I might joke about things like "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is", but I'm fully aware that in a court proceeding that the statement is completely accurate.

Hopefully, one would be President by being somewhat trustworthy and hoping that there are enough checks through the Constitution and other members of the executive branch to curtail any kind of wrongdoing with such technologies.

Not just the executive. Appropriate elements of the legislative branch should be involved (in the NSA case, they were, though I think the entire intelligence committees should have been briefed more often, not just the ranking members). If the lawyers studying the project have any doubts, they should be able to make inquiries of the judiciary... IIRC, there were references to a pair of FISA judges being consulted (not 100% sure on that)? And potential whistleblowers should have avenues open to them other than the press or a book deal... maybe the House and Senate committee members?

 

[The Yankee]

That's what I meant by through the Constitution, the checks placed on the executive from the legislative and judicial branches. Now, if only we can make sure they weren't all in on the deal!

I am curious though, even with FISA judges being consulted, wouldn't that imply a consent? If so, why not get that on whatever records the court makes? It can't hurt, can it?

As far as getting the attention of the appropriate congressmen and judges, hopefully those wouldn't be bogged down in partisan or general government sloth. But so far, as long as there is a medium willing to listen, there will be that channel. Been so with Watergate, has been lately.

 

[amadeus]

How did you know when the Stasi placed a listening device in your home? When you came and you found a new cabinet.

We brought this on ourselves, you know. We've installed government after government lined with statists, claiming to have the "best interests of the people" at heart.

You allowed the government to stick their hand first in your pocket, and it shouldn't be any surprise to you that they've found a few other places to stick their hands in too.

 

[Brian_B]

Well: What would have been an authoritarian state's dream is todays reality. It is widely known that the NSA listens to phonecalls of virtually anybody on the planet. Very worrying.
Even more worrying is that every photo you take with a digital camera gets an identifying mark of a unique camera and already longer than 10 years printers mark papers that can link every sheet of paper back to the printer it was printed on.

In my country there are camera's on every highway, registering -and keeping- all car-traffic. Even worse; soon I can't buy a public transport ticket that is not registered to my name via a creditcard, or personalised buspass. All that information is stored, meaning I cannot go anywhere outside bike-distance without a governmental institution knowing where I am.

Do you really think this is only to catch child-porn creators? Do you really think this is to catch counterfeiters? Do you really think this is to fight terrorism?

Do you really think a state that wants to control its citizens and does not tolerate anti-government voices to be heard demands HP to only sell printers in their country that always makes prints identifyable ?? Dissidents are easily caught with this.

This technology is not fiction. This technology exists. This technology is being used. This is technology that can so easily be used to control the citizens of a nation. This technology is East-Germany's dream - only 15 years after Communism fell, the West is under more surveilance than the East-Germans were.
You can trust your government to not do it, sure, but when you do, think of this: This technology will not go away. In order to not share my fears, you will have to trust the government for 50 years. For 100 years. For ever. I don't trust my goverment that they will not use an existing powerful technology in this way.

Question: why would a government want to control it's citizens? Particularly in democracies where the leadership could be voted out every few years. I'll be worried when they start to suspend elections.

 

[Brian_B]

If your dumb enough to say that in an airport, you deserve to be arrested.

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom to be an asshat.

Agreed completely.

 

[Verbose]

So the technology is there.

Is your government required by law (which is being upheld) to conduct its business in public and in a manner transparent to the citizens?

If so, I think we're OK for the time being. No reason to be complacent, but as long as we can look at our respective governments looking at us the citizens the situation isn't grave. (It does require functioning and critical public media.)

Is your government conductiong it's business out of sight and in an unaccountable fashion, simply asking us to trust it with doing the right thing? Then we have a problem.

Of course, any governemnt can technically be suspected of being so good at doing its business out of sight and hence out of mind, we will never know about it.
However, it's less likely with governments where considerable checks and balances have been imposed through legislation (with indepenadant courts) and as long as the fundamental principle for any government action is transparency.

Go have a look at what possibilities your government has of classifying information. Are they good? The blanket kind, where government essentially decides if it's OK for you to see something or not? Then you're at risk.
The situation where a court has to decide if classification is justified or not on a case by case basis is less risky. (I.e. for preference where there's no "Top Secret" rubber stamp.)