Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

I think a lot of libertarians miss the fact that many of the communications monitoring aspects that the administration is proposing includes authorization by court order.

It's not like your communications are being monitored by random government employees at will for no reason. There's a specific safeguard here for personal privacy, and that's through a court order.

If government is monitoring your communications, then there's a pretty dammed good reason, as determined by a judge.

Sure, you might call that final safeguard as not enough or susceptible to corruption, but once you do that, you cease to be able to function in a society.

Judicial review is the "trust zone" that citizens are expected to have on society. If you don't trust judicial review, then there's no hope left for you to function in a normal society filled with other people. If you don't have such a "trust zone" in government, then you are basically forced to build your own army to protect you, since you don't trust government.

Since having your personal army is stupid, your best option is to make sure judicial review cannot be corrupted.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#5

Post by tehwebguy » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 10:14 PM UTC

mozumder wrote: post #4

I think a lot of libertarians miss the fact that many of the communications monitoring aspects that the administration is proposing includes authorization by court order. It's not like your communications are being monitored by random government employees at will for no reason. There's a specific safeguard here for personal privacy, and that's through a court order. If government is monitoring your communications, th…

Communications are already being monitored by random government employees with no judicial review.

The FISA court is already a rubber stamp. Encryption is one of the only ways to non-passively protest.

Edit: Can't reply to my replies, likely because of the down votes on my parent's comment.

Re: FISA, yes to both. That anecdote may be truth but I am still hung up on NSA employee looking up ex-girlfriends' emails the day he got access to do so.

Re: Army, you aren't wrong but that's not encouraging. It's true, at the end of the day the most powerful military will win.

But it's an argument that only wins against those with something to lose, like people who care about their family or nation states with a future. I guess that's why the ultimate response over a long enough timeline to an unbeatable military force is terrorism.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#6

Post by kailuowang » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 10:14 PM UTC

Would like to see more detailed logic in the original post. For e.g. why specifically the parallel between physical world and digital is flawed.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#7

Post by mythz » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 10:15 PM UTC

mozumder wrote: post #4

I think a lot of libertarians miss the fact that many of the communications monitoring aspects that the administration is proposing includes authorization by court order. It's not like your communications are being monitored by random government employees at will for no reason. There's a specific safeguard here for personal privacy, and that's through a court order. If government is monitoring your communications, th…

Nothing is being missed other than the premise that you can only create a back door that just compromises your privacy and security to the FBI/NSA. A backdoor available to the US Govt, is a backdoor available for everyone.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#8

Post by mozumder » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 10:16 PM UTC

mythz wrote: post #7

mozumder wrote: post #4

I think a lot of libertarians miss the fact that many of the communications monitoring aspects that the administration is proposing includes authorization by court order. It's not like your communications are being monitored by random government employees at will for no reason. There's a specific safeguard here for personal privacy, and that's through a court order. If government is monitoring your communications, th…

Nothing is being missed other than the premise that you can only create a back door that just compromises your privacy and security to the FBI/NSA. A backdoor available to the US Govt, is a backdoor available for everyone.

This is more fundamental than any "back door".

The question here is: do you place any trust in government?

If not, then you really can't function in a normal society. Good luck building your own army.

And my army can beat your army.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#9

Post by ecma » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 10:18 PM UTC

This is incredibly naive bordering on puerile. To suggest that POTUS' view on this is without nuance is to miss his point. POTUS went on to cite existing warrant mechanisms and their underlying principle:

"And we agree on that, because we recognize that just like all of our other rights ... that there are going to be some constraints we impose so we are safe, secure and can live in a civilized society."

I'm not suggesting that this means POTUS and the government have the right answers at the moment. Despite that, we can't ignore the important role law enforcement plays in society, the requirements in support of their role, and the complexities surrounding the right to privacy. We need people advocating for the right balance, not just getting each other frustrated.

OP may have worries other than US law enforcement being from another country. This is one of the /many/ complexities in this space.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#10

Post by cheald » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 10:18 PM UTC

mozumder wrote: post #4

I think a lot of libertarians miss the fact that many of the communications monitoring aspects that the administration is proposing includes authorization by court order. It's not like your communications are being monitored by random government employees at will for no reason. There's a specific safeguard here for personal privacy, and that's through a court order. If government is monitoring your communications, th…

> It's not like your communications are being monitored by random government employees at will for no reason. There's a specific safeguard here for personal privacy, and that's through a court order.

That argument had weight pre-Snowden. It carries no water now.