91–100 of 122 posts
The question is then; in a two party system where both offer the blue pill, who the hell do you vote for? Neither Democrats nor Republicans will change this. Due to the way that the political system works, a third party isn't possible. In the UK we have a Conservative/Liberal coalition, where traditionally Liberals were strong privacy advocates, but now turn a blind eye to the massive Orwellian/Huxley-esque society g…
The question is then; in a two party system where both offer the blue pill, who the hell do you vote for? Neither Democrats nor Republicans will change this. Due to the way that the political system works, a third party isn't possible. In the UK we have a Conservative/Liberal coalition, where traditionally Liberals were strong privacy advocates, but now turn a blind eye to the massive Orwellian/Huxley-esque society g…
Neither party cares about the issue because the people don't care, and your conclusion is that the system is broken? As far as I can tell, the system is working fine. Polls of the public at large show mixed results, but I bet if you polled actual voters (skewing older) you'd find comfortable support for the status quo. Essentially, the privacy issues don't affect people's quality of life but people worry that terrori…
The ability to spy on anyone's current and past internet activity and past phone calls is an impressive power.
One could hope it would be used responsibly and not abused, but those with a good understanding of the founding of the country would recognize this as too great a power for any group within the government. Even if it isn't being abused now, the risk it will be in the future is too great.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your points are well-taken, but in a democracy it's a hard argument to make to say: "people don't really think what they think they think because of the media." It's not that hard an argument -- there have been probably hundreds of studies on the influence of media on people's opinions and resulting actions. Why do you think advertising is a nearly half-trillion dollar industry worldwide? It's a significant chunk o…
> see that pervasive surveillance without meaningful oversight is always, always abused at some point I think that being more specific and using more examples would help a lot here. It's one thing to say "this will be abused" in some sort of abstract way. It's another to point to specific detailed examples of abuse (either here or in other similar societies). I'll take it as a given at this point that a bunch of my e…
We should be able to trust the government to do things like run courts, build roads, and deliver clean water. We should never trust the government when it comes to standing armies, criminal prosecutions, intelligence gathering, and expansion of its own power.
> We should be able to trust the government to do things like run courts > We should never trust the government when it comes to criminal prosecutions And now I'm confused again. Do all cases simply become civil cases? Murder is now OK again?
Section 11 of the Canadian Criminal Code says exactly that [1], and I have personally exploited that loophole multiple times. Even more frightening, I have personally seen lawyers (and pro se litigants) in the United States settle criminal cases (including 25 years in the state pen) using a set-off [2]. Vince Neil of Motley Crue avoided a prison sentence for vehicular manslaughter by doing exactly that [3].
TL;DR - In Canada and the United States (if not NZ, AU, UK as well), it is possible to settle murder charges by paying a fine.
[1] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-5.html#doc...
[2] http://openjurist.org/636/f2d/714/magno-v-united-states
[3] http://www.opposingviews.com/i/vince-neil-served-20-days-for...
I've never trusted the government or the internet. I trust my family and friends. "...the three aims of the tyrant. These are, (1) the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; (2) the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another; and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; the…
I only "trust" distrust. Mutual suspicion of belligerents (adversaries) to keep each other in check. Balance of powers. I was a very engaged election integrity activist. The reason elections in the USA worked as well as they did for as long as they did is because no one trusted the system, each other, etc. Hence the Australian ballot system of voting. If all the players agree to the count, then I as Joe Citizen have…
> [T]oday, I passed several strangers on the street without any of them attacking me. I bought food from a grocery store, not at all concerned that it might be unfit for human consumption. I locked my front door, but didn't spare a moment's worry at how easy it would be for someone to smash my window in. Even people driving cars, large murderous instruments that could crush me like a bug, didn't scare me.
>Most amazingly, this worked without much overt security. I don't carry a gun for self-defense, nor do I wear body armor. I don't use a home burglar alarm. I don't test my food for poison. I don't even engage in conspicuous displays of physical prowess to intimidate other people I encounter.
>It's what we call “trust.” Actually, it's what we call “civilization.”
His point is that we need trust. You can't actually watch for every possible betrayal. Trust in fear of retribution will suffice, but there needs to be some trust, or there can be no complex civilization.
Personally I reserve trust for people, and I have standards and expectations for non-people. I'm sure General Alexander, DNI Clapper, and Michael Hayden are good people that would make excellent neighbors (if I were so inclined I would likely consider them personal friends) -- but in their official duties they are intractable foes. I would apply the same term "intractable foe" to every other person acting in their pr…
Do you fly on commercial (or governmental) airlines? Do you personally preflight the plane?
Even if you trust every member of these organizations, that isn't enough. It's them acting as organizations that allows them to achieve safety. If you don't trust organizations, you basically can't function in society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither party cares about the issue because the people don't care, and your conclusion is that the system is broken? As far as I can tell, the system is working fine. Polls of the public at large show mixed results, but I bet if you polled actual voters (skewing older) you'd find comfortable support for the status quo. Essentially, the privacy issues don't affect people's quality of life but people worry that terrori…
I'll go you one further. Obama could give a speech in the Rose Garden this week carefully explaining that NSA requires access to American communications, all of them, in order to defend the country against terrorist attacks, and that while privacy is "important", the expectation of perfect privacy in your cell phone and Internet communications isn't reasonable because it helps terrorist cells without providing much b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have an easier time trusting large groups over individual people, because groups can display trend behavior whereas individuals are always going to have eccentricities that can't be mitigated by aggregation.
So call tmobile or verizon they are thankful for your call after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I only "trust" distrust. Mutual suspicion of belligerents (adversaries) to keep each other in check. Balance of powers. I was a very engaged election integrity activist. The reason elections in the USA worked as well as they did for as long as they did is because no one trusted the system, each other, etc. Hence the Australian ballot system of voting. If all the players agree to the count, then I as Joe Citizen have…
Bruce Schneier may be the wrong blogger for you to follow, then. He talks about trust all the time. To quote his recent book: > [T]oday, I passed several strangers on the street without any of them attacking me. I bought food from a grocery store, not at all concerned that it might be unfit for human consumption. I locked my front door, but didn't spare a moment's worry at how easy it would be for someone to smash my…
As for Schneier, he's great, have a few of his books, read his blog. The distinction he doesn't make is between governance and civility. Or perhaps its a spectrum. If someone else has power over me, or delegated to them thru me (eg elections), I'm always going to be very skeptical.
To the best of my knowledge, no one has found a better answer to the conundrum of governance than balance of powers (mutual distrust).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Neither party cares about the issue because the people don't care And why don't the people care? Corporate-owned media has a huge amount of influence on what people care about. But in the never ending search for ever increasing profits that is built into their structure by law, they, like the major political parties are "just giving people what they want" too by chasing ratings in order to gain larger market share…
> And why don't the people care? Corporate-owned media has a huge amount of influence on what people care about. Again, I go back to my mom because she's the greatest insight I have into the typical voter. My mom doesn't watch the news. Her opinions are her own. She places a high value on social order, trusts the government, and assumes that the government wouldn't use any information they get from her e-mails to hur…
Glad I'm up late reading comments. This is one of the smartest, most astute political commentaries I've ever read.