? I don't get it, it's the easiest thing to understand.
Terrorism, human trafficking, 'high treason' (i.e. nuclear secrets, spying).
Those are very real things and I think it would be relatively easy to convince the population that some degree of oversight is necessary. Because there's legitimacy.
I fully support the idea, nominally, except that I don't trust the bureaucracy at all, and so I'm pretty much against it, other than in careful situations with a ton of oversight. To the point where I think a national committee ought to validate every single surveillance request, not even a local judge.
And FYI the issues is far more nuanced - it's going to be politicized to narrow the range of acceptable behaviour and thought, as various groups try to designate 'the others views' as 'hate speech' etc..
We've always had high common standards of morality, but there were always many escapes - nobody cares what 'the guy said at the beer hall / pub'. It was just some boozing up. It 'didn't count' so to speak. Now we record everything everywhere and context is lost.
> To the point where I think a national committee ought to validate every single surveillance request, not even a local judge.
Which wouldn’t make it mass-surveillance.
The problem is when the government enforces an infrastructure of mass-surveillance where information about everybody, in their homes, outside, their communication, and so on, is being collected. Regular people like you and I will have zero ability to vet how this information is used. We can’t let the government have this much power over us. The best way to prevent this mass-surveillance is by not allowing this data to be collected in the first place.
Selective surveillance is something different. It’s not logistically possible for your government to selectively surveil everyone the same way they do with the mass-surveillance infrastructures that are being deployed. This logistical limitation is a feature, not a bug.
For example - I think in the US, Verizon etc. has to keep a history of 'call records' - so that, in the event of some issues, that information can be acquired. I don't know how much oversight goes into that later part, but ideally, it would be a lot.
Even in that case, there is kind of a 'record' or 'background tracking' related to what would otherwise be 'very legit' situation.
Same for search, tweets, DMs etc. etc..
I'm fine with it as long as there is 'really good oversight' ... which I don't trust any of our governments to do. Not the EU/UK/US/Canada etc..
The answer is always the same: 'it depends' , 'it's nuanced', and always requires 'high degree of competence', 'transcend politicization', 'transcend descent into bureaucracy' and 'unforeseen situations' esp. 'data leaks', 'weird constitutional rulings' and 'weird populist political situations'. Etc..
Terrorism, human trafficking, 'high treason' (i.e. nuclear secrets, spying).
Those are very real things and I think it would be relatively easy to convince the population that some degree of oversight is necessary. Because there's legitimacy.
I fully support the idea, nominally, except that I don't trust the bureaucracy at all, and so I'm pretty much against it, other than in careful situations with a ton of oversight. To the point where I think a national committee ought to validate every single surveillance request, not even a local judge.
And FYI the issues is far more nuanced - it's going to be politicized to narrow the range of acceptable behaviour and thought, as various groups try to designate 'the others views' as 'hate speech' etc..
We've always had high common standards of morality, but there were always many escapes - nobody cares what 'the guy said at the beer hall / pub'. It was just some boozing up. It 'didn't count' so to speak. Now we record everything everywhere and context is lost.