undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdpark14y ago0 comments

>We are nowhere near the levels of government surveillance which are seriously dangerous

We'll have to agree to disagree. Abuses of power have happened already. It's already dangerous.

>And I prefer to be rich and work less, not to work a lot and be poor. So what?

So you posed a false dichotomy. Don't get snarky when I don't answer your unsound question the way you hoped.

>The amount of power that people grant to the government depends on the level of results people expect government to achieve. >The more power people give to the government, the better results government can achieve.

No, the government takes the level of power that it can. The government regularly does things that the populace does not support. Don't pretend that all government powers are granted by the people. Or if you want to believe that, please explain how you would take a power away from the government.

And no, more powerful does not imply more effective. Totalitarian states are basically all-powerful (in terms of powers we've been dscussing) yet most of them have historically also been ineffective (except perhaps at retaining power).

>The reason why it's possible is that more informed government would be able to accomplish the same positive effect by arresting 1 suspect instead of arresting 10.

You're just making things up now. On what basis to you make this claim? I say that an "informed" government arrests more people, because they can find more "probable causes" to do so.

> So within that model what would be your choice? Cut surveillance and increase ability of government to interfere with our lives?

I choose less of both. I will not concede to your fantasy that the government has a fixed amount of power or that it's powers are somehow interchangeable.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

dennisgorelik14y ago· 2 in thread

I choose less of both.

Not really.

You focus on limiting surveillance power of government (instead of limiting government ability to mess with peoples lives).

That indirectly increases amount of power government gets in messing up with people's lives.

It works like that:

1) You significantly limit what information government can get about people.

2) Clueless government agencies allow some major terrorist act (like 9/11) to happen (which could have been avoided if surveillance was more efficient).

3) Society is getting scared and gives government way more power to mess people's lives (crazy airport security, Iraq and Afghanistan mess etc.).

I understand that your intentions are noble, but the end result is pathetic.

dparkOP14y ago

No, it doesn't work like that. What evidence can you present to indicate that as the government has increased general surveillance (such as wiretapping, rather than, say, ground surveillance), they have decreased how often they interfere with citizens' lives? What evidence is there for increased efficiency? What has actually happened is that the government has taken additional liberties away on all fronts. Losing privacy did not gain us more freedom of travel, nor did it gain us any other liberties. We simply have less privacy, and less freedom to travel, and less freedom to assemble, etc.

Lack of intell was not the cause of the 9/11 attacks. There was no lack of intell. There was a lack of coordination and communication among the various agencies, and more surveillance doesn't change that. There's little to no evidence that our eroding freedoms have increased safety (not that that would justify the lost freedoms anyway).

dennisgorelik14y ago

1) I know for sure that in my business, lack of information (about customers) leads to less accurate fraud detection. End result of missing information is that both me and my customers suffer more.

I don't see why it should be different with government.

2) Loss of freedoms in the last 10 years was caused by people being scared of 9/11. You cannot do much about it anyway. But you can choose what freedoms are more important to you. If I have to give up some freedoms, I'd better give up surveilance, but keep freedom of speech and freedom from being arrested.

If you don't make such choice - that choice would be made for you.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse