undefined | Better HN

0 pointsDanBC12y ago0 comments

You're correct that the surveillance is not acceptable even if it works.

My point is addressing the surveillance in Their own terms - "we do it to catch criminals" is the justification They give for the surveillance. But even that justification fails. The surveillance is unacceptable for all the obvious reasons, but it doesn't even do what They claim it does.

0 comments

9 comments · 3 top-level

Udo12y ago· 5 in thread

> My point is addressing the surveillance in Their own terms

I believe this is a mistake. The core argument should remain that surveillance is immoral. That it doesn't work is just a bonus, but arguing on these terms could give proponents the impression that they're generally on the right track and that people just want them to work harder at it.

fnordfnordfnord12y ago

I agree. Unwarranted suspicionless surveillance is unconstitutional. End of discussion. To even entertain arguments about efficacy is an implied admission that it might be acceptable if it caught bad guys. Even worse, if all they need to do to sell it, is to show a positive result; you can bet that they will bag themselves some "terrorists" in pretty short order.

Ntrails12y ago

"surveillance is immoral"

Unconstitutional is an argument that tends to have more weight. Immoral is a weak position to take when my opinion on morality and yours probably aren't the same - and for most people surveillance is full of grey areas.

Udo12y ago

It's sad that this needs to be said explicitly, but laws should be derived from ethics, not the other way around.

4 more replies

w_t_payne12y ago

Surveillance may be immoral, but so is warfare, imprisonment, the death penalty, taxation, graft, cronyism, corruption, or pretty much anything else to do with the domination of the state over the subservient individual.

kabdib12y ago

Ah, but the constitution permits or has a process for war, imprisonment, death penalties and taxes. (The others you lump in, not so much, though you could argue about cronyism).

At least surveillance can be dealt a blow by withdrawing funding.

1 more reply

a3n12y ago· 1 in thread

> it doesn't even do what They claim it does.

"If you would just give us more money and leeway, we would:

- Catch more terrorists.

- Deliver the rest of those high tech fighter planes.

- Finish the new payroll system."

gngeal12y ago

I see you've ordered it in the order of exponentially increasing difficulty.

PavlovsCat12y ago

But the justification isn't to "catch criminals", it's to combat terrorism, the supposedly clear and present danger... right?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse