It's not a short debate but I found it very easy to watch and high quality, I encourage you to watch, the whole thing is very civil and structured with rounds, back-and-forth, and Q & A from the...
It's not a short debate but I found it very easy to watch and high quality, I encourage you to watch, the whole thing is very civil and structured with rounds, back-and-forth, and Q & A from the audience.
I'm not going to really argue for the spying here but there were interesting points raised.
The key points I found most compelling from each side:
#For:
That the empowerment of technology that has been brought to peoples globally has also been brought to the terrorists, it doesn't take security clearance to see how the threat has increased Perhaps this doesn't justify the surveillance but it's an interesting point that the playing field is changing
#Against: To be honest there's a lot we could say against
A democracy thrives on the transparency of government, and the privacy of the citizen.
The NSA has inverted and perverted this to, privacy of government and transparency of citizens.
The fact that the NSA operates in secrecy means the checks and balance introduced by public scrutiny and the need for public approval are not applied, we've seen how far they go when allowed to act in secrecy and would the public have allowed this surveillance to go as far as it did if it were not secret? I think that answer is obvious.
The chilling effect that is done to the public when they know they're being surveilled is very real and proven, this is harm to the fabric of society.
#Aside:
I feel the need to also acknowledge the mode of operation of the NSA is secrecy, even if there's concrete evidence of the benefits of spying the NSA won't necessarily release it if it at all compromises their ability to further gather their intelligence. So they're tying their own hands by their own nature. Part of the whole perverted nature of it.
Do you personally feel the chilling effect?
I do, I know I have nothing to hide but I can see how anyone with the full details of my life could pick bits apart to make me look like a "threat" when I'm no such thing. Try it for yourself.
I also acknowledge that data gathered on me today might not be used against me today, but I have no faith it won't by future governments, we have no idea how the future might play out. We must acknowledge the threat of the unknown: unknown future, unknown technological applications for the information, unknown abuses of power.
We also must trust that the data is being deleted, I have no such faith.
I haven't seen this particular debate, but I've seen other debates by the same organization (and moderator), and they've always been excellent. The moderator in particular does a fantastic job of...
I haven't seen this particular debate, but I've seen other debates by the same organization (and moderator), and they've always been excellent. The moderator in particular does a fantastic job of keeping everyone on track and the dialogue moving. I look forward to watching this one, it looks interesting.
Personally I tend to be vehemently against the title proposition, to the point of encrypting my computers and messages, even when it's "just a grocery list". Once a state gains a power (warrantless wiretapping) they are loathe to give it up, and sooner or later someone or some group will come along with the means and desire to abuse that power.
Do you personally feel the chilling effect?
I started to, so I put on a jacket. I might feel a need for a thicker coat in the future, but arctic survival gear really shouldn't be necessary when I live in Texas.
I think in a world with instant, constant recording by everyone and everything, government and civilians, we as a society need to re-adjust our expectations of what things in our lives are public and what that means. It used to be the case that, if I went to the grocery store, the only ones who would know were the store clerks, my family, and maybe a friend who recognized my car on the way over. Now there's no less than four traffic cameras, dozens of security cameras in the store, dash-cams in half the cars on the road, and the store is linked to a globe-spanning corporate network. Then there's my phone with it's GPS and cell-tower triangulation. I simply have to accept that my grocery habits are effectively public knowledge if anyone cared enough to look.
On the other hand, in my home, my network is encrypted, I can use a VPN and encryption for my email, messaging, and phone, and the important parts of my digital life are about as secure as it's possible for them to be.
In the information age, information about the outside world might as well be public by default; but we can (and should) take actions in our own lives (and make laws) to protect the remaining privacy of our homes, thoughts, and words.
The thing I find most disturbing is the efforts intelligence agencies go towards to compromise encryption, putting backdoor wherever they can and gag-ordering the companies involved. Which is why...
The thing I find most disturbing is the efforts intelligence agencies go towards to compromise encryption, putting backdoor wherever they can and gag-ordering the companies involved. Which is why open-source matters so much nowadays, there's no other way to be certain proprietary software isn't compromised even when it's from reputable sources.
Absolutely. I think consumers having real control over their own hardware and software is going to be an incredibly important legal battle over the next decade or so. "Digital Rights Management"...
Absolutely. I think consumers having real control over their own hardware and software is going to be an incredibly important legal battle over the next decade or so. "Digital Rights Management" and "intellectual property" are corporate friendly wedges designed explicitly to remove the control that individuals rightfully have over what happens in their own homes and networks.
"You may sum all numbers in your machine, except for these, and these, and these, and you must ask me before you dare subtract, because only terrorists and thieves need ever subtract."
It's not a short debate but I found it very easy to watch and high quality, I encourage you to watch, the whole thing is very civil and structured with rounds, back-and-forth, and Q & A from the audience.
I'm not going to really argue for the spying here but there were interesting points raised.
The key points I found most compelling from each side:
#For:
That the empowerment of technology that has been brought to peoples globally has also been brought to the terrorists, it doesn't take security clearance to see how the threat has increased Perhaps this doesn't justify the surveillance but it's an interesting point that the playing field is changing
#Against:
To be honest there's a lot we could say against
A democracy thrives on the transparency of government, and the privacy of the citizen.
The NSA has inverted and perverted this to, privacy of government and transparency of citizens.
The fact that the NSA operates in secrecy means the checks and balance introduced by public scrutiny and the need for public approval are not applied, we've seen how far they go when allowed to act in secrecy and would the public have allowed this surveillance to go as far as it did if it were not secret? I think that answer is obvious.
The chilling effect that is done to the public when they know they're being surveilled is very real and proven, this is harm to the fabric of society.
#Aside:
I feel the need to also acknowledge the mode of operation of the NSA is secrecy, even if there's concrete evidence of the benefits of spying the NSA won't necessarily release it if it at all compromises their ability to further gather their intelligence. So they're tying their own hands by their own nature. Part of the whole perverted nature of it.
Do you personally feel the chilling effect?
I do, I know I have nothing to hide but I can see how anyone with the full details of my life could pick bits apart to make me look like a "threat" when I'm no such thing. Try it for yourself.
I also acknowledge that data gathered on me today might not be used against me today, but I have no faith it won't by future governments, we have no idea how the future might play out. We must acknowledge the threat of the unknown: unknown future, unknown technological applications for the information, unknown abuses of power.
We also must trust that the data is being deleted, I have no such faith.
I haven't seen this particular debate, but I've seen other debates by the same organization (and moderator), and they've always been excellent. The moderator in particular does a fantastic job of keeping everyone on track and the dialogue moving. I look forward to watching this one, it looks interesting.
Personally I tend to be vehemently against the title proposition, to the point of encrypting my computers and messages, even when it's "just a grocery list". Once a state gains a power (warrantless wiretapping) they are loathe to give it up, and sooner or later someone or some group will come along with the means and desire to abuse that power.
I started to, so I put on a jacket. I might feel a need for a thicker coat in the future, but arctic survival gear really shouldn't be necessary when I live in Texas.
I think in a world with instant, constant recording by everyone and everything, government and civilians, we as a society need to re-adjust our expectations of what things in our lives are public and what that means. It used to be the case that, if I went to the grocery store, the only ones who would know were the store clerks, my family, and maybe a friend who recognized my car on the way over. Now there's no less than four traffic cameras, dozens of security cameras in the store, dash-cams in half the cars on the road, and the store is linked to a globe-spanning corporate network. Then there's my phone with it's GPS and cell-tower triangulation. I simply have to accept that my grocery habits are effectively public knowledge if anyone cared enough to look.
On the other hand, in my home, my network is encrypted, I can use a VPN and encryption for my email, messaging, and phone, and the important parts of my digital life are about as secure as it's possible for them to be.
In the information age, information about the outside world might as well be public by default; but we can (and should) take actions in our own lives (and make laws) to protect the remaining privacy of our homes, thoughts, and words.
The thing I find most disturbing is the efforts intelligence agencies go towards to compromise encryption, putting backdoor wherever they can and gag-ordering the companies involved. Which is why open-source matters so much nowadays, there's no other way to be certain proprietary software isn't compromised even when it's from reputable sources.
Absolutely. I think consumers having real control over their own hardware and software is going to be an incredibly important legal battle over the next decade or so. "Digital Rights Management" and "intellectual property" are corporate friendly wedges designed explicitly to remove the control that individuals rightfully have over what happens in their own homes and networks.
"You may sum all numbers in your machine, except for these, and these, and these, and you must ask me before you dare subtract, because only terrorists and thieves need ever subtract."