>Even if it it was possible I think the bigger question is do we want to live in a society where any and all conversations can be ease-dropped on? I get the point that they want it for investigations, but its been proven over and over that if there is a way it will be abused.
I'm going to defend what is probably the minority opinion on this site and say yes, I'd rather live in a society where communication is open to surveillance.
The reason being that the situation appears to me very binary (and I think most people would agree on this), either there's strong encryption in which case almost all communication is not subject to surveillance, or the state has the capacity to eaves-drop.
The first scenario scares me because it essentially eliminates the ability to engage in surveillance when it is needed. Be it financial fraud on a wide scale, terrorism, crime, radicalisation or whatever else, and society has a vested interested in having the capacity to prevent this.
I don't think the two most cmmon criticisms hold up. The first one is that surveillance affects many people adversely. I don't think that's true. Nobody has an interest in eaves-dropping on average citizens, it's simply a waste of resources. The second one is the slippery slope line of argument you brought up. I don't think there is a lot of evidence that, in states of law, surveillance has been abused or employed illegaly.
> I don't think the two most cmmon criticisms hold up. The first one is that surveillance affects many people adversely. I don't think that's true. Nobody has an interest in eaves-dropping on average citizens, it's simply a waste of resources. The second one is the slippery slope line of argument you brought up. I don't think there is a lot of evidence that, in states of law, surveillance has been abused or employed illegaly.
I think the Ortega government falls far outside the scope of something we can call a state of law, which I qualified my comment with.
I think it's valid to say that governments like these do abuse surveillance, but my problem with this as an argument in these discussions is that it also equally applies to anything else. They abuse the power of police, of the military, of state owned enterprises and anything else, but yet in other nations we still rely on all of these facilities to a large degree.
So I think there should be a distinction between problems intrinstic to surveillance, and bad actors using surveillance as a tool for abuse.
Well we can qualify things to our argument's benefit all day, but the underlying point of trusting that a government will always be a "good actor" is a proven flawed premise.
I don't think one needs to believe tha the government is always a good actor. The question is if the benefits of surveillance to say, public safety and order will outweigh the likelyhood of bad outcomes or abuse. That's not a trivial question, and it differs strongly depending on which country we're talking about.
I don't think that falls into the category of surveillance in the context of encryption, because individual police officers abusing privileged databases will still be a thing in a perfectly encrypted world, unless we take all information away from official agencies.
I was thinking more along the lines of targetting of political dissidents, building unlawful programs, arresting people on the basis of information not lawfully collected, and so on.
The Snowden revelations brought this topic up when it comes to US intelligence abroad, but I don't think such violations ever occured inside the US. (or respective western countries, say).
So, you're saying you don't know about the DEA's use of parallel construction as outlined in their operating manual? Or, the FISA courts, or the various Love-Int scandals the NSA engaged in?
Or let's go old school. Remember good ole' J. Edgar Hoover? Even before the digital age, the man created enough waves through amplified access via HUMINT that cast a pallor of doubt over decades of politics.
There is absolutely no rational reasoning to endorse further centralization to enable systemic abuse. No privileged system will remain free of abuse in the face of those seeking ultimate power. The only way to prevent those seeking it from finding it is to identify the power grab when it happens, and shut it down.
I absolutely do not condone the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse, but let me be clear; a world with pervasive and perfect surveillance is a world where the machinery, if left alone to it's own devices inevitably tends toward the destruction of our humanity.
I know the religious language may not carry As much weight for some, but I think in this rare case it's the most concise way I can make my point. As sinners, we are born, through forgiveness, repentance, and redemption we grow and cultivate that which as a species is said to entail all that which is generally regarded as being beautiful, and virtuous about us. Part of that, as a societal unit, comes in the form of fighting the most vile amongst us without abandoning the moral high ground.
We don't have police procedures and the rules around dispensing justice because we want above all else to punish criminals; if we were really out to do that, just point the mob of the majority at everyone they disagree with or deem a criminal and 'let God sort it out' as the most ruthlessly pragmatic would say.
On the contrary, though; we make it so hard to police, we constrain acceptable methods of investigation, because at some level we all understand the violence inherent to the system, and the inevitability of the occasional employment of it. We rein it that we may in some manner drive it, and live not in constant fear of those that drive it; as they too are (supposed to be) bound by it's laws.
It should strike a tone of alarm in anyone when those acting as the executors of the system's mandates begin fighting to loosen the rein. In no case does that bode well for anyone involved left unchecked.
I'm going to defend what is probably the minority opinion on this site and say yes, I'd rather live in a society where communication is open to surveillance.
The reason being that the situation appears to me very binary (and I think most people would agree on this), either there's strong encryption in which case almost all communication is not subject to surveillance, or the state has the capacity to eaves-drop.
The first scenario scares me because it essentially eliminates the ability to engage in surveillance when it is needed. Be it financial fraud on a wide scale, terrorism, crime, radicalisation or whatever else, and society has a vested interested in having the capacity to prevent this.
I don't think the two most cmmon criticisms hold up. The first one is that surveillance affects many people adversely. I don't think that's true. Nobody has an interest in eaves-dropping on average citizens, it's simply a waste of resources. The second one is the slippery slope line of argument you brought up. I don't think there is a lot of evidence that, in states of law, surveillance has been abused or employed illegaly.