[extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism

[Dan Clemmensen]

Samantha Atkins wrote:

>
> On Aug 6, 2005, at 6:33 PM, Paul wrote:
>
>> On 8/6/05, *Dan Clemmensen* <dgc at cox.net <mailto:dgc at cox.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     As a society we in the US have shown a distressing tendency to
>>     give up
>>     freedoms to counter terrorists.As long as we are going in this
>>     direction
>>     anyway, why not go a bit further. If we give up the
>>     (non-existent) right
>>     to privacy in public, we can make it much harder on terrorists.
>>
>
> What exactly do you mean by non-existent?  I can agree there is no 
> particular right not to be surveilled in public by authorities today 
> or watched by the people around you.  At least I don't know of any 
> relevant case law claiming such a right.  There are limits on what may 
> be recorded and by whom in what circumstances but I suspect those to 
> fall as the technology improves, becomes ubiquitous and since the 
> technology has many other highly beneficial usages. However, in 
> practice, the government does not today track all of the movements and 
> activities of all its citizens.  Doing so is becoming technologically 
> possible.  But is it desirable?  What kind of safeguards must be put 
> in to make such a practice less of a real danger to everyone except 
> those currently favored by those in power?  How would/should the 
> information be guarded and limited in use?  Who would have access and 
> for what purposes?
>
> Without a very high level of respect for personal freedom, diversity 
> and protection of dissent I fear mass public data collection of this 
> kind although I am generally very much for most of what leads to it 
> and for the other uses of the technology.
>
I agree. That's why I proposed using volunteers rather than government, 
and real-time rather than stored data. Let's get the public involved 
early. I'm not comfortable with universal transparency, but I'm even 
less comfortable with a government monopoly on universal surveillance.