I see that I accidentally sent you down the path of addressing the problem of 'should' vs 'can and does' with my last question: "...open to government data collection?" I'd like to point out that the original topic was that of paranoia in government monitoring. I read your initial response to be a suggestion that an individual is only monitored to the extent of what information they "publicly broadcast", so I responded with examples of government monitoring extending far beyond "electrical signals that you publicly broadcast from your house". It seems strange to me, with all the historical examples that say otherwise, that anybody would suggest that the government only collects publicly broadcast information.
> How far are you willing to distort your paranoia in order to keep thinking that there isn't a very reasonable and balanced conversation taking place in the third-party doctrine about individual rights weighed against the public good?
Well first you're going to have to effectively demonstrate that I'm being paranoid, all you've done so far is provide justifications for the very thing I'm supposedly paranoid about. You are also going to have to define "public good", because I seriously doubt that we share the same definition. I don't think the public good involves individual rights being trumped by majority tyranny or deference to whoever the king is that day, so we probably won't find middle ground on that issue.
> ...to be able to deny certain individual rights in cases where it could best serve the public good. Why does this forum tend to abandon...
I can't speak for the entire forum, but for me the problem is in defining "individual rights". I don't include murder or destruction of property (or the utility there of) as an individual right. So that leaves very little else to justify the state's forceful curtailment of individual rights. The raiding of a farmer's market to protect the public from scourge of raw milk is an example of what results when you overburden the term "public good".
> How, exactly, are you supposed to stop anyone from figuring out your draw on the power grid?
I'm not concerned with that. I am concerned about those that have the capability, inclination and authority to collect and then act on that information. For example: if the Mothers of America had a direct feed on my power usage data - I'd be pretty bewildered but otherwise unconcerned, because they can't raid me. I'm not a fan of the USG having that same data, because they can raid me for unknowable reasons at some point in the future. I imagine the justification for such action would be as equally ridiculous as the raw milk raids - energy star compliance violation under Executive order 2023.082-ProtectMotherGaiaFromEwaste.
> We just consider it all to be public knowledge if it leaves your private properties.
I totally agree. But the break down occurs at the definition of "it". We really have very little idea of what information we are broadcasting that is of government interest because they not only have a monopoly on violence, but they enjoy a one way flow of information due to the concept of state secrets. Until the state is subject to that same policy, citizens cannot make informed decisions about what constitutes a public information disclosure.
> I see that I accidentally sent you down the path of addressing the problem of 'should' vs 'can and does' with my last question
If people can legally do something, they will, and it really doesn't matter if they should or not. If they really shouldn't be able to do it, make it so they legally can't do it! They'll probably do it anyways, but then it would be illegal. That's a whole other conversation.
> I don't think the public good involves individual rights being trumped by majority tyranny or deference to whoever the king is that day, so we probably won't find middle ground on that issue.
Good, we don't actually have to find any middle ground! I'm perfectly fine with how the Supreme Court is handling their interpretations! I think that our common law courts and the judicial oversights that continue to define "the public good" are doing a pretty good job of it. Are you?
> I can't speak for the entire forum, but for me the problem is in defining "individual rights".
Good, again, I'm generally fine with the status quo definition! Are you?
> I'm not concerned with that. I am concerned about those that have the capability, inclination and authority to collect and then act on that information.
Everyone and anyone has the capability, inclination and authority to collect and then act on that information. It is not only a waste of time trying to figure out who does or doesn't but also a clear violation of one's rights to be told that they don't have the right to collect public information. I want a world filled with dumpster divers and phone phreaks!
There's no such thing as "the government". It's just a bunch of people and a shit ton of paperwork. You can't just start denying some people the right to do something just because their name is written down on a piece of paper somewhere saying that they work for "the government".
These are all reasonable considerations, which is why our current government and legal infrastructure works this way! Do you like that it works this way?
> For example: if the Mothers of America had a direct feed on my power usage data - I'd be pretty bewildered but otherwise unconcerned, because they can't raid me. I'm not a fan of the USG having that same data, because they can raid me for unknowable reasons at some point in the future.
Why are they going to raid you? And even if you do, you have legal protections, and they know this as well! They still need a very good reason to get a search warrant.
By the way, who the hell is "they"? Who are these people we are referring to!?!
> I totally agree. But the break down occurs at the definition of "it". We really have very little idea of what information we are broadcasting that is of government interest because they not only have a monopoly on violence, but they enjoy a one way flow of information due to the concept of state secrets. Until the state is subject to that same policy, citizens cannot make informed decisions about what constitutes a public information disclosure.
I totally agree as well! Everything that I'm talking about really depends on an even playing field. Information asymmetries are incredibly toxic. I feel like this applies equally to private corporations like Facebook and Google. We all stand to benefit from having equal access and equal privileges to our public information.
There are of course times where there need to be state secrets but I agree, there are WAY too many state secrets. We should slash the budgets of the NSA and the CIA. State secrets make a lot of sense for the Armed Forces. What's the point of a submarine if you know where it is?
The problem isn't that the NSA and CIA are legally allowed to exist. It's that their budgets are too opaque and bloated. I doubt they're getting much effective information from the incredible volumes of noise they have to sift through. Even when they do find "bad stuff", they'd still need to pass the information along to someone who has to get a warrant. If they don't find anything or the information was wrong somehow, well, sue the fuckers who kicked in your door!
There's a whole wide world of manicured office parks filled with lawyers just waiting to represent someone just like you! ;)
It is, we were talking about whether or not believing that the government goes beyond public data collection in the pursuit of large scale monitoring is paranoid. You originally said that it was, but given your subsequent statements I'm confident that if pressed you'd define "public" as the space found just outside of your skull. So the original question is meaningless.
> I'm generally fine with the status quo definition! Are you?
Nope, I'm not a big fan of the resulting laws that thinking enables - the outlawing of interracial marriage, war on drugs, etc.
> Everyone and anyone has the ... authority to collect and then act on that information.
Some have authority to a greater number of actions than others, I thought I made my point obvious with the phrase "monopoly on violence". If you're suggesting that Nabisco is equal to the USG in range of authority and action... well you're just being thick.
> There's no such thing as "the government". It's just a bunch of people and a shit ton of paperwork.
No, it isn't paperwork - it is a monopoly on violence over a geographic area. It is the ability to define one killing as murder and the other as capital punishment. By your logic: if all the paperwork in DC were to instantly vaporize then so to would the state's authority to use deadly force. The state's power is not derived from paperwork.
> Do you like that it works this way?
Nope, the logic for it does not follow and the unsound foundation has led a huge number of convoluted rules and exceptions.
> Why are they going to raid you?
I already said that it is impossible to know, I can't predict future laws - I even provided a silly example. So again, lets not be thick.
> I feel like this applies equally to private corporations...
I don't feel that I have a right to any information held by another private individual or corporation, just as I have no right to the fruit of their labor. But I do have that right in the case of the government - the very definition of a public resource. I think the cost of maintaining state secrets of all kinds, to include submarine locations, far outweighs the benefit - the concept itself needs to go the way of "the divine right of kings".
> How far are you willing to distort your paranoia in order to keep thinking that there isn't a very reasonable and balanced conversation taking place in the third-party doctrine about individual rights weighed against the public good?
Well first you're going to have to effectively demonstrate that I'm being paranoid, all you've done so far is provide justifications for the very thing I'm supposedly paranoid about. You are also going to have to define "public good", because I seriously doubt that we share the same definition. I don't think the public good involves individual rights being trumped by majority tyranny or deference to whoever the king is that day, so we probably won't find middle ground on that issue.
> ...to be able to deny certain individual rights in cases where it could best serve the public good. Why does this forum tend to abandon...
I can't speak for the entire forum, but for me the problem is in defining "individual rights". I don't include murder or destruction of property (or the utility there of) as an individual right. So that leaves very little else to justify the state's forceful curtailment of individual rights. The raiding of a farmer's market to protect the public from scourge of raw milk is an example of what results when you overburden the term "public good".
> How, exactly, are you supposed to stop anyone from figuring out your draw on the power grid?
I'm not concerned with that. I am concerned about those that have the capability, inclination and authority to collect and then act on that information. For example: if the Mothers of America had a direct feed on my power usage data - I'd be pretty bewildered but otherwise unconcerned, because they can't raid me. I'm not a fan of the USG having that same data, because they can raid me for unknowable reasons at some point in the future. I imagine the justification for such action would be as equally ridiculous as the raw milk raids - energy star compliance violation under Executive order 2023.082-ProtectMotherGaiaFromEwaste.
> We just consider it all to be public knowledge if it leaves your private properties.
I totally agree. But the break down occurs at the definition of "it". We really have very little idea of what information we are broadcasting that is of government interest because they not only have a monopoly on violence, but they enjoy a one way flow of information due to the concept of state secrets. Until the state is subject to that same policy, citizens cannot make informed decisions about what constitutes a public information disclosure.