If you think you can prove someone is a terrorist, lock him up. If you have probable cause to think he’s a terrorist, and think you can develop proof beyond a reasonable doubt, arrest him. Even if you have only suspicion, follow him, ask people about him, and so on. But if you don’t have enough to prosecute or even arrest someone, you can’t take away his constitutional rights, even if you suspect he’s a terrorist (or if you suspect he’s a drug dealer or a gang member or whatever else).
He is talking about President Obama’s proposal to deny guns to people on the “no-fly” list.
In general, I think that the “no-fly” list and the “terrorism watch list” are of doubtful value. The latter, according to Wikipedia, has one million names. I do not believe that any agency is watching one million people. And, of course, the San Bernadino shooters were on neither list, as far as I know.
It is, once again, time to re-read David Brin’s The Transparent Society. You may also wish to read or re-read my essay on it.
Brin’s vision bothers many people. However, I think it is the most reasonable equilibrium in a world of terrorism and powerful surveillance technology.
But they are the party of science!
Sorry, truth compulsive disorder kicks in along with my insomnis.
The SB rifles were, as I can figure, a (illegal) straw sale, we can speculate, precisely undertaken to negate something like what Obama proposes. He just wants the guns. He may even know the real answer is empowering more citizens (Alex Ta barrow would call this “hiring more cops” thought I would not). Back to the facts,, they are determined not to explore how the existing laws failed (lying by omission, and they keep claiming the guns were purchased legally which is false, and thus outright lying). Surveillance did nothing- which they also don’t seem eager to bring up.
Alright, if i can stand it I’m out. This was my final frontier.
Brin’s position is correct. Allow the government surveilance powers to be used for the good. Keep it accountable. The government will argue that it needs secrecy as well. Give it powerful surveilance, but demand oversight regardless of any resulting inefficiency. Inefficiency is a bearable cost in exchange for protection of civil rights.
I should be better to have transparency and criticism of the government and hold it to being effective and fair, rather than requiring government weakness which gives it an excuse for being ineffective along with the claim that government must be all powerful to guard the society.
Wait. That guy flat out lied to Congress. They haven’t stopped a single thing. Not one. Obama should likely be impeached over it. Giving them more power that they already stole and hope they are transparent and everything works out? How?
Our government argues that it needs various surveilance powers. The public has agreed. It is a losing proposition at this time to argue for greatly diminished powers. I favor diminished powers, but the majority wants it.
It is easier to argue for great transparency, and of course punish the liars. That would generate the information for limiting or controlling surveilance.
As you point out, we aren’t even close to having transparency. Actually, we don’t have a republic at this time. We have a tyranny.
I’m good with being on the right side of an argument.
I also don’t agree. When we found out about Snowden there was a public backlash. If more people would point out as I do that they haven’t stopped a single thing despite having the ability to do whatever they want because they illegally did it and illegally hid it. They also lied. So, what is their transparency worth?
But for the sake of argument, my point is also that transparency won’t do anything. They will just move the secrecy margin to do worse things and lie about them.
More simply, it’s not a trade. We’ll say “do what you want, just promise to tell us.” They’ll go beyond whatever limit there is and won’t tell us squat.
They don’t want the surveillance that hasn’t worked because it works. They want it because it’s MORE.
Oh yeah, and they are perhaps most successful at arguing they need secrecy. That one reason why espionage laws have basically only been used against whistleblowers. Nobody went to jail for the great recession. Nobody is in prison over covering up for illegal surveillance. A bunch of whistleblowers have been persued.
So, the only argument is that we can’t possibly stop surveillance. If that is so, what do we have to bargain for transparency with?
According to your essay, Arnold, Brin’s entire thesis hinges on surveillance being effective at stopping threats in that denying them this power makes them weak vis-a-vis these threats and vulnerable to backlash in response to threat events.
However. Surveillance has been orthoganal to actual effectiveness
Our government is lying hard (committing crimes in the process, not just run-of-the-mill contempt of the constitution- I mean jail-time worthy) to protect this secret stolen (not passed legally and Congress lied to) power with ZERO evidence of value (to mere citizens).
We have no ability to enforce accountability when both parties lie to us. The surveillance can’t be oriented to address actual threats against citizens- because it never has, and never will. Attacks are always used to argue for more power and never any accountability that the power they had accomplished zero towards the sales pitch points (and neither will the next iteration of expansion of power). And secrecy is argued as critical to the power- as they have prosecuted ONLY whistleblowers. Sorry for the caps for emphasis.
What if the surveillance is purely calculated to increase government power at the expense of citizens and that threats are the useful excuse. Because, that is exactly what all the evidence shows.