Reading the conclusion really reinforces for me the difference in priorities. One group thinks it actually would be nice to have big datasets to serve useful aims like this. But also maybe even to track actual bad people down. Despite their frequent portrayal as evil Big Brother, they don't want to use it to do harm.
The other people are afraid of a totalitarian state having control of such data because obviously it would be super bad.
The first group might argue, "As this is in theory a democratic society, can we just not voluntarily elect awful people would would make a totalitarian government? And then in the meantime we can actually use this to do good, like catching actual dangerous criminals?"
The second group clearly believes the descent into totalitarianism is inevitable and just wants to hobble those future villains as much as possible (A noble idea if you believe this).
I think the first group could argue that if a truly evil dictator does come to power, they would have zero qualms about imposing the really scary surveillance stuff themselves anyway, so what we're doing now doesn't matter as much as we think.
I don't think either is automatically wrong, but I wish both sides would acknowledge that the other has a point.
The reason we have protections and limits on the power is to /prevent/ the totalitarian state. You'd have to be seriously daft to to think of the next 5 country leaders, similar types to the last 5, /none/ of them would hold onto their power if they could despite becoming unpopular. Maintaining the fight against that is the opposite of believing it is inevitable. Once it happens prior rules no longer matter at all.
Again we limit power because it will corrupt and that's how we avoid totalitarian states. "This power grab is fine because we're not a totalitarian state" is utterly and dangerously moronic.
I hate to say it, but recent history shows me that many of the people who are most afraid of the government are also the most enthusiastic about letting "their guy" do whatever he wants, "laws" be damned. They see the other side as a totalitarian threat, but see our democratic institutions as part of that totalitarian threat.
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
>The second group clearly believes the descent into totalitarianism is inevitable and just wants to hobble those future villains as much as possible (A noble idea if you believe this).
Historically this has generally been the case. E.g. Rome becoming more authoritarian as it collapsed, or the liberal Song dynasty degenerating into authoritarianism from which China still hasn't recovered.
Right, take the Roman Empire. They became authoritarian, despite having a super cool republic to start with. Once the bad people come to power, they put in place the totalitarian stuff as-needed. They don’t need the stuff to already be in place. We are kidding ourselves to pretend we can prevent tyrants from coming to power now that we’ve seen the kind of ethics the voting public will accept, and encourage, and attempt to re-elect.
And UK arresting people for any speech from tweets to wikileaks.
Investigating on rape may get you arrested, speaking up about the govt decisions will get you jailed. As opposed to, you know, actually performing those exactions.
This is a bit of a strawman. The most important concern isn’t that we’re going to end up with a Mussolini type running things one day (and even if we did, it’s unlikely the general public would even notice until it was far too late). The more pressing concern is that as soon as you grant the government any new powers, they immediately set about misusing it. It just won’t necessarily impact your life in particular. But every day people throughout supposedly democratic western countries have their lives ruined by some kafkaesque government tyranny. They’ll end up on a no-fly list, or get entirely locked out of the financial system for triggering some AML alert and never be told what happened, or have all of their devices confiscated for attending an pro-Palestine rally, or perhaps even end up in indefinite detention somewhere without any charges. All without any level of due process. When this happens to people, they immediately find out that nobody really cares, with many people holding views similar to your “I’m sure it’s never going to happen guys” or “if it did ever happen we’d surely do something to stop it”.
Proposing some sort of tangible benefit is only marginally less bad than “think of the children” as a justification. But the tyranny is here today, if you’re unlucky your government will gladly trample all over your life, and if they ever do it’s unlikely many people will even take any notice, let alone care.
The other people are afraid of a totalitarian state having control of such data because obviously it would be super bad.
The first group might argue, "As this is in theory a democratic society, can we just not voluntarily elect awful people would would make a totalitarian government? And then in the meantime we can actually use this to do good, like catching actual dangerous criminals?"
The second group clearly believes the descent into totalitarianism is inevitable and just wants to hobble those future villains as much as possible (A noble idea if you believe this).
I think the first group could argue that if a truly evil dictator does come to power, they would have zero qualms about imposing the really scary surveillance stuff themselves anyway, so what we're doing now doesn't matter as much as we think.
I don't think either is automatically wrong, but I wish both sides would acknowledge that the other has a point.