An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Surveillance isn't all bad, of course. I don't mind it in banks and elevators, for example. Certainly, private parties should be allowed to use surveillance to deter crime.
The question is pervasive government surveillance. Probably most people think that some government surveillance is a good thing as long as there are checks and balances on it, like search warrants. That probably needs to be updated to current context.
It's the total information awareness that is questionable constitutionally. The rule in the military for information access is need to know. What exactly does the government have a need to know that trumps privacy rights? That needs to be spelled out in law rather than made up behind closed doors by technocrats in the intelligence services.
Back in the days of J. Edgar Hoover, it was well known that the FBI kept dossiers on public officials and it is suspected the J. Edgar used the information to intimidate. BTW, he was hugely popular with the American people owing to his rabid anti-communism, so he had little to fear from political reprisal. No one dared remove him from office and he practically died in his office chair.
How does Sotamayor expect to administer justice if she doesnt have the best information? A hunch?
I dont see why certainly any Judge or even any person in authority would not want Total Information Awareness...
I'm sure at some point, Bisciotti thought "boy, I'd like to know what went on in that elevator...." and then when it was finally revealed to him (a few months later), he imposed judgment and shit-canned Rice from his team...
We can establish laws that impose severe penalties for mis-use of surveillance information by persons in positions of authority...
Well, Matt, you are an authoritarian and I am a libertarian. From my perspective you tilt too far in the direction of law & order, and from your perspective I tilt too far in the direction of freedom guaranteed by constitutional liberties. Those issues will be decided by the courts and ultimately SCOTUS. I'm on the side of William O. Douglas in this regard, although I don't see Sotomajor moving that far yet.
And you are not as authoritarian as you think either, Matt. We both think that there has to be a healthy balance between law & order and liberty. People on either extreme aren't much concerned with this balance. We just tilt a bit differently on this.
8 comments:
Just think if there was no camera recording what went on inside of that elevator in Atlantic City back in February....
The Ravens might have the services of their now previous starting RB this weekend...
After all, in a just society, the priority should be the NFL not the woman he beat up in the elevator...
Surveillance isn't all bad, of course. I don't mind it in banks and elevators, for example. Certainly, private parties should be allowed to use surveillance to deter crime.
The question is pervasive government surveillance. Probably most people think that some government surveillance is a good thing as long as there are checks and balances on it, like search warrants. That probably needs to be updated to current context.
It's the total information awareness that is questionable constitutionally. The rule in the military for information access is need to know. What exactly does the government have a need to know that trumps privacy rights? That needs to be spelled out in law rather than made up behind closed doors by technocrats in the intelligence services.
Back in the days of J. Edgar Hoover, it was well known that the FBI kept dossiers on public officials and it is suspected the J. Edgar used the information to intimidate. BTW, he was hugely popular with the American people owing to his rabid anti-communism, so he had little to fear from political reprisal. No one dared remove him from office and he practically died in his office chair.
How does Sotamayor expect to administer justice if she doesnt have the best information? A hunch?
I dont see why certainly any Judge or even any person in authority would not want Total Information Awareness...
I'm sure at some point, Bisciotti thought "boy, I'd like to know what went on in that elevator...." and then when it was finally revealed to him (a few months later), he imposed judgment and shit-canned Rice from his team...
We can establish laws that impose severe penalties for mis-use of surveillance information by persons in positions of authority...
rsp,
TIP to Sotamayor: Orwell was a writer of FICTION...
These people are reading fictional books and then applying them to our real world.... WTF????
Well, Matt, you are an authoritarian and I am a libertarian. From my perspective you tilt too far in the direction of law & order, and from your perspective I tilt too far in the direction of freedom guaranteed by constitutional liberties. Those issues will be decided by the courts and ultimately SCOTUS. I'm on the side of William O. Douglas in this regard, although I don't see Sotomajor moving that far yet.
Tom you're not as libertarian as you think imo... rsp,
PS that is not a criticism... ;)
And you are not as authoritarian as you think either, Matt. We both think that there has to be a healthy balance between law & order and liberty. People on either extreme aren't much concerned with this balance. We just tilt a bit differently on this.
Post a Comment