To my mind, another problem is the one-sidedness of this effort. Why is someone privileged to scan my data but I can’t write a scanner and parse theirs? There seems to be a fundamental injustice here.
Completely ignoring privacy as a concept for a moment, a fair trade should be like for like, value for value.
Imho, sponsors of this bill want to collect dossiers and use them to blackmail opponents in the future. For example, you want to do something unpopular and a noisy council member opposes your plan. You reach to the "official and confidential" box, find there a personal file on that politician, conveniently created by the AI-scanner, share your discoveries with him and suddenly he changes his mind.
> Imho, sponsors of this bill want to collect dossiers and use them to blackmail opponents in the future.
I wonder how it is that the NSA hasn't already enabled that. One of my early concerns with government spying is that we'd up with some kind of NeoMcCarthyism on crack where someone in power would be able to discredit any inconvenient person or even identify and eliminate the career of a potential opponent before they grew to become a real threat. It's astonishing to me that with the wealth of data being collected already it hasn't happened. We've certainly had some very petty and morally bankrupt people in high positions who I'm sure would not have hesitated to abuse that information.
The risk is certainly real, and laws like EARN IT would only make it easier. Even today it seems like it'd be trivial for someone in power to plant a forbidden sequence of zeros and ones on somebodies mobile device at anytime and ruin them.
> I wonder how it is that the NSA hasn't already enabled that
On paper, at least, the NSA technically isn't allowed to act on US soil or against US persons. The FBI would be the most likely vector for such a political police action, imho.
> I wonder how it is that the NSA hasn't already enabled that.
It seems pretty weird to assume it's not already done and in use by select people or groups in the NSA already. They literally have the ability, they're smart enough to pick their targets carefully, and there's plenty of evidence of their oversight being useless.
You're right that it's possible. We haven't seen full on witch hunts, with people hauled before congress and cameras to have their dirtiest laundry aired while the world watches. We haven't seen presidents able to wield that power unrestrained either (despite the NSA being under the DoD and ostensibly answerable to the commander-in-chief). Still, it's possible that there's a much more quiet sort of manipulation going on behind the scenes from folks within the NSA itself.
Obama campaigned on the promise to end domestic surveillance, and while politicians lie all the time to get elected, listening to him speak back then I believed him. He was a strong orator and was saying what I wanted to hear which admittedly makes my judgement there a bit suspect, but he also had a long history of speaking out against things like the patriot act, the illegal wiretapping of Americans, and national security letters.
Once he got into office however, instead of reining in the NSA he greatly expanded the NSA's ability to spy on the American public and he started defending them in speeches. I've often wondered if he was shown something highly classified that convinced him that violating every American's rights was genuinely needed, or if he was just threatened into compliance by showing him what information they'd collected on him and his family.
In relinquishing our right to violence, we demand both influence over its use and transparent practices. Injustice arises when this exchange fails to be equitable, particularly when the government monopolizes violence without being held accountable to its citizens or offering anything of value in return.
Of course, numerous ethical concerns surround the monopolization of violence, but for I want to focus on on the negotiation of rights for societal benefits.
Similarly, we often surrender our privacy with the promise of protection from criminal threats. However, this bargain becomes unjust and imbalanced when we look at it critically. The map is not the territory as the saying goes, and what are sold as effective measures against crime (on "the map") don't seem like they would be in reality ("the territory"). We risk relinquishing our privacy for nothing of value in return.
_should_ is the main problem I have with this argument. A Monopoly on violence is _never_ fine because there is never a time where we can trust a person or an organization to be completely transparent.
Completely ignoring privacy as a concept for a moment, a fair trade should be like for like, value for value.