The normal conflicts between privacy and security has become particularly salient given the Trump Administration’s current disregard for the rule of law.
This was a typically well handled survey of a topic that has become too broadly ignored by other commentators as they merely let off steam at the administration.
I see this the subject is really a matter of use... who, how and why...Using a gun, as an example, can be used for good or evil.......It depends who is using it, why and how.
I think most of us accepted the changes made after 9-11. The Patriot Act ( as a Realtor) was often a pain in the a**...delaying mortgages on settlement days....However, it was a safety issue that rarely affected others.. So there seemed to be little complaining.
To be totally honest, anything that the name Trump is attached to, makes me leery of the how and why. Hes been ignoring laws, thumbing his nose at the courts and has only shown authoritarian tendencies. .....
Underlying this conundrum is the issue of trust. Does one trust the governing institutions to maintain an appropriate balance between data privacy and public safety or not? In authoritarian regimes, such as China and Russia, the answer would be a clear no. In most democratize societies the answer has been largely yes--up until now. Unlike Suzanne, I see the Patriot Act as more of a cautionary example, easily capable of abuse as the ACLU has argued. Same with FISA surveillance. AI may present even more complex considerations given that private sector firms have experienced serious data breaches and other privacy invasions. Oy--I'll go take my aspirin no!
You're on point with the notion of trust. Even for those who defended the Patriot Act and FISA, the assumption was that the government would, on balance, use the gathered information only for its intended security purposes. Any abuses could be attributed to one-offs. I don't think anyone, including the ACLU, truly envisioned that a lawless regime could be in the future.
This was a typically well handled survey of a topic that has become too broadly ignored by other commentators as they merely let off steam at the administration.
I think I have a headache. This was so deep that I need to admire your research efforts.
Sorry about the headache. That's not good on my end. Take two aspirin and try me again next week.
I see this the subject is really a matter of use... who, how and why...Using a gun, as an example, can be used for good or evil.......It depends who is using it, why and how.
I think most of us accepted the changes made after 9-11. The Patriot Act ( as a Realtor) was often a pain in the a**...delaying mortgages on settlement days....However, it was a safety issue that rarely affected others.. So there seemed to be little complaining.
To be totally honest, anything that the name Trump is attached to, makes me leery of the how and why. Hes been ignoring laws, thumbing his nose at the courts and has only shown authoritarian tendencies. .....
And Jeffrey Baron...I have a headache too!!
Underlying this conundrum is the issue of trust. Does one trust the governing institutions to maintain an appropriate balance between data privacy and public safety or not? In authoritarian regimes, such as China and Russia, the answer would be a clear no. In most democratize societies the answer has been largely yes--up until now. Unlike Suzanne, I see the Patriot Act as more of a cautionary example, easily capable of abuse as the ACLU has argued. Same with FISA surveillance. AI may present even more complex considerations given that private sector firms have experienced serious data breaches and other privacy invasions. Oy--I'll go take my aspirin no!
You're on point with the notion of trust. Even for those who defended the Patriot Act and FISA, the assumption was that the government would, on balance, use the gathered information only for its intended security purposes. Any abuses could be attributed to one-offs. I don't think anyone, including the ACLU, truly envisioned that a lawless regime could be in the future.