Why in the world would I want to do that at the wake?
That was your answer to the question I posed. You keep wanting removed conversations- that's the easy part. The hard part is what do you say when you have to look someone in the eye and explain yourself.
But the problem is that, while the President gets to see these numbers, we the people don't. They're secret. So the decision can't be made as a public decision where we can have a debate and then vote.
Precisely! That's why we have to be willing to discuss it also. Otherwise they have to make the determination and we all get to sit back and throw rocks at them. That's easy and cowardly for us, and not really good for them.
Also, phrasing the question as "how large must X be for the program to survive" forecloses the possibility of finding other ways to save the same number of lives, without sacrificing everyone's privacy.
No, nothing about this is mutually exclusive with (to?) working on better ways to keep us safe that help us keep our privacy. Of course, it would be difficult to regain that privacy, but I would definitely want sunset clauses built into any program or laws the I (as President dhimes) would sign off on.
It most certainly was not. I said you could tell your friend that you're sorry and you hope the people responsible are caught and punished. I said nothing about giving a speech at the wake on the dangers of giving up privacy. You said it wouldn't play well, which is of course true; but that's precisely why you don't want to have that discussion at a wake. You want to have it when there's no immediate issue at hand, so people can be reasonably objective.
> The hard part is what do you say when you have to look someone in the eye and explain yourself.
If your friend comes and asks you point blank why you're against giving up privacy, given what happened to his family, then you have to answer him, yes. But that is worlds different from making a speech, unprompted, at a wake.
If he asks you, your honest answer would have to be that, while you are sorry about his family and hope that the people responsible are caught and punished, you still believe that, in the long run, the dangers of excessive government power are greater than the dangers of terrorism. (That's assuming, of course, that you actually do believe that. But if not, what's the point of the hypothetical?) What else can you say? Your friend probably won't like it, but he's your friend; you've got to be honest with him.
> That's why we have to be willing to discuss it also.
You're missing the point. We can't discuss it because we don't know the facts. And we can't be told the facts because, if there is any benefit to the surveillance, making public how much benefit we get would destroy the benefit. That's why all of these activities are kept secret in the first place.
> Otherwise they have to make the determination and we all get to sit back and throw rocks at them.
We can, but nothing forces us to. Anyone who believes it's worth it for the government to do mass surveillance, and any other covert activities for that matter, has to also be willing to not criticize decisions made based on data that can't be made public. Otherwise they're just a hypocrite who wants the benefits without the costs. I would say that the main source of hypocrisy about that is not individual citizens, but the press.
That was your answer to the question I posed. You keep wanting removed conversations- that's the easy part. The hard part is what do you say when you have to look someone in the eye and explain yourself.
But the problem is that, while the President gets to see these numbers, we the people don't. They're secret. So the decision can't be made as a public decision where we can have a debate and then vote.
Precisely! That's why we have to be willing to discuss it also. Otherwise they have to make the determination and we all get to sit back and throw rocks at them. That's easy and cowardly for us, and not really good for them.
Also, phrasing the question as "how large must X be for the program to survive" forecloses the possibility of finding other ways to save the same number of lives, without sacrificing everyone's privacy.
No, nothing about this is mutually exclusive with (to?) working on better ways to keep us safe that help us keep our privacy. Of course, it would be difficult to regain that privacy, but I would definitely want sunset clauses built into any program or laws the I (as President dhimes) would sign off on.