IssueRaiser

The difference is that police and military have very well-defined protocols for oversight, carried out mostly in the open, with multiple ...

The difference is that police and military have very well-defined protocols for oversight, carried out mostly in the open, with multiple authorities being involved and clear chains of responsibility. If a policeman shoots an unarmed man, there will be investigations and trials, and somebody will have to say why it happened as it did (maybe the policeman, maybe his bosses, maybe a mayor, etc). Punishment may or may not happen, but there will be a process carried out mostly in the open. For the NSA, that's not the case. Do you think cracking Google networks and the likes were "legitimate actions"? Who decided about that? Why did they need to do it, considering Google was already cooperating? Why did they lie about what they were doing even to the authorities they supposedly answer to? They basically dished "network brutality" with impunity, and now there is no process to hold anyone accountable. With the NSA, we now know that what they "could" do, they actually did do, and unlike all those other corps, now there is no way to hold anyone accountable.

Posted by toyg on May 20, 2015, 4:43 PM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.6,500 issues0 comments

hackernews (Network)

The difference is that police and military have very well-defined protocols for oversight, carried out mostly in the open, with multiple ...

toygMay 20, 2015, 4:43 PM

The difference is that police and military have very well-defined protocols for oversight, carried out mostly in the open, with multiple authorities being involved and clear chains of responsibility. If a policeman shoots an unarmed man, there will be investigations and trials, and somebody will have to say why it happened as it did (maybe the policeman, maybe his bosses, maybe a mayor, etc). Punishment may or may not happen, but there will be a process carried out mostly in the open. For the NSA, that's not the case. Do you think cracking Google networks and the likes were "legitimate actions"? Who decided about that? Why did they need to do it, considering Google was already cooperating? Why did they lie about what they were doing even to the authorities they supposedly answer to? They basically dished "network brutality" with impunity, and now there is no process to hold anyone accountable. With the NSA, we now know that what they "could" do, they actually did do, and unlike all those other corps, now there is no way to hold anyone accountable.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue