Hacker News Reader

Comment by wpietri | Hacker News Reader

It's good to see here that one part of the government is calling another part to account. But I have to think that's unusual, and I'd love to see a better balance of responsibilities here.

In Greg Bear's novel "Queen of Angels", set in 2047, their solution to the conflicting needs of privacy and crime prevention was a separate organization called "Citizen Oversight". All the digital-trail data (cameras, financial records, etc) flowed into Citizen Oversight. If law enforcement wanted data, they had to ask for it and demonstrate need on a case-by-case basis. In that world it wasn't a perfect solution; if I recall rightly, part of the novel is driven by Citizen Oversight's swing from a too-loose era to a very stingy one. But I liked the idea of there being specific, named people responsible for protecting privacy.

View on HN

Any group who becomes part of the system will then act to protect the system. I mean, judges are supposed to grant warrants for things already, yet we continually see stories of them just rubber stamping requests, or police lying to obtain them. I assume that system would suffer similar issues.

That's why you have limited terms of service and randomly turn over membership.

Like politicians?

At least in Congress and many executive positions, they are neither term-limited nor randomly selected.

Sure, term limits can be good in many ways, and random selection can reduce the people chosing it for the wrong reasons. But who is going to give up their career to be a citizen watcher for just a few years? Likewise, random selection may not yield a cohort with the correct capacity to properly administer the system.

I'd almost think the better solution is to use mini-juries to evaluate warrants so the judges aren't just rubber stamping. At least then the judge has to explain the situation and points of law, and aren't the only one making the decision.

> But who is going to give up their career to be a citizen watcher for just a few years?

A Citizen. Rights and responsibilities, etc.

> Likewise, random selection may not yield a cohort with the correct capacity to properly administer the system.

Of course. That's the downside of random cohorts. But compared to the alternatives (that we actively gripe about), occasional lack of ability is the lesser of two evils.

This would also be lessened if there weren't a way to get out of it. Don't want to serve when your number is called? Feel free to be a citizen of another country.

"A Citizen. Rights and responsibilities, etc."

Haha OK. Why not do that for police and judge positions too? Then you'd eliminate the need for this.

"That's the downside of random cohorts. But compared to the alternatives (that we actively gripe about), occasional lack of ability is the lesser of two evils."

That's one opinion.

"This would also be lessened if there weren't a way to get out of it."

In one way I agree. In practice I don't. Forced incompetence is generally going to lead to really poor outcomes. By theway, how are Putin's conscripts doing?

> Why not do that for police and judge positions too?

Because police and judge positions require specialized skill sets and training, and both have access to the force of government, which would seem to merit a higher minimum bar of professionalism.

Oversight's "feature" is that there are fewer negative consequences when it's inappropriately applied.

> By theway, how are Putin's conscripts doing?

You're arguing Putin's conscripts are an example of when a country's best and brightest aren't allowed to excuse themselves from random selection?

> mini-juries to evaluate warrant

Typically this is a 'grand jury' in USA.

That's just for filing charges, getting an arrest, right? This would be for search warrants.

Every system suffers abuse issues. Which is why I think we should look for systems that minimize that.

Seriously, do we have any idea how such systems will work? Is it even possible to build such system?

Of course we do. Corruption and anti-corruption are well-studied topics. There are wide differentials in corruption levels across space and time. E.g.: https://risk-indexes.com/global-corruption-index/

Incorruptible systems aren't possible, but there's a wide library of patterns that make corruption easier and harder, and there are surely more to discover.

> Any group who becomes part of the system will then act to protect the system.

As a True/False binary, sure, but the magnitude of the phenomenon is a function of the quality of the system. As flaws are realized, the system can be improved.

Consider how many known flaws there are in our various systems, and then observe (in an as unbiased as possible frame of mind as possible) how we (everyone (including us here on HN), but especially those with various forms of power) respond to realizations of these flaws: do we fix them, or do we engage in rhetoric, propaganda, post-hoc rationalization/justification, etc?

> I mean, judges are supposed to grant warrants for things already, yet we continually see stories of them just rubber stamping requests, or police lying to obtain them.

If this displeases us, shall we blame ourselves or Mother Nature? Or, not even think about it?

> I assume that system would suffer similar issues.

You may be right. Alternatively, you may not. There's only one way to (possibly) find out, but it is certainly not mandatory that we find such things out.....well, unless we desire certain outcomes, then it might be.

"As flaws are realized, the system can be improved."

One man's "flaw" is another man's "tool". The people in power exploiting the flaw are unlikely to fix it.

Under all approaches tried so far perhaps, but there are LOTS of approaches that we haven't tried. Heck, very few people can even get their mind to even consider alternative approaches, and actually trying things is a lot harder than that relatively simple task.

> It's good to see here that one part of the government is calling another part to account. But I have to think that's unusual, and I'd love to see a better balance of responsibilities here.

This is the very reason and design for the three branches of government and the origin of the term, "checks and balances."

The idea of "Checks and Balances" was coined by Montesquieu in his "The Spirit of the Laws" treatise, where it is justified as "balanced forces of equal leverage amongst one another having an embedded tension against each other".

The problem is, despite the Founding Fathers' near-fetishization of Montesquieu's work, and the fact that Checks and Balances are a genuinely good idea, the Founding Fathers weren't true to it. In a country of three branches (Legislative, Executive, Judiciary), it is absolutely paramount that the installment of each branch's authority is independent from the actions of another. Obviously, this didn't happen: Congress itself is THE delegate to assigning the President of the Executive - of whom decides his cabinet (which is also meant to be a Check and Balance to Congress), and Congress (and the President it chooses) not only votes on the Supreme Justices of the Judiciary - but Congress also has the power to ordain any court inferior to the Supreme Court.

This creates a system where Congress seats its utmost authorities intended to act as its checks and balances, and it doesn't work.

> Congress itself is THE delegate to assigning the President of the Executive

Subject to the certification only procedure outlined in the Constitution, as was recently vividly demonstrated. (Originally, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; since 1804, under the 12th Amendment)

There's a reason the states transmit their electors' votes to Congress, rather than meeting in DC.

Furthermore, current case law is that states have virtually unlimited rights, subject only to US constitutional protections, to run their elections as they see fit.

> and Congress (and the President it chooses) not only votes on the Supreme Justices of the Judiciary

As above, Congress does not choose the President. Ergo, the President nominating and Congress confirming a Supreme Court justice are two independent branches.

> but Congress also has the power to ordain any court inferior to the Supreme Court.

Which may then be overruled by the Supreme Court. All in all, a surprisingly flexible arrangement that maintains superiority of the explicitly authorized and described Supreme Court.

> Subject to the certification only procedure outlined in the Constitution, as was recently vividly demonstrated. (Originally, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; since 1804, under the 12th Amendment)

This stance is nonsense. Bush v Gore, Jackson v Adams, and Hayes v Tilden prove it wrong by vesting in Congress, through prior case law, the power to choose Presidential appointment and nullifying both individual state Electors AND collective certification (depending on which of the three you're pointing at).

Congress itself dictates who is President and Supreme Court Justices through a de-facto oligarchy. Further, the 17th amendment mandated a popular election for Senators in 1913, so to say that States run their elections as they see fit is - generous. Plus, need we mention the upcoming conflict of independent state legislature theory? We'll see how that cooks up.

Also, people make the mistake of believing that direct-democratic elections for members of Congress means that such a superior-leveraged branch of the government is still technically structured as a republic in political theory. This position is scrutinized when considering that the democratically-elected members of Congress conspire to derive additional power amongst each other by sitting the utmost authorities in the branches of government that are also intended to be chosen, by the people, as a check and balance to the very members of Congress they voted in. It's a very complex edifice, but it sure isn't what it's advertised as.

Using civilian oversight of police as a metaphor, the high-profile civilian killings lately have come from police departments with civilian oversight. Less than 1% have it, which means an even smaller fraction have civilian discipline.

The US has a long history of dubious police killings. That some are now high profile seems like a step forward to me.

Yes, civilian oversight of police in many places is weak. But to me that's an argument for stronger oversight.

I should have picked a milder example. If in the future, civilian oversight has burgeoned to be powerful-enough that it impedes what law-enforcement feels it’s entitled to, then civilian oversight will have passed traditional American powers.

Your metaphor is begging the question, how do we get there from here? America has the institution of juries and grand juries, and in a very small number of police departments, long-term officials with regular contact with the department.

I suppose juries and grand juries are the path toward overpowered civilian roles rather than today’s meager civilian oversight boards.

Equip all public officials and bureaucrats with camera vests, and livestream their duty hours. Immediately fire anyone who's gear malfunctions, nullify their pensions.

Make public office publicly accountable.

That is insufficient. An institution can be subverted and that isn't even too difficult. No, people need to control their own information and need to be empowered to do so.

Such indirection might make sense for data that must be collected anyway. But it should only be collected if necessary in the first place.

How is the leadership of this other organization selected? It sounds like a government agency by another name.

Why not randomly?

And that's randomly without jury strikes. There's a reason corporate and government interests have tried to keep more and more matters out of a jury trial -- the outcomes are unpredictable.

Which is exactly as it should be. If the people's will were predictable, democracy would be unnecessary.

And if a bad investigation is allowed, or a good investigation is stopped... that's a fair price to pay for, on the whole, having greater civil control.

There are a number of ways to approach it. But even if it's just a different set of elected officials, you'd get inter-agency competition.

The Progressives thought they would eliminate government corruption by making everything, including the proverbial dog catcher, an elected position.

It has not gone well. It turns out the voters can’t be bothered to learn about more than a few top line races. Anything under that is either straight party line or random.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com