Hacker News Reader

Comment by pgeorgi | Hacker News Reader

I usually go with "The problem isn't the current government, the problem is what might be in the future. The Netherlands stored data about their citizens' religious affiliation. The Nazis really appreciated that when they came and rounded up the Jews."

View on HN

I think people find arguments involving Nazis easy to dismiss as hyperbole. Especially in the UK when we weren't invaded. Also people who are accepting or supportive of mass surveillance usually imagine themselves firmly in the safe majority not the oppressed minority.

I say what if you had a 'sex dissorder' and lived in Russia. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30735673

That is apparently not true[1].

The Health Ministry has denied widespread reports that transvestites and transsexuals could lose their rights to drive in Russia based on a new road safety decree.

Although the decree provides for the disqualification of driving rights for certain individuals with psychological or behavioral disorders, the mere fact that a person has a "sexual disorder" does not mean that person cannot drive, Health Ministry spokesman Oleg Salagai explained Tuesday in comments carried by Interfax.

[1] http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/health-ministry-s...

Governments deny a lot of things in public.

Everybody in the Western world that supports increased surveillance says "I don't have a 'sex disorder', and we're no more likely to elect Vladimir Putin or his local equivalent than Adolf Hitler"...

Arguments against surveillance are on much better footing when based on actual misuse of power by authorities and their employees in the UK and similar countries than hypothetical scenarios involving the election of autocrats. Frankly, if the UK elects an avowedly anti-democratic ex-spy chief with a fondness for populist social conservatism in the next decade, we'll get a much worse version of the Communications Data Bill, and ISPs already holding records of my browsing habits is going to be the least of my problems.

That's normally my go to example, however I often wonder, if this bad government did come into power, wouldn't they just pass a load of laws to snoop anyway? The only disadvantage is they wouldn't have as much historical data.

Unless there is a coup or revolution, a bad government is elected and as is common in most democracies will hold as little as 30% of the vote for a while.

A law that already exists does not require further discussion or vote and can be perverted immediately.

So in addition of the benefit of not having historical data, it also delay or prevent its introduction.

What if this bad government is already in power and are inching their way towards their full potential badness.

1. Do something somewhat unacceptable.

2. Wait for it to become the accepted norm.

3. GOTO 1

This is why issues like this have to be nipped in the bud. Toxic ideas need to be stopped before they gain too much inertia, otherwise it won't be possible or practical to stop them playing out. I guess it's like a game of chess. Moving a pawn might seem innocuous, but it's just one move in a larger strategy.

Me too, but in the back of my mind is always the knowledge that it's a slippery slope argument and therefore technically invalid.

re technically: https://xkcd.com/1475/ :-)

As for being a slippery slope argument, people might have dismissed this story in .nl in the 1920s for the same reason, yet it happened.

This argument refuses to take sides. I'm not "for the terrorists" with this argument (nor am I against them), I'm not "against the government" (nor am I a clear supporter), I might be slightly paranoid (which makes for a better discussion than being a paranoid who looks out for black helicopters).

With this argument I'm all for being careful, and it even leaves a door open for discussion how surveillance and data mining could be built in a way that such catastrophic effects won't happen - who would argue against that?

But suddenly, it's about the practical issues of surveillance and data mining.

A slippery slope argument is not necessarily a fallacy

There's nothing in a "slippery slope argument" that makes it technically invalid. Improper use may make it fallacious, but there are also real slippery slopes and ways to deal with them (e.g. Schelling fences).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com