Greg Perry writes:
-+----------------
|
|
http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6037598.html
|
| Police blotter: Patriot Act e-mail spying approved
| By Declan McCullagh
| Staff Writer, CNET News.com
| Published: February 9, 2006, 5:46 PM PST
|
| What: The Justice Department asks a judge to approve Patriot Act e-mail
| monitoring without any evidence of criminal behavior.
| <snip>
If I was trying for a serious clearance the
majority of the investigation would be of
the pattern of my associations with others
on grounds that the big picture is the better
picture. A serious clearance is about an
acceptance of the potential for serious risk
by evaluating the individual in the context
of that big picture. It seems to me actually
quite logical to do that sort of big picture
assessment of whether a serious risk is or is
not present by looking at the nature of the
person's associations. Doesn't mean that I
"like" it, but it does seem logical: Larger
risk potential => wider field of view; smaller
potential => narrower. The issue then, is
whether the risk estimate (large v. small)
that drives the process is genuine or dumb,
which may well come down to what are the
default assumptions: Dangerous until proven
undangerous, or undangerous until proven
dangerous, with the unfortunate caveat that
"proven dangerous" probably requires some
direct casualties which then begets some
institutional casualties ("You failed to
prevent X so X is your fault, not the lousy
perp who has some centuries' old grievance
and an unfortunate childhood").
--dan
---------
All causes are lost causes without fewer people.
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:21 CST