[joezydeco]

This one line

"The General seemed convinced that if only I knew what he knew, I would agree with him."

Makes me think back to that Daniel Ellsberg article where he's briefing Kissinger for the first time about having access to the whole of the USA's intelligence banks:

"First, you'll be exhilarated by some of this new information, and by having it all — so much! incredible! — suddenly available to you. But second, almost as fast, you will feel like a fool for having studied, written, talked about these subjects, criticized and analyzed decisions made by presidents for years without having known of the existence of all this information, which presidents and others had and you didn't, and which must have influenced their decisions in ways you couldn't even guess. In particular, you'll feel foolish for having literally rubbed shoulders for over a decade with some officials and consultants who did have access to all this information you didn't know about and didn't know they had, and you'll be stunned that they kept that secret from you so well."

[1] http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsber...

[brandonbloom]

> if only I knew what he knew, I would agree with him

So then tell me what you know that I don't.

Oh, you're also convinced that it's best if I don't know? Well then you'll forgive me if I maintain some healthy skepticism.

[mikegagnon]

Exactly. I believe Gen. Keith Alexander (and the others who espouse that idea) have been seduced into believing in benevolent dictatorship.

That's not how democracy works though. Fundamentally, democracy is premised on mistrust in authority (hence voting citizens, checks and balances, the bill of rights, etc.) In a democracy, the citizens aren't expected to blindly trust the authorities. The citizens must be informed, the citizens must make their own judgements, and then they will vote for legislators and executives who share their platforms.

I believe the government's stance is "but if we debate these issues publicly, it will tip our hand to the terrorists, which would defeat the whole purpose of mass surveillance in the first place." That's a legitimate concern.

However, my stance is that in a democracy not every form of law enforcement and secret surveillance is possible. If a law or policy only succeeds if it is kept secret from the citizens, then that law or policy is incompatible with democracy. Only that which can be publicly debated can be made law.

The key in debating these issues is that opponents and advocates need to discuss and debate the issues without assuming each other are evil. And everyone must maintain an open mind. Because otherwise, we will never find ways to overcome our differences and address the root issues (differing values and concerns).

[j_baker]

It could also be that if she knew what Alexander knew, she'd only become more disgusted than she already is.

[AndrewGreen]

"...if only I knew what he knew, I would agree with him": in 1995 Phil Zimmerman told me that is exactly what the establishment types were saying to the cypherpunks.