News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Ame... by danShumway on Thursday May 14, 2020 @01:04AM (#23175519)
If you have a broken system, and you allow people in power to fix it in targeted ways that only affect them, then it will never get fixed for ordinary people.

Your point might hold true if the people being exempted from surveillance weren't also the people deciding who can be exempted from surveillance. But since they are, it is counterproductive to the privacy cause to allow Congress to give itself these kinds of special rules.

Force everyone in society to play by the same rules, and everyone in society will get the benefits. Allow Congress to get into the habit of exempting themselves from social systems or problems, and those problems will continue to exist.

In other words, when setting up incentives you have to think pragmatically about the entire system in the long term; you can't always just focus on short-term goals to the exclusion of everything else. Local optimums[0] aren't just a problem in AI, they're also a problem in real life. Because of the long term consequences, we're not interested in forming privacy castes in scenarios where doing so will make it harder for us to improve the system in the future.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_optimum

Re:Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Ame... by croon on Thursday May 14, 2020 @03:21AM (#23176452)
Small correction, but these amendments originate in the Senate, not Congress.
Re:Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Ame... by dredmorbius on Thursday May 14, 2020 @06:47AM (#23177919)
The US Senate is a proper subset of Congress, comprising one of its coequal houses, the other being the House of Representatives.

Collectively the two are Congress.