She wants to institute pervasive spying (targeted spying can be achieved by individually planting hardware backdoors, or simply recording the suspect entering their password).
But pointing out the harms of pervasive spying is a weak argument, because she didn't deny (or even address) those harms?
> She wants to institute pervasive spying (targeted spying can be achieved by individually planting hardware backdoors, or simply recording the suspect entering their password).
I can see targetted spying is possible today. It sounds like she wants targeted spying to be cheaper, and restricted by the judicial system.
> But pointing out the harms of pervasive spying is a weak argument, because she didn't deny (or even address) those harms?
The argument I replied to wasn't pointing out the harms of pervasive spying. Nor was your argument.
"If she wants law enforcement to be able to see other's metadata, she should expose her metadata" is weak. We needn't waste time with that.
There are stronger arguments, such as asserting our right to privacy, or perhaps that it isn't technically possible without critically compromising encryption for everybody.
I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, but I'll humour you:
> It sounds like she wants targeted spying to be cheaper, and restricted by the judicial system.
The cheaper that spying is, the more spying gets done - this has been repeatedly shown in many countries, even supposedly free ones, so lets not pretend this will result in the government saving a few bucks on security. It will result in (continued) data collection on a massive scale, the kind that is increasingly being hampered by encryption. Does 'Snowden' ring a bell?
> ..wasn't pointing out the harms of pervasive spying.. ..she should expose her metadata..
While I agree that the argument "if she thinks it's okay she should let folks spy on her" is weak (it's always possible to find someone crazy/sold-out enough to do whatever is being pushed), that's not actually the argument, except in the most literal reading.
The argument is twofold. First, pointing out that there are harms and she's aware of them, despite not addressing them, because she refuses to disclose her communications. Second, that the spying will be used asymmetrically - you, dear citizen, will have all your communications recorded, stored indefinitely, and subject to discovery when some prosecutor or large corporation decides to do away with you. But try and find out which corporations are sponsoring which politicians, who owns them, and what kind of deals those politicians are making in your name, and you'll meet a stone wall of silence - just like in the TTIP negotiations.
But the OP put it more concisely and humorously.
> There are stronger arguments, such as asserting our right to privacy
I don't think this is a stronger argument. In fact, I don't think this is an argument at all. First of all, it's circular - the law shouldn't strip us of our right to privacy, because the law gives us the right to privacy. Second, it won't convince anyone, it's just pointing out the status quo - sure we have a right to privacy, but so what? What harm will come of losing it?
> First, pointing out that there are harms and she's aware of them, despite not addressing them, because she refuses to disclose her communications.
Though I'm skeptical of how much a 3m42s interview can be said to represent the entirety of her views, I'd say she alludes to the harms by referring to such access as "warranted". That is, authorisation is restricted [because of the costs of unrestricted access].
> Second, that the spying will be used asymmetrically - you, dear citizen, will have all your communications recorded, stored indefinitely, and subject to discovery when some prosecutor or large corporation decides to do away with you.
This law would apply to politicians too, right? If they're suspected of a crime, a warrant could be issued for their communication details.
> But try and find out which corporations are sponsoring which politicians, who owns them, and what kind of deals those politicians are making in your name, and you'll meet a stone wall of silence - just like in the TTIP negotiations.
As mentioned, if those are crimes I expect them to be investigated similarly.
> I don't think this is a stronger argument. In fact, I don't think this is an argument at all.
Sorry yes, my single sentence wasn't the entirety of the argument. I was referring to arguments that rely on the benefits of privacy, rather than defeating a strawman (my, as you say, literal reading of top-level comment).
