4 ms·

It's a good, reasonable, reasoned response. Unfortunately, it's mostly bollocks. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americans-think-about-nsa

by x5n1 11y ago

It's a good, reasonable, reasoned response. Unfortunately, it's mostly bollocks. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americans-think-about-nsa-surveillance-national-security-and-privacy/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-america... A majority of Americans (54%) disapprove of the U.S. government’s collection of telephone and internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts, More broadly, most Americans don’t see a need to sacrifice civil liberties to be safe from terrorism: In spring 2014, 74% said they should not give up privacy and freedom for the sake of safety, while just 22% said the opposite. Most say it is important to control who can get their information (93%), as well as what information about them is collected (90%). Fully 87% are aware of the federal surveillance programs; In most countries we surveyed in 2014, majorities opposed U.S. government monitoring of emails and phone calls of foreign leaders or their citizens.

mc32 11y ago
I think one reason there is a disconnect between the survey results and reality is that the answers are the answers one gets in an imagined ideal framework. Kind of like asking people if they would rather eat healthy or known unhealthy food. And most people will answer healthy --because that is their idealized answer but in reality it's too much work for many people so they eat unhealthy food fully understanding the consequences. I think the same applies to the survey. Ideally people don't want intrusive government surveillance but at the same time it's not important enough nor egregious enough for them to mobilize over it, so they let it be --as long as it's not "too much".
- morganvachon 11y ago
  > Kind of like asking people if they would rather eat healthy or known unhealthy food. And most people will answer healthy --because that is their idealized answer but in reality it's too much work for many people so they eat unhealthy food fully understanding the consequences. I think you've hit on a good point, and following your analogy, most of us are just too damned lazy or apathetic to get worked up about it (bad food or bad government). It's easier and cheaper to buy and consume unhealthy food, just as it's easier and (mentally) cheaper to just pretend everything is fine with the world the way it is. Sure, we're going to get fat and die of a heart attack at 50, and sure, we're going to steadily lose our privacy and the ability to exercise our rights; but in the here and now, we're living in blissful ignorance and it feels just good enough to not bother changing things. In the back of our mind we know there's a better path, but taking that path requires effort and sacrifice, so we take the path of least resistance.
mikeash 11y ago
Do they want these activities to stop, though, or do they just want them to be done better in some way? Questions about privacy are tricky, because what exactly do people mean? You and I probably think that "privacy" means the government doesn't collect our info. But I've seen a lot of people defend the NSA on the basis that their strict controls mean their surveillance isn't a privacy breach in the first place. I also don't think the question about approval of the NSA's activities is all that useful here. When people disapprove, do they disapprove because they think it shouldn't be done at all, or because they think the NSA isn't doing it properly in some way? I think there are a lot of people who believe that broad surveillance to combat terrorism are a good thing, that if done properly would not harm privacy or civil liberties, and that the NSA's current approach is in some way less than perfect. (Note that I don't agree with any of this.) Now, I realize I have no actual data to back this up. And while I don't trust polls to be accurate (they can be reasonably accurate about the question they're asking, but the exact wording of the question is hugely important and trying to extrapolate beyond precisely what is said is tough), I have to admit that this poll does suggest I'm wrong. But I don't think it disproves my idea.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
In addition to what others have said, I think there's some lag time involved. If you had taken the survey in 2002, I bet you would have found much stronger support for surveillance. Majority opinion has drifted away from that, but not strongly enough yet to stop the government momentum in that direction. The people can eventually get what they want. But the government default behavior switched in 2001, and the people don't want it strongly enough - yet - to over-ride that.

by x5n1 11y ago

mc32 11y ago

I think one reason there is a disconnect between the survey results and reality is that the answers are the answers one gets in an imagined ideal framework. Kind of like asking people if they would rather eat healthy or known unhealthy food. And most people will answer healthy --because that is their idealized answer but in reality it's too much work for many people so they eat unhealthy food fully understanding the consequences. I think the same applies to the survey. Ideally people don't want intrusive government surveillance but at the same time it's not important enough nor egregious enough for them to mobilize over it, so they let it be --as long as it's not "too much".

morganvachon 11y ago
> Kind of like asking people if they would rather eat healthy or known unhealthy food. And most people will answer healthy --because that is their idealized answer but in reality it's too much work for many people so they eat unhealthy food fully understanding the consequences. I think you've hit on a good point, and following your analogy, most of us are just too damned lazy or apathetic to get worked up about it (bad food or bad government). It's easier and cheaper to buy and consume unhealthy food, just as it's easier and (mentally) cheaper to just pretend everything is fine with the world the way it is. Sure, we're going to get fat and die of a heart attack at 50, and sure, we're going to steadily lose our privacy and the ability to exercise our rights; but in the here and now, we're living in blissful ignorance and it feels just good enough to not bother changing things. In the back of our mind we know there's a better path, but taking that path requires effort and sacrifice, so we take the path of least resistance.

mikeash 11y ago

Do they want these activities to stop, though, or do they just want them to be done better in some way? Questions about privacy are tricky, because what exactly do people mean? You and I probably think that "privacy" means the government doesn't collect our info. But I've seen a lot of people defend the NSA on the basis that their strict controls mean their surveillance isn't a privacy breach in the first place. I also don't think the question about approval of the NSA's activities is all that useful here. When people disapprove, do they disapprove because they think it shouldn't be done at all, or because they think the NSA isn't doing it properly in some way? I think there are a lot of people who believe that broad surveillance to combat terrorism are a good thing, that if done properly would not harm privacy or civil liberties, and that the NSA's current approach is in some way less than perfect. (Note that I don't agree with any of this.) Now, I realize I have no actual data to back this up. And while I don't trust polls to be accurate (they can be reasonably accurate about the question they're asking, but the exact wording of the question is hugely important and trying to extrapolate beyond precisely what is said is tough), I have to admit that this poll does suggest I'm wrong. But I don't think it disproves my idea.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

In addition to what others have said, I think there's some lag time involved. If you had taken the survey in 2002, I bet you would have found much stronger support for surveillance. Majority opinion has drifted away from that, but not strongly enough yet to stop the government momentum in that direction. The people can eventually get what they want. But the government default behavior switched in 2001, and the people don't want it strongly enough - yet - to over-ride that.