6 ms·

Indeed. Americans need to wake up to the fact that these spooks simply cannot be trusted. The very concept of trust is alien to their culture. Would be nice of

Indeed. Americans need to wake up to the fact that these spooks simply cannot be trusted. The very concept of trust is alien to their culture. Would be nice of we could count on congress to provide adequate oversight.

Nutmog 11y ago
That won't happen unless American voters want it. They don't want it, as evidenced by their not voting for it, so they won't get it.
- thoman23 11y ago
  I don't think it's that straightforward. It's hard to vote for something that doesn't come up for a vote. And it doesn't come up for a vote if the right people don't want it to come up for a vote.
  - Ntrails 11y ago
    "The people" aren't given the opportunity to vote on many things, yet the people they elect do vote. The people they elect often side with their supporters (especially financial ones) on issues that are important to said supporters. A candidate can use their NRA/pro gun status as part of their platform and it will have a meaningful impact on the turnout. Logically if the US electorate cared even half as much about [topic x] as they do about guns - candidates would care too and "democracy" would follow... no? (I'm not bashing the US, just taking gun control as an example where a passionate popular view is reflected democratically)
- jMyles 11y ago
  This absurdly reductionist view of participatory politics comes up again and again. What are you trying to add to the conversation? Do you think that this notion is new? Or that the rest of us haven't considered it? Instead of a pithy but pointless HN comment, let me suggest a book for you that might expand your thinking on this topic: http://www.thriftbooks.com/w/do-elections-matter/1470236/?gclid=CjwKEAjw9OG4BRDJzY3jrMng4iQSJABddor1GnER5RdItcJl_5VbZKMKh_bNAFT8a-Fom5anrbW7MBoCGQXw_wcB#isbn=1563244462&pcrid=70112876352&pkw=&pmt=&plc= http://www.thriftbooks.com/w/do-elections-matter/1470236/?gc...
  - dave_sullivan 11y ago
    > absurdly reductionist view > Do you think that this notion is new? Or that the rest of us haven't considered it? > a pithy but pointless HN comment > might expand your thinking on this topic Just throwing it out there: http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html It would be more helpful if you expanded on why it's a bad argument. Off the top of my head: > They don't want it, as evidenced by their not voting for it, so they won't get it Was there a vote on it? When exactly? Here's a book about how election results can change people's opinions on topics. It applies here because X. I used to think Y, but it changed my thinking to Z. I'd highly recommend it. Not that GP is any better, but hey... And to be fair, the guy is practically trolling, whether intentional or not.
    - jMyles 11y ago
      You're right. I got a bit impatient there. This argument seems to come up again and again and no amount of reason and explanation seems to be able to overcome it, even to the point of convincing its adherents to read what others have said about it. This notion ("the people get exactly what they vote for") goes back to Ancient Greece; it's not like its a novel topic.
    - wfo 11y ago
      You're right of course disagreement should be explained better. But he is responding to a one-line meme whose only purpose is to establish learned helplessness and end discussion that massively oversimplifies a very complex issue and is essentially copy pasted in any article here that even touches on politics. It gets quite exhausting engaging, having long in depth discussion about how this view is overly simplistic on every single thread only to have it appear again tomorrow, exactly the same as before. I think downvotes and silence is the correct move here.
- Flimm 11y ago
  > Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  What "it" can one vote for ?
cat-dev-null 11y ago
It's always been this way and always will... neverending, necessary security "arms race."
dclowd9901 11y ago
It's amazing to me too that the very concept of an "unwarrantable" space is simply impossible to conceive.
- sixothree 11y ago
  Considering all communication is subject to eavesdropping the space they are wanting to access borders on the realm of private thoughts. And some day soon it just may exist in that realm.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > private thoughts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ZpsxnmmbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ZpsxnmmbE CGP Grey has a very good explanation of this situation.
    - josho 11y ago
      Then contrast our potential inability to keep private thoughts with the fact that the government is allowed theirs by merely stamping Top Secret across a document.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    I will be reporting this thought crime to the Ministry of Truth.
- karmelapple 11y ago
  I don't disagree, but do some countries truly publicly accept unwarranted spaces? I can imagine most governments wouldn't really want to give up that ability if possible.
  - chopin 11y ago
    In some civilized countries, yes. Take eg. your brain (as an accused), a doctor, a lawyer. There are even countries respecting the sources of journalists...

Nutmog 11y ago

That won't happen unless American voters want it. They don't want it, as evidenced by their not voting for it, so they won't get it.

thoman23 11y ago
I don't think it's that straightforward. It's hard to vote for something that doesn't come up for a vote. And it doesn't come up for a vote if the right people don't want it to come up for a vote.
- Ntrails 11y ago
  "The people" aren't given the opportunity to vote on many things, yet the people they elect do vote. The people they elect often side with their supporters (especially financial ones) on issues that are important to said supporters. A candidate can use their NRA/pro gun status as part of their platform and it will have a meaningful impact on the turnout. Logically if the US electorate cared even half as much about [topic x] as they do about guns - candidates would care too and "democracy" would follow... no? (I'm not bashing the US, just taking gun control as an example where a passionate popular view is reflected democratically)
jMyles 11y ago
This absurdly reductionist view of participatory politics comes up again and again. What are you trying to add to the conversation? Do you think that this notion is new? Or that the rest of us haven't considered it? Instead of a pithy but pointless HN comment, let me suggest a book for you that might expand your thinking on this topic: http://www.thriftbooks.com/w/do-elections-matter/1470236/?gclid=CjwKEAjw9OG4BRDJzY3jrMng4iQSJABddor1GnER5RdItcJl_5VbZKMKh_bNAFT8a-Fom5anrbW7MBoCGQXw_wcB#isbn=1563244462&pcrid=70112876352&pkw=&pmt=&plc= http://www.thriftbooks.com/w/do-elections-matter/1470236/?gc...
- dave_sullivan 11y ago
  > absurdly reductionist view > Do you think that this notion is new? Or that the rest of us haven't considered it? > a pithy but pointless HN comment > might expand your thinking on this topic Just throwing it out there: http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html It would be more helpful if you expanded on why it's a bad argument. Off the top of my head: > They don't want it, as evidenced by their not voting for it, so they won't get it Was there a vote on it? When exactly? Here's a book about how election results can change people's opinions on topics. It applies here because X. I used to think Y, but it changed my thinking to Z. I'd highly recommend it. Not that GP is any better, but hey... And to be fair, the guy is practically trolling, whether intentional or not.
  - jMyles 11y ago
    You're right. I got a bit impatient there. This argument seems to come up again and again and no amount of reason and explanation seems to be able to overcome it, even to the point of convincing its adherents to read what others have said about it. This notion ("the people get exactly what they vote for") goes back to Ancient Greece; it's not like its a novel topic.
  - wfo 11y ago
    You're right of course disagreement should be explained better. But he is responding to a one-line meme whose only purpose is to establish learned helplessness and end discussion that massively oversimplifies a very complex issue and is essentially copy pasted in any article here that even touches on politics. It gets quite exhausting engaging, having long in depth discussion about how this view is overly simplistic on every single thread only to have it appear again tomorrow, exactly the same as before. I think downvotes and silence is the correct move here.
Flimm 11y ago
> Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.
SixSigma 11y ago
What "it" can one vote for ?

cat-dev-null 11y ago

It's always been this way and always will... neverending, necessary security "arms race."

dclowd9901 11y ago

It's amazing to me too that the very concept of an "unwarrantable" space is simply impossible to conceive.

sixothree 11y ago
Considering all communication is subject to eavesdropping the space they are wanting to access borders on the realm of private thoughts. And some day soon it just may exist in that realm.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > private thoughts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ZpsxnmmbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ZpsxnmmbE CGP Grey has a very good explanation of this situation.
  - josho 11y ago
    Then contrast our potential inability to keep private thoughts with the fact that the government is allowed theirs by merely stamping Top Secret across a document.
- alanwatts 11y ago
  I will be reporting this thought crime to the Ministry of Truth.
karmelapple 11y ago
I don't disagree, but do some countries truly publicly accept unwarranted spaces? I can imagine most governments wouldn't really want to give up that ability if possible.
- chopin 11y ago
  In some civilized countries, yes. Take eg. your brain (as an accused), a doctor, a lawyer. There are even countries respecting the sources of journalists...