3 ms·

I don't understand all of the fighting in this thread. I don't understand why people are acting like every liberal was on board with these policies until the el

by wwalser 10y ago

I don't understand all of the fighting in this thread. I don't understand why people are acting like every liberal was on board with these policies until the election. It's simply not accurate. Two groups of people who completely agree that mass surveillance is a bad thing will go at each other's throats about _when_ the other speaks up about it needing to be dismantled. You're on the same fucking side and chances are, if you actually believe that mass surveillance is bad, you've both been at least mildly against it the whole time. The expansion of surveillance powers under Obama was probably _the most_ consistently cited dissatisfaction amongst HN contributors one, four, and six years ago. Threads critical of these policies were consistently on the home page during the Obama presidency. Security and privacy conscious individuals on the left and right agreed. The top thread at the moment mocks liberals: "Well, sure, unconstitutional power grabs are tolerable when someone I like is in power…" but that straw man simply isn't in line with reality, not on this forum at least. More broadly, yes, masses of people have given up their privacy. Go talk to them, stop bitching at people who agree with you.

jnbiche 10y ago
> I don't understand why people are acting like every liberal was on board with these policies until the election. As a libertarian, I agree. Many liberals have opposed these policies. I think even Glenn Greenwald may have or may still identify as a liberal. However, every person I know who self-identifies as a "Democrat" and not a "liberal", has supported "all" of Obama's policies (including mass surveillance), and has condemned Snowden in the strongest terms. There are a few of those on HN, but I agree that by far most HNers oppose mass surveillance (unless there's a large "hidden" segment as is apparently the case with Trump supporters, who have come out en masse on HN in the past few days).
- dllthomas 10y ago
  I know a lot of people who identify as a "Democrat", few who can't find things to nitpick about any given candidate (including Obama). I'm surprised our experiences are as different as you describe. Probably presentation is different when discussing with people they view as allies versus those they view as opposition?
  - koverstreet 10y ago
    People close ranks and get defensive when they think they're talking to someone in their outgroup. Stupid human psychology.
  - jnbiche 10y ago
    You're probably right, had I probed enough I probably could have found policy they disagreed with. But on surveillance/national security stuff, the self-identified Democrats I know have stood staunchly behind Obama, and view Snowden as a traitor. It's kind of odd how much like most Republicans they sound when talking about these issues (not counting pro-liberty Republicans like Rand Paul, who view these issues like a libertarian would).
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      Being against surveillance and considering Snowden a traitor are not mutually exclusive; one can be pro-privacy and liberty and still think of him as a traitor for seeking refuge in Russia and for having a deadman switch for example.
      - JBlue42 10y ago
        I'm not disagreeing but I think it can also be hard to trace it back and be absolutely 100% on this. If Snowden hadn't committed the activities he did and revealed more information about the scope and breadth of the surveillance state, would that be good or bad? Did those activities help affirm your stance on surveillance? If so, can we truly consider them traitorous (outside of a legal standpoint)? Now, you folks are probably far better at logic puzzles than but as someone that fits the bill of pro-privacy and liberty and still questioning how to classify him, I'm open to other ways of arguing for or against.
pfarnsworth 10y ago
Most progressives despise Obama as well for exactly this, and for betraying progressive ideals. That's one of the factors that lead to Sanders' popularity and Clinton's loss.
rabboRubble 10y ago
I consider myself a liberal leaning person. I voted for Obama in 2008 with the hope that he would unwind the worst of Bush era policies. He failed to to this in my estimation, and doubled down on espionage prosecutions, so I did not vote for him in 2012. Rather I voted for a 3rd party candidate. I have long warned friends that Obama's refusal to address the proliferation of technologies supporting a future turnkey totalitarian state was a huge risk to our future stability. With Trump's ascension to the presidency I am dismayed to find myself perhaps proven correct. At the very best interpretation, Trump will not use these executive powers to target opposition. However his future potential use of these powers will cause a large segment of the population to mistrust everything he does.
perseusprime11 10y ago
"The expansion of surveillance powers under Obama was probably _the most_ consistently cited dissatisfaction" What about the wars? Does anyone here even know why we are bombing Yemen?
- hga 10y ago
  While your general complaint is fine, "Does anyone here even know why we are bombing Yemen?" has some very good answers: If you fire a missile at a US warship, you shouldn't be surprised if any assets used to do that get zapped in return. Probably the 2nd biggest principle for our having a Navy, beside the obvious one of protecting the nation from attacks, is to keep the sea lanes open, so that's why we had warships offshore Yemen in the first place. One of the reasons Yemen is a major area of contention, part of today's "Great Game", it that it's a great place to interdict sea traffic to and from the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. As I just measured it by eye from Google Maps, the initial straits vary in distance from Djibouti and Eritrea by 15 to 25 miles, less if you count an island in the narrowest chokepoint. But, yes, as Peter Theil put it, "Just as much as is is about making America great, Trump's agenda is about making America a normal country.... A normal country does not fight five simultaneous undeclared wars."

by wwalser 10y ago

jnbiche 10y ago

> I don't understand why people are acting like every liberal was on board with these policies until the election. As a libertarian, I agree. Many liberals have opposed these policies. I think even Glenn Greenwald may have or may still identify as a liberal. However, every person I know who self-identifies as a "Democrat" and not a "liberal", has supported "all" of Obama's policies (including mass surveillance), and has condemned Snowden in the strongest terms. There are a few of those on HN, but I agree that by far most HNers oppose mass surveillance (unless there's a large "hidden" segment as is apparently the case with Trump supporters, who have come out en masse on HN in the past few days).

dllthomas 10y ago
I know a lot of people who identify as a "Democrat", few who can't find things to nitpick about any given candidate (including Obama). I'm surprised our experiences are as different as you describe. Probably presentation is different when discussing with people they view as allies versus those they view as opposition?
- koverstreet 10y ago
  People close ranks and get defensive when they think they're talking to someone in their outgroup. Stupid human psychology.
- jnbiche 10y ago
  You're probably right, had I probed enough I probably could have found policy they disagreed with. But on surveillance/national security stuff, the self-identified Democrats I know have stood staunchly behind Obama, and view Snowden as a traitor. It's kind of odd how much like most Republicans they sound when talking about these issues (not counting pro-liberty Republicans like Rand Paul, who view these issues like a libertarian would).
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Being against surveillance and considering Snowden a traitor are not mutually exclusive; one can be pro-privacy and liberty and still think of him as a traitor for seeking refuge in Russia and for having a deadman switch for example.
    - JBlue42 10y ago
      I'm not disagreeing but I think it can also be hard to trace it back and be absolutely 100% on this. If Snowden hadn't committed the activities he did and revealed more information about the scope and breadth of the surveillance state, would that be good or bad? Did those activities help affirm your stance on surveillance? If so, can we truly consider them traitorous (outside of a legal standpoint)? Now, you folks are probably far better at logic puzzles than but as someone that fits the bill of pro-privacy and liberty and still questioning how to classify him, I'm open to other ways of arguing for or against.

pfarnsworth 10y ago

Most progressives despise Obama as well for exactly this, and for betraying progressive ideals. That's one of the factors that lead to Sanders' popularity and Clinton's loss.

rabboRubble 10y ago

I consider myself a liberal leaning person. I voted for Obama in 2008 with the hope that he would unwind the worst of Bush era policies. He failed to to this in my estimation, and doubled down on espionage prosecutions, so I did not vote for him in 2012. Rather I voted for a 3rd party candidate. I have long warned friends that Obama's refusal to address the proliferation of technologies supporting a future turnkey totalitarian state was a huge risk to our future stability. With Trump's ascension to the presidency I am dismayed to find myself perhaps proven correct. At the very best interpretation, Trump will not use these executive powers to target opposition. However his future potential use of these powers will cause a large segment of the population to mistrust everything he does.

perseusprime11 10y ago

"The expansion of surveillance powers under Obama was probably _the most_ consistently cited dissatisfaction" What about the wars? Does anyone here even know why we are bombing Yemen?

hga 10y ago
While your general complaint is fine, "Does anyone here even know why we are bombing Yemen?" has some very good answers: If you fire a missile at a US warship, you shouldn't be surprised if any assets used to do that get zapped in return. Probably the 2nd biggest principle for our having a Navy, beside the obvious one of protecting the nation from attacks, is to keep the sea lanes open, so that's why we had warships offshore Yemen in the first place. One of the reasons Yemen is a major area of contention, part of today's "Great Game", it that it's a great place to interdict sea traffic to and from the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. As I just measured it by eye from Google Maps, the initial straits vary in distance from Djibouti and Eritrea by 15 to 25 miles, less if you count an island in the narrowest chokepoint. But, yes, as Peter Theil put it, "Just as much as is is about making America great, Trump's agenda is about making America a normal country.... A normal country does not fight five simultaneous undeclared wars."