24 ms·

I think the most dangerous thing is that what Snowden predicted actually happened by now. After all the revelations, nobody is interested anymore. There's this

I think the most dangerous thing is that what Snowden predicted actually happened by now. After all the revelations, nobody is interested anymore. There's this general fatigue and powerlessness that leads to a feeling of "well, yeah, everbody knows by now... what's the news here?" - even for me as a security expert and privacy proponent. The real danger is nobody cares anymore, as this enables all further constitution violations and hollowing of citizen protection worldwide.

dovdovdov 9y ago
When I saw the movie Idiocracy, I said this is a bit exaggerated. Well, we are heading there in acceleration. It's astounding how little people care about the many walks of life.
- mtgx 9y ago
  They'll start caring again about privacy when people start being dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night for participating in protests, not just against the government, but against large corporations, too. And many people will lose their lives in the process, or will be imprisoned for years until things change again, and so on. I guess we'll have to do real fighting for our human rights once again (unfortunately).
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >They'll start caring again about privacy when people start being dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night for participating in protests, not just against the government, but against large corporations, too. They still will not, since it will be others, and a small minority, that does that and gets dragged, etc. The problem is that a society that stifles those small minorities (from labor activists in early 20th century to MLK, Snowden, and so on) ends up worse for everybody.
    - marksomnian 9y ago
      First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        Something like that. Although this perhaps shows a society split into various fractions (jews, blacks, trade unionists, gays, etc), and each fraction is taken one by one, until it's time they come to get the author's fraction. I.e. everybody eventually gets "taken". Whereas in my example, it's more a society that has a small amount of people who work for change, and they are the ones that get "put away"/stopped. In this latter case, nobody explicitly comes to "get/put away" the majority. Their lives just deteriorate (worse laws, more discrimination, etc.) and they don't even know why.
salesguy222 9y ago
There's this really interesting assertion in Weight of Chains 2 by Boris Malagurski: Serbia (Yugoslavia) before the Balkan Wars had an excellent education system that produced many scholars in the diaspora still today. The West/NATO/EU bombed that to the ground, along with the economy (factories, banks, telecom). Those who are still in Serbia now and are in charge have not been able to recreate an education system that is effective- in fact, 33% of Serbs are fuctionally illiterate in high school. The ruling class of politicians resemble reality TV stars like Trump more than anything else. Many Serbs there vote like Americans- they either are enthusiastic about a candidate for populist reasons.... or they don't vote at all. What's the net effect of this? Those in power are truly unqualified and dangerous, but the critical mass of apathetic and potentially illogical voters wlll keep them there. As a result, the intelligent minority suffers. And many leave.
- cxromos 9y ago
  I call Bullshit on you. The one of the product of that excellent education system was Milosevic as well. Serbia with Milosevic started the last Balkan Wars in its desire to renew Dusan's Empire, or in common tongue, to make a greater Serbia. First in Slovenia, later on in Croatia then in Bosnia and Herzegovina. When it started on the south, in between Serbia, Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, it became too dangerous not to stop it. The US waited for Srebrenica to happen to put a stop on it in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This time the US and the EU correctly recognized the danger of leaving the situation to deteriorate to something that would be danger to the region and the ordinary people. Those in Serbia included.
  - acqq 9y ago
    Your version is as true as it was true that Iraq had WMD. Or that those against Assad are all "moderate rebels." There are definite similarities. In reality, Bosniak Muslims were supported by al-Qaeda, bin Laden and his closest men had the passports made by the Bosniak Muslim government, which was also supported by the U.S. It was all before 9/11, or "Iraq had WMD" affair, so it was very easy to sell.
    - 9y ago
fao_ 9y ago
> The real danger is nobody cares anymore, as this enables all further constitution violations and hollowing of citizen protection worldwide. It is amusing to me that -- in context of your comment -- the current second comment starts with "Well, this isn't news".
- mirimir 9y ago
  It's not news to me. But it does seem like most people don't care. Or don't care enough. However, what could they do, even if they cared enough?
  - coldtea 9y ago
    If people care enough, they can bring down governments... And in much worse conditions...
    - mirimir 9y ago
      It's hard enough getting people to use VPNs and Tor.
      - throwanem 9y ago
        Most people don't see it as a problem. They regard NSA as looking out for them, and confide that as long as they themselves do not engage in terrorism, they've nothing to fear from it. Which, to a good first approximation, is true. But those of us with a sense of history mistrust any such gigantic agglomeration of unaccountable power, because we know how deeply susceptible such apparatuses are to employment toward unsavory ends. The trouble is that there's no good, quick, simple way to bring this home to people. You end up sounding like Chicken Little, or so underplaying the significance of the issue that even a sympathetic interlocutor fails to recognize its gravity. I don't really know a third way; I don't even know that there can be one, other than waiting for some suitable example in point, one that can't be explained away as an artifact of specific circumstance, and building the discussion around that. But even that strategy is fraught at best, and the easiest way to lose any argument is always to yield the initiative. So I don't really have a good, generally workable option here, as regards persuasive discourse on the issue, and if anyone else does, I'd sure like to hear about it!
DigitalJack 9y ago
I care, but I don't have any faith in the factual truthfulness of the american government, the american media, or any public figure really. Not to single out america, it's just where I live. I'd be surprised if it were different anywhere else. It seems like it's just the way of things. Start out shiny, and slowly erode to decrepitude, to be pushed aside by the new shiny.
- simonh 9y ago
  At least in America you have a variety of news sources available with different political and social agendas, including news sources that were able to legally publish material from people like Snowden and are free to report on issues like this. I many countries, you don't even get that and couldn't start your own news source with your preferred agenda even if you had the resources. Don't buy into the "we might as well live in <insert oppressive censorious dictatorship here>". My wife was born in one, the difference is a factor in my daily life.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    Just because we are better than some countries in some ways does not mean we are good enough. Media and the Government have lost the trust of many Americans. How do we improve America so those institutions are worthy of our higher standards of trust?
    - simonh 9y ago
      Which media? The media that published Snowden? Or Manning? The media that broke this NSA unlawful behaviour story? Western media IMHO isnt really 'an institution', its hundreds of institutions. Me? I read the BBC for general current afairs, The Economist for in depth exploration of issues and topics and a bit of the Guardian here and there although it is a bit left wing for my tastes. Oh and once in a while Fox News just out morbid curiosity about what's going on in that particular alternate dimension of reality. There's plenty of choice out there. I used to love reading the English edition of Pravda back when I was a student. I really miss the USSR, Putin and co are all the shittyness without any of the Red Star chic.
benevol 9y ago
Don't you think that comments like this one reinforce the subjectively perceived feeling of powerlessness? Who are you benefiting by posting this? (I'm not saying this is the case here, but there are those people who want us to actually feel powerless, because it then translates into actual powerlessness.) I'm sure you can think of more constructive ways of commenting.
- throwanem 9y ago
  Asking "what can I do that's really worth doing?" seems potentially constructive to me. Asking "how can I not feel so powerless?" seems as much so. Your comment, on the other hand, reads a lot like arguing the power of positive thinking to deal with a broken leg. If we're going to talk about relative constructiveness of comment content, that seems to me like a good place to start! This is a big problem, and it's frightening. The US government, in the extent to which it's leveraged a technologically advantageous position to develop its insight into the behavior of people within the US and without, has achieved a scale and a power unprecedented in recorded human history. It can destroy people, within the US and without, on a whim - even by accident! And never even notice or care, in the large, that it has done so. This is legitimately scary, and to feel a sense of powerlessness, in response to the perception of oneself alone before such power and with no effective recourse or means of defense, is in every sense a rational response. I think it's worthy of people to express such perspectives, the better that others might say "Hey, I feel the same way. You're not alone." - or "I felt the same way at first, and here's what I'm doing to change that." - or say nothing at all, but at least realize that they are indeed not alone in recognizing the existence and scope of the problem, and need not feel quite so isolated in that recognition. You seem instead to argue that these very rational perceptions be suppressed, or at least concealed in the public sphere, for fear that they'll inspire others to see the world likewise. Compared to the vast and overwhelming scope of the problem in which these perceptions originate, this seems like a rather petty cavil with which to castigate one's fellows. Perhaps I have misapprehended you in some way, and you'll address the fashion in which I have done so. If I have not, then perhaps you'll explain your reasoning in sufficiently lucid fashion to reduce my frank bewilderment at the idea that a comment such as yours, in a thread such as this, could in any way be considered "constructive", rather than the converse.
godzillabrennus 9y ago
I don't feel powerless. Balmer is bankrolling transparency and Project Sunshine is trying to increase our ability to interact with the federal government. Private industry has created databases like PolicyGuru dot net to help at the local level. Things are going to improve even if it takes a generation to get out the swamp monsters.
- krapp 9y ago
  Private industry created the infrastructure by which the NSA conducts these searches, and the willingness of companies like Microsoft, Google, and Facebook to "interact with the federal government" in support of its illegal activities is a big part of the problem.
coldtea 9y ago
>The real danger is nobody cares anymore, as this enables all further constitution violations and hollowing of citizen protection worldwide. The upside is that a society that doesn't care, eventually gets what it deserves.
- libeclipse 9y ago
  That's an upside?
  - xxs 9y ago
    well, it wakes up, rebels and all, sort of normal cycles in history.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    Feedback is good.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  I don't see this as an upside. You can't really blame people for that - this is a systemic issue, and it was predicted it will happen. People, in aggregate, don't respond to abstract problems like that by any form of prolonged care.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >You can't really blame people for that - this is a systemic issue, and it was predicted it will happen. People, in aggregate, don't respond to abstract problems like that by any form of prolonged care. They should, and I can blame them for that. That's the duty of the citizen. Not recognizing the issue at all is not an excuse.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      Blame all you like, it doesn't make any progress towards solving the problem.
- 9y ago
lmm 9y ago
What do I do, as someone who cares? No, seriously. Should I throw a bit more money at the EFF? Start my own political party, or enter an existing one and try to steer it in my direction? Try to get employed by one of these organizations and then promote a better understanding of their mission internally? Move to another country where people care more (which?) Identifying the problem is a good first step, but what can we do about it?
- omginternets 9y ago
  >Should I throw a bit more money at the EFF? Emphatically, yes. They're the ones challenging the NSA in court. Does it solve every problem? Of course not. Is it part of the solution? As long as the judicial branch continues to function correctly overall, yes. Hell yes.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    Clandestine agencies are not subject to the same judicial process as the rest of us. Thats why they have "secret courts" and the magic words which trump the law: "national security".
    - omginternets 9y ago
      Yes, and this modus operandi can be attacked through the court system.
      - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        Even if the courts ruled it as illegal, how can the ruling be enforced on clandestine operations? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
        omginternets 9y ago
        The solution to one problem should not be discounted on the grounds that it doesn't solve every problem. >Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? You say this as though there were a known solution to the problem. You may as well say "what about the heat death of the universe?" Quid de morte ad universum calorem, if you prefer ;)
libeclipse 9y ago
You're absolutely right. When I saw this headline, I just thought, "yeah we know, is anyone surprised?" It shouldn't be like this, we should be outraged every time. I wonder if they planned it like this.
Sven-z 9y ago
What do you mean nobody cares anymore? This is a very strange notion I see propping up more and more in people's minds, as they get overloaded with information they don't know what to do with. There are lots of very experienced people and resources allocated to this problem across the world working on it round the clock. But this is a hard problem. It's going to take multiple generations to achieve a mature resolution. Some problems don't fix themselves in the timeframes it takes John Oliver or Alex Jones to write a skit. I find the press and their stand up comic proxies in their quest to "inform and educate" the public are creating a whole lot of unnecessary anxiety and panic. It's a great way to hold everyone's attention without serving any purpose other than producing media figures. And in the attention economy constructed by Youtube/Twitter/Facebook no question this benefits them to a great deal. Just because systems exist today that are bringing to your attention every single problem known to man doesn't mean you need to be involved in the solutions that are above your paygrade. Especially if your career and life experience don't involve the skills to do something about this. I am sure there are problems out there you can apply your skills and experience too. This sort of defeatist attitude is very infectious and especially effects the psyche of people with the skills who could actually play a role down the road.
- aithoughts 9y ago
  > Just because systems exist today that are bringing to your attention every single problem known to man doesn't mean you need to be involved in the solutions that are above your paygrade. Ironically, these are the same systems that are causing the problem in the first place. You would put the last nail in the coffin of civic engagement? At which paygrade am I allowed to cast my ballot? Voice my concerns? Is my own privacy "above my paygrade"?
- matt4077 9y ago
  I'm wondering how you think this process works. When you say: > There are lots of very experienced people and resources allocated to this problem across the world It sounds like a curing-cancer-style problem where what's needed is some scientific breakthrough for a specific problem... So... Who are these "very experienced people", and what "resources" are allocated, where? Or how far exactly is this "above my paygrade"? Because this appears to me, fundamentally, a difference of opinion, or maybe just even priorities. If you get enough people to care, just watch how fast policies can change. And while I may have wasted my "career and life experience" on skills that disqualify me from this super-elite circle of "people allowed to care", my sorry excuse for a brain can't think of something more important than public advocacy of these issues, nor can it find fault with what John Oliver is doing. But, you know.. whatever.
Shivetya 9y ago
I disagree, the real danger is people don't care as long as it happens to those who hold different political beliefs. Worse some openly celebrate it. This is partly being prodded along by politicians under the guise "well they may/might/did break the law" so its okay to spy.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
I think a big part of the reason is that the common man confuses privacy and security. You see this with statements like, "Well, I don't have anything to hide... so I don't care." The media and politicians didn't (don't) help with this confusion, either.
ruleabidinguser 9y ago
No one cares because it doesn't change anything
Allower 9y ago
People care, our representatives do not care and do not understand. Its obvious dereliction of duty. I think its criminal frankly
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
People don't care until they see concrete harm to themselves. Look at how many modern day genocides we outright ignore. If we can do that, then what is a little spying in comparison?
- Karunamon 9y ago
  I'd move that a level up and say until they see concrete anything. All of the privacy rhetoric (I realize that sounds dismissive, it's not supposed to) is based on either philosophical notions or slippery slopes. "Something bad might happen to you in the future!" It makes for effective fundraising but poor impact on policy.. especially when the groups behind most of the privacy erosion like the Googles and Facebooks of the world provide an actual product people like.
jankedeen 9y ago
It's not that nobody is interested anymore. It is that the onus is on regular citizens to protect themselves. Once you have an understanding of the magnitude of the privacy problem and see what you would have to do to protect yourself you tend to tip your hat to the empowered opposition and industry partners and realize,in the venerable argot of our time: you lost the game.
justforFranz 9y ago
I think the practical way to go about this is to distinguish between what's ACTUALLY dangerous, actually harming people (beyond the loss of their privacy), and what's POTENTIALLY dangerous. Because I think it's easy for people to conflate the two. For instance, are people being rounded up and having bad things happen to them? Yes. People suspected of being illegal immigrants (or undocumented) and who are also suspected of being violent criminals are being rounded up. Also, there seems to be the odd case or 12 of someone who is undocumented, but is otherwise a thoroughly upstanding individual. The second thing I believe needs consideration is to determine exactly what line does the government need to cross for this POTENTIALLY dangerous privacy invasion to become ACTUAL, PRESENT dangers. The problem, of course, is getting consensus. Particularly when there's heavy foreign influence on the Internet & government. When so much of the news media promotes racism & nationalism. The possibility of the people being divided and conquered is a POSSIBILITY, given our acceptance of nationalism.

dovdovdov 9y ago

When I saw the movie Idiocracy, I said this is a bit exaggerated. Well, we are heading there in acceleration. It's astounding how little people care about the many walks of life.

mtgx 9y ago
They'll start caring again about privacy when people start being dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night for participating in protests, not just against the government, but against large corporations, too. And many people will lose their lives in the process, or will be imprisoned for years until things change again, and so on. I guess we'll have to do real fighting for our human rights once again (unfortunately).
- coldtea 9y ago
  >They'll start caring again about privacy when people start being dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night for participating in protests, not just against the government, but against large corporations, too. They still will not, since it will be others, and a small minority, that does that and gets dragged, etc. The problem is that a society that stifles those small minorities (from labor activists in early 20th century to MLK, Snowden, and so on) ends up worse for everybody.
  - marksomnian 9y ago
    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      Something like that. Although this perhaps shows a society split into various fractions (jews, blacks, trade unionists, gays, etc), and each fraction is taken one by one, until it's time they come to get the author's fraction. I.e. everybody eventually gets "taken". Whereas in my example, it's more a society that has a small amount of people who work for change, and they are the ones that get "put away"/stopped. In this latter case, nobody explicitly comes to "get/put away" the majority. Their lives just deteriorate (worse laws, more discrimination, etc.) and they don't even know why.

salesguy222 9y ago

There's this really interesting assertion in Weight of Chains 2 by Boris Malagurski: Serbia (Yugoslavia) before the Balkan Wars had an excellent education system that produced many scholars in the diaspora still today. The West/NATO/EU bombed that to the ground, along with the economy (factories, banks, telecom). Those who are still in Serbia now and are in charge have not been able to recreate an education system that is effective- in fact, 33% of Serbs are fuctionally illiterate in high school. The ruling class of politicians resemble reality TV stars like Trump more than anything else. Many Serbs there vote like Americans- they either are enthusiastic about a candidate for populist reasons.... or they don't vote at all. What's the net effect of this? Those in power are truly unqualified and dangerous, but the critical mass of apathetic and potentially illogical voters wlll keep them there. As a result, the intelligent minority suffers. And many leave.

cxromos 9y ago
I call Bullshit on you. The one of the product of that excellent education system was Milosevic as well. Serbia with Milosevic started the last Balkan Wars in its desire to renew Dusan's Empire, or in common tongue, to make a greater Serbia. First in Slovenia, later on in Croatia then in Bosnia and Herzegovina. When it started on the south, in between Serbia, Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, it became too dangerous not to stop it. The US waited for Srebrenica to happen to put a stop on it in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This time the US and the EU correctly recognized the danger of leaving the situation to deteriorate to something that would be danger to the region and the ordinary people. Those in Serbia included.
- acqq 9y ago
  Your version is as true as it was true that Iraq had WMD. Or that those against Assad are all "moderate rebels." There are definite similarities. In reality, Bosniak Muslims were supported by al-Qaeda, bin Laden and his closest men had the passports made by the Bosniak Muslim government, which was also supported by the U.S. It was all before 9/11, or "Iraq had WMD" affair, so it was very easy to sell.
  - 9y ago

fao_ 9y ago

> The real danger is nobody cares anymore, as this enables all further constitution violations and hollowing of citizen protection worldwide. It is amusing to me that -- in context of your comment -- the current second comment starts with "Well, this isn't news".

mirimir 9y ago
It's not news to me. But it does seem like most people don't care. Or don't care enough. However, what could they do, even if they cared enough?
- coldtea 9y ago
  If people care enough, they can bring down governments... And in much worse conditions...
  - mirimir 9y ago
    It's hard enough getting people to use VPNs and Tor.
    - throwanem 9y ago
      Most people don't see it as a problem. They regard NSA as looking out for them, and confide that as long as they themselves do not engage in terrorism, they've nothing to fear from it. Which, to a good first approximation, is true. But those of us with a sense of history mistrust any such gigantic agglomeration of unaccountable power, because we know how deeply susceptible such apparatuses are to employment toward unsavory ends. The trouble is that there's no good, quick, simple way to bring this home to people. You end up sounding like Chicken Little, or so underplaying the significance of the issue that even a sympathetic interlocutor fails to recognize its gravity. I don't really know a third way; I don't even know that there can be one, other than waiting for some suitable example in point, one that can't be explained away as an artifact of specific circumstance, and building the discussion around that. But even that strategy is fraught at best, and the easiest way to lose any argument is always to yield the initiative. So I don't really have a good, generally workable option here, as regards persuasive discourse on the issue, and if anyone else does, I'd sure like to hear about it!

DigitalJack 9y ago

I care, but I don't have any faith in the factual truthfulness of the american government, the american media, or any public figure really. Not to single out america, it's just where I live. I'd be surprised if it were different anywhere else. It seems like it's just the way of things. Start out shiny, and slowly erode to decrepitude, to be pushed aside by the new shiny.

simonh 9y ago
At least in America you have a variety of news sources available with different political and social agendas, including news sources that were able to legally publish material from people like Snowden and are free to report on issues like this. I many countries, you don't even get that and couldn't start your own news source with your preferred agenda even if you had the resources. Don't buy into the "we might as well live in <insert oppressive censorious dictatorship here>". My wife was born in one, the difference is a factor in my daily life.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  Just because we are better than some countries in some ways does not mean we are good enough. Media and the Government have lost the trust of many Americans. How do we improve America so those institutions are worthy of our higher standards of trust?
  - simonh 9y ago
    Which media? The media that published Snowden? Or Manning? The media that broke this NSA unlawful behaviour story? Western media IMHO isnt really 'an institution', its hundreds of institutions. Me? I read the BBC for general current afairs, The Economist for in depth exploration of issues and topics and a bit of the Guardian here and there although it is a bit left wing for my tastes. Oh and once in a while Fox News just out morbid curiosity about what's going on in that particular alternate dimension of reality. There's plenty of choice out there. I used to love reading the English edition of Pravda back when I was a student. I really miss the USSR, Putin and co are all the shittyness without any of the Red Star chic.

benevol 9y ago

Don't you think that comments like this one reinforce the subjectively perceived feeling of powerlessness? Who are you benefiting by posting this? (I'm not saying this is the case here, but there are those people who want us to actually feel powerless, because it then translates into actual powerlessness.) I'm sure you can think of more constructive ways of commenting.

throwanem 9y ago
Asking "what can I do that's really worth doing?" seems potentially constructive to me. Asking "how can I not feel so powerless?" seems as much so. Your comment, on the other hand, reads a lot like arguing the power of positive thinking to deal with a broken leg. If we're going to talk about relative constructiveness of comment content, that seems to me like a good place to start! This is a big problem, and it's frightening. The US government, in the extent to which it's leveraged a technologically advantageous position to develop its insight into the behavior of people within the US and without, has achieved a scale and a power unprecedented in recorded human history. It can destroy people, within the US and without, on a whim - even by accident! And never even notice or care, in the large, that it has done so. This is legitimately scary, and to feel a sense of powerlessness, in response to the perception of oneself alone before such power and with no effective recourse or means of defense, is in every sense a rational response. I think it's worthy of people to express such perspectives, the better that others might say "Hey, I feel the same way. You're not alone." - or "I felt the same way at first, and here's what I'm doing to change that." - or say nothing at all, but at least realize that they are indeed not alone in recognizing the existence and scope of the problem, and need not feel quite so isolated in that recognition. You seem instead to argue that these very rational perceptions be suppressed, or at least concealed in the public sphere, for fear that they'll inspire others to see the world likewise. Compared to the vast and overwhelming scope of the problem in which these perceptions originate, this seems like a rather petty cavil with which to castigate one's fellows. Perhaps I have misapprehended you in some way, and you'll address the fashion in which I have done so. If I have not, then perhaps you'll explain your reasoning in sufficiently lucid fashion to reduce my frank bewilderment at the idea that a comment such as yours, in a thread such as this, could in any way be considered "constructive", rather than the converse.

godzillabrennus 9y ago

I don't feel powerless. Balmer is bankrolling transparency and Project Sunshine is trying to increase our ability to interact with the federal government. Private industry has created databases like PolicyGuru dot net to help at the local level. Things are going to improve even if it takes a generation to get out the swamp monsters.

krapp 9y ago
Private industry created the infrastructure by which the NSA conducts these searches, and the willingness of companies like Microsoft, Google, and Facebook to "interact with the federal government" in support of its illegal activities is a big part of the problem.

coldtea 9y ago

>The real danger is nobody cares anymore, as this enables all further constitution violations and hollowing of citizen protection worldwide. The upside is that a society that doesn't care, eventually gets what it deserves.

libeclipse 9y ago
That's an upside?
- xxs 9y ago
  well, it wakes up, rebels and all, sort of normal cycles in history.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Feedback is good.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
I don't see this as an upside. You can't really blame people for that - this is a systemic issue, and it was predicted it will happen. People, in aggregate, don't respond to abstract problems like that by any form of prolonged care.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >You can't really blame people for that - this is a systemic issue, and it was predicted it will happen. People, in aggregate, don't respond to abstract problems like that by any form of prolonged care. They should, and I can blame them for that. That's the duty of the citizen. Not recognizing the issue at all is not an excuse.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    Blame all you like, it doesn't make any progress towards solving the problem.
9y ago

lmm 9y ago

What do I do, as someone who cares? No, seriously. Should I throw a bit more money at the EFF? Start my own political party, or enter an existing one and try to steer it in my direction? Try to get employed by one of these organizations and then promote a better understanding of their mission internally? Move to another country where people care more (which?) Identifying the problem is a good first step, but what can we do about it?

omginternets 9y ago
>Should I throw a bit more money at the EFF? Emphatically, yes. They're the ones challenging the NSA in court. Does it solve every problem? Of course not. Is it part of the solution? As long as the judicial branch continues to function correctly overall, yes. Hell yes.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  Clandestine agencies are not subject to the same judicial process as the rest of us. Thats why they have "secret courts" and the magic words which trump the law: "national security".
  - omginternets 9y ago
    Yes, and this modus operandi can be attacked through the court system.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      Even if the courts ruled it as illegal, how can the ruling be enforced on clandestine operations? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
      - omginternets 9y ago
        The solution to one problem should not be discounted on the grounds that it doesn't solve every problem. >Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? You say this as though there were a known solution to the problem. You may as well say "what about the heat death of the universe?" Quid de morte ad universum calorem, if you prefer ;)

libeclipse 9y ago

You're absolutely right. When I saw this headline, I just thought, "yeah we know, is anyone surprised?" It shouldn't be like this, we should be outraged every time. I wonder if they planned it like this.

Sven-z 9y ago

What do you mean nobody cares anymore? This is a very strange notion I see propping up more and more in people's minds, as they get overloaded with information they don't know what to do with. There are lots of very experienced people and resources allocated to this problem across the world working on it round the clock. But this is a hard problem. It's going to take multiple generations to achieve a mature resolution. Some problems don't fix themselves in the timeframes it takes John Oliver or Alex Jones to write a skit. I find the press and their stand up comic proxies in their quest to "inform and educate" the public are creating a whole lot of unnecessary anxiety and panic. It's a great way to hold everyone's attention without serving any purpose other than producing media figures. And in the attention economy constructed by Youtube/Twitter/Facebook no question this benefits them to a great deal. Just because systems exist today that are bringing to your attention every single problem known to man doesn't mean you need to be involved in the solutions that are above your paygrade. Especially if your career and life experience don't involve the skills to do something about this. I am sure there are problems out there you can apply your skills and experience too. This sort of defeatist attitude is very infectious and especially effects the psyche of people with the skills who could actually play a role down the road.

aithoughts 9y ago
> Just because systems exist today that are bringing to your attention every single problem known to man doesn't mean you need to be involved in the solutions that are above your paygrade. Ironically, these are the same systems that are causing the problem in the first place. You would put the last nail in the coffin of civic engagement? At which paygrade am I allowed to cast my ballot? Voice my concerns? Is my own privacy "above my paygrade"?
matt4077 9y ago
I'm wondering how you think this process works. When you say: > There are lots of very experienced people and resources allocated to this problem across the world It sounds like a curing-cancer-style problem where what's needed is some scientific breakthrough for a specific problem... So... Who are these "very experienced people", and what "resources" are allocated, where? Or how far exactly is this "above my paygrade"? Because this appears to me, fundamentally, a difference of opinion, or maybe just even priorities. If you get enough people to care, just watch how fast policies can change. And while I may have wasted my "career and life experience" on skills that disqualify me from this super-elite circle of "people allowed to care", my sorry excuse for a brain can't think of something more important than public advocacy of these issues, nor can it find fault with what John Oliver is doing. But, you know.. whatever.

Shivetya 9y ago

I disagree, the real danger is people don't care as long as it happens to those who hold different political beliefs. Worse some openly celebrate it. This is partly being prodded along by politicians under the guise "well they may/might/did break the law" so its okay to spy.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

I think a big part of the reason is that the common man confuses privacy and security. You see this with statements like, "Well, I don't have anything to hide... so I don't care." The media and politicians didn't (don't) help with this confusion, either.

ruleabidinguser 9y ago

No one cares because it doesn't change anything

Allower 9y ago

People care, our representatives do not care and do not understand. Its obvious dereliction of duty. I think its criminal frankly

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

People don't care until they see concrete harm to themselves. Look at how many modern day genocides we outright ignore. If we can do that, then what is a little spying in comparison?

Karunamon 9y ago
I'd move that a level up and say until they see concrete anything. All of the privacy rhetoric (I realize that sounds dismissive, it's not supposed to) is based on either philosophical notions or slippery slopes. "Something bad might happen to you in the future!" It makes for effective fundraising but poor impact on policy.. especially when the groups behind most of the privacy erosion like the Googles and Facebooks of the world provide an actual product people like.

jankedeen 9y ago

It's not that nobody is interested anymore. It is that the onus is on regular citizens to protect themselves. Once you have an understanding of the magnitude of the privacy problem and see what you would have to do to protect yourself you tend to tip your hat to the empowered opposition and industry partners and realize,in the venerable argot of our time: you lost the game.

justforFranz 9y ago

I think the practical way to go about this is to distinguish between what's ACTUALLY dangerous, actually harming people (beyond the loss of their privacy), and what's POTENTIALLY dangerous. Because I think it's easy for people to conflate the two. For instance, are people being rounded up and having bad things happen to them? Yes. People suspected of being illegal immigrants (or undocumented) and who are also suspected of being violent criminals are being rounded up. Also, there seems to be the odd case or 12 of someone who is undocumented, but is otherwise a thoroughly upstanding individual. The second thing I believe needs consideration is to determine exactly what line does the government need to cross for this POTENTIALLY dangerous privacy invasion to become ACTUAL, PRESENT dangers. The problem, of course, is getting consensus. Particularly when there's heavy foreign influence on the Internet & government. When so much of the news media promotes racism & nationalism. The possibility of the people being divided and conquered is a POSSIBILITY, given our acceptance of nationalism.