3 ms·

Go talk to your Congressperson or their staff. Get a satisfactory answer. Or, if you don't, go talk to their primary or general election opponent (or their staf

Go talk to your Congressperson or their staff. Get a satisfactory answer. Or, if you don't, go talk to their primary or general election opponent (or their staff). Make it clear what's important to you.

alter_eco123 8y ago
> Make it clear what's important to you. Do you think they don't know the tax cattle don't want a police state? If we only let them know, then they'll just stop establishing absolute power over us all? "Gosh, what were we thinking?!"
boomboomsubban 8y ago
Ignoring that you need to fight against both major parties to attempt to put someone against this in office, think of all the dirt this database could uncover on the politician.
- XorNot 8y ago
  Urgh this is the worst point HN keep making vis-a-vis surveillance. Dirt on politicians is evidence of actual crimes and wrongdoings - not supposition and heresay. Surveillance doesn't magically generate blackmail material on politicians if they haven't done anything wrong, and politicians have a vastly reduced right to privacy compared to the rest of us. "Politicians could be blackmailed!" is a weak as hell argument because if they can be blackmailed then they are corrupt and should be exposed. The problem is what happens to all the rest of us - private citizens who do not wield power and influence, do not write the laws, and as is noted in the OP here, who suffer very real consequences to our lives from being categorized by intelligence systems.
  - cat199 8y ago
    > Dirt on politicians is evidence of actual crimes and wrongdoings - not supposition and heresay. $politician went with some supporters to a strip club. News at 11. You think that won't affect the electoral outcome, even if it is perfectly legal? And if it does, that it could not be used in collusion with security forces to preserve an entrenched power?
  - mLuby 8y ago
    The point is actually about politicians being above the law, specifically the unequal power between surveilled (us) and surveillant (politicians), not that people under surveillance can be made to look guilty (which is pretty obvious). Furthermore, if politicians want power X but only if X can't be used on themselves, then that power can easily be used corruptly.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    >Urgh this is the worst point HN keep making vis-a-vis surveillance. Dirt on politicians is evidence of actual crimes and wrongdoings - not supposition and heresay. There are a wide range of things that count as dirt. Legal yet scandalous behavior, various social gaffes, past political stances that may not represent their current views, or criminal acts from one of the many "relationships" tracked. All of these things have been used to attack candidates. >Surveillance doesn't magically generate blackmail material on politicians if they haven't done anything wrong, and politicians have a vastly reduced right to privacy compared to the rest of us. If we know these organizations have these extreme surveillance capabilities, they largely can magically generate blackmail. The amount of proof needed to generate a scandal is low, and falsifiable. >The problem is what happens to all the rest of us - private citizens who do not wield power and influence, do not write the laws, and as is noted in the OP here, who suffer very real consequences to our lives from being categorized by intelligence systems One of those consequences is the hidden destruction of our democracy. As these powers become stronger, we lose our ability to reject them in our political system.

alter_eco123 8y ago

> Make it clear what's important to you. Do you think they don't know the tax cattle don't want a police state? If we only let them know, then they'll just stop establishing absolute power over us all? "Gosh, what were we thinking?!"

boomboomsubban 8y ago

Ignoring that you need to fight against both major parties to attempt to put someone against this in office, think of all the dirt this database could uncover on the politician.

XorNot 8y ago
Urgh this is the worst point HN keep making vis-a-vis surveillance. Dirt on politicians is evidence of actual crimes and wrongdoings - not supposition and heresay. Surveillance doesn't magically generate blackmail material on politicians if they haven't done anything wrong, and politicians have a vastly reduced right to privacy compared to the rest of us. "Politicians could be blackmailed!" is a weak as hell argument because if they can be blackmailed then they are corrupt and should be exposed. The problem is what happens to all the rest of us - private citizens who do not wield power and influence, do not write the laws, and as is noted in the OP here, who suffer very real consequences to our lives from being categorized by intelligence systems.
- cat199 8y ago
  > Dirt on politicians is evidence of actual crimes and wrongdoings - not supposition and heresay. $politician went with some supporters to a strip club. News at 11. You think that won't affect the electoral outcome, even if it is perfectly legal? And if it does, that it could not be used in collusion with security forces to preserve an entrenched power?
- mLuby 8y ago
  The point is actually about politicians being above the law, specifically the unequal power between surveilled (us) and surveillant (politicians), not that people under surveillance can be made to look guilty (which is pretty obvious). Furthermore, if politicians want power X but only if X can't be used on themselves, then that power can easily be used corruptly.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >Urgh this is the worst point HN keep making vis-a-vis surveillance. Dirt on politicians is evidence of actual crimes and wrongdoings - not supposition and heresay. There are a wide range of things that count as dirt. Legal yet scandalous behavior, various social gaffes, past political stances that may not represent their current views, or criminal acts from one of the many "relationships" tracked. All of these things have been used to attack candidates. >Surveillance doesn't magically generate blackmail material on politicians if they haven't done anything wrong, and politicians have a vastly reduced right to privacy compared to the rest of us. If we know these organizations have these extreme surveillance capabilities, they largely can magically generate blackmail. The amount of proof needed to generate a scandal is low, and falsifiable. >The problem is what happens to all the rest of us - private citizens who do not wield power and influence, do not write the laws, and as is noted in the OP here, who suffer very real consequences to our lives from being categorized by intelligence systems One of those consequences is the hidden destruction of our democracy. As these powers become stronger, we lose our ability to reject them in our political system.