3 ms·

They'll tell you it's ended, but it'll never really end.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> They'll tell you it's ended, but it'll never really end The number one hurdle to changing these laws is apathy. A narrow majority of Americans oppose mass surveillance [1], but the intensity of their support is weak. Meanwhile--anecdotally--those who intensely care about the issue are largely apathetic. As a result the other side, which is equally opinionated but less apathetic, wins. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americans-think-about-nsa-surveillance-national-security-and-privacy/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americ...
- hanniabu 8y ago
  It's not that those that care are lazy, it's more of a "what can really be done" attitude. As you've shown, most are opposed to this yet it exists. This is because we're past the era where, by large, the representatives actually represent. These have become seats to either fight for your own personal beliefs, increase your income and the income of those around you, or both. I mean really, what are you supposed to do? Call your representative? Most don't care and the person you talk to is usually just a proxy who's job is to answer, nod their head, and make you feel like you're being heard. Maybe protest? Good luck, you'll be demonized by the media calling you a bunch of homeless people because the only ones that have the time to protest are largely those who don't have jobs. There's also laws made that keep you from protesting in various areas so you can't even inconvenience the decision makers into noticing you. When they've had enough you either just saw it's a public health hazard to have people protesting because they're sleeping there and use that as an excuse to break it up by force, or you can just pay an actor to pretend to be part of the crowd to act violently towards the police and use that as an excuse to break up the protests. Bottom lines is that I believe we've reached a tipping point where the people have lost control of the country.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > it's more of a "what can really be done" attitude I once offered to help to host a breakfast for my Congresswoman to show there was a base of motivated people, in New York, who would back her if she put forward anti-NSA legislation. This was post-Snowden. Her office was open minded. Attendance was dismal. We all agreed to re-focus on other issues. Another example! Two bills in Albany. One regarding Equifax. One regarding something with teachers. I'm helping with the Equifax bill. Guess which one had phones ringing off the hook with supporters calling in? Guess which one I had to concede had a more-motivated base, and was therefore--politically--the policy to put forward? People still control the country. It's just the people who show up. If you don't show up and participate, that's fine, that's your choice. But it's a choice.
    - gotocake 8y ago
      Simply labeling anyone without the time to join you, or the belief that it can help as the problem is bullshit. Your premise, that if more people banded together is a false one. The ability of politicians and corporate entities to divide people with wedges, to destroy public education and healthcare, and to gerrymander is potent. You see the end results of that in a broad population and conclude the problem is with the population not seeing your point, but that is the point.
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > The ability of politicians and corporate entities to divide people with wedges, to destroy public education and healthcare, and to gerrymander is potent The people who talk about opposing mass surveillance are, on average, better educated and higher paid than the average American. When they can't bother to show up, it's noted. In order for something to be divided it must first exist as a unit. It takes a shockingly-small number of people organizing to a shockingly-little extent to exert change on representatives. Particularly if those people are geographically spread out.
        gotocake 8y ago
upofadown 8y ago
That isn't the point of having laws to cover this stuff. It is to make it so the intercepted information can not be freely used and/or shared. The laws also enable whistle blowers.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  In theory. In practice if they want to get you they'll use parallel construction.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    Agreed. Considering this is coming so longer after the Snowden revelations I have to believe it means some sort of Plan B has been sorted out and Congress has gotten the okay to outlaw what is soon to be obsolete.
    - tremon 8y ago
      Yes. The cynic in me immediately concluded after reading the headline: "then either the UK's or Australia's hoovering apparatus is finally up to spec, and the NSA can get the data from them".
      - chiefalchemist 8y ago
        Yes. I'm presuming there's some sort of off-shore component to Plan B. It's not illegal if you're outside the law.
  - jancsika 8y ago
    You're depending on undefined behavior of the term "you". For example, if "you" means the singular poster then you are correct and your comment is a truism. However, if "you" means the citizenry then the cost of parallel construction at scale clearly exceeds the cost of using the mass collection program currently under discussion. Edit: clarification
    - 8y ago

> They'll tell you it's ended, but it'll never really end The number one hurdle to changing these laws is apathy. A narrow majority of Americans oppose mass surveillance [1], but the intensity of their support is weak. Meanwhile--anecdotally--those who intensely care about the issue are largely apathetic. As a result the other side, which is equally opinionated but less apathetic, wins. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americans-think-about-nsa-surveillance-national-security-and-privacy/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americ...

hanniabu 8y ago
It's not that those that care are lazy, it's more of a "what can really be done" attitude. As you've shown, most are opposed to this yet it exists. This is because we're past the era where, by large, the representatives actually represent. These have become seats to either fight for your own personal beliefs, increase your income and the income of those around you, or both. I mean really, what are you supposed to do? Call your representative? Most don't care and the person you talk to is usually just a proxy who's job is to answer, nod their head, and make you feel like you're being heard. Maybe protest? Good luck, you'll be demonized by the media calling you a bunch of homeless people because the only ones that have the time to protest are largely those who don't have jobs. There's also laws made that keep you from protesting in various areas so you can't even inconvenience the decision makers into noticing you. When they've had enough you either just saw it's a public health hazard to have people protesting because they're sleeping there and use that as an excuse to break it up by force, or you can just pay an actor to pretend to be part of the crowd to act violently towards the police and use that as an excuse to break up the protests. Bottom lines is that I believe we've reached a tipping point where the people have lost control of the country.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > it's more of a "what can really be done" attitude I once offered to help to host a breakfast for my Congresswoman to show there was a base of motivated people, in New York, who would back her if she put forward anti-NSA legislation. This was post-Snowden. Her office was open minded. Attendance was dismal. We all agreed to re-focus on other issues. Another example! Two bills in Albany. One regarding Equifax. One regarding something with teachers. I'm helping with the Equifax bill. Guess which one had phones ringing off the hook with supporters calling in? Guess which one I had to concede had a more-motivated base, and was therefore--politically--the policy to put forward? People still control the country. It's just the people who show up. If you don't show up and participate, that's fine, that's your choice. But it's a choice.
  - gotocake 8y ago
    Simply labeling anyone without the time to join you, or the belief that it can help as the problem is bullshit. Your premise, that if more people banded together is a false one. The ability of politicians and corporate entities to divide people with wedges, to destroy public education and healthcare, and to gerrymander is potent. You see the end results of that in a broad population and conclude the problem is with the population not seeing your point, but that is the point.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > The ability of politicians and corporate entities to divide people with wedges, to destroy public education and healthcare, and to gerrymander is potent The people who talk about opposing mass surveillance are, on average, better educated and higher paid than the average American. When they can't bother to show up, it's noted. In order for something to be divided it must first exist as a unit. It takes a shockingly-small number of people organizing to a shockingly-little extent to exert change on representatives. Particularly if those people are geographically spread out.
      - gotocake 8y ago

upofadown 8y ago

That isn't the point of having laws to cover this stuff. It is to make it so the intercepted information can not be freely used and/or shared. The laws also enable whistle blowers.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
In theory. In practice if they want to get you they'll use parallel construction.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  Agreed. Considering this is coming so longer after the Snowden revelations I have to believe it means some sort of Plan B has been sorted out and Congress has gotten the okay to outlaw what is soon to be obsolete.
  - tremon 8y ago
    Yes. The cynic in me immediately concluded after reading the headline: "then either the UK's or Australia's hoovering apparatus is finally up to spec, and the NSA can get the data from them".
    - chiefalchemist 8y ago
      Yes. I'm presuming there's some sort of off-shore component to Plan B. It's not illegal if you're outside the law.
- jancsika 8y ago
  You're depending on undefined behavior of the term "you". For example, if "you" means the singular poster then you are correct and your comment is a truism. However, if "you" means the citizenry then the cost of parallel construction at scale clearly exceeds the cost of using the mass collection program currently under discussion. Edit: clarification
  - 8y ago