4 ms·

To those unsure as to why this is particularly relevant: the Patriot Act is notable for drastically expanding the surveillance powers of the US government [1].

To those unsure as to why this is particularly relevant: the Patriot Act is notable for drastically expanding the surveillance powers of the US government [1]. I wonder what this lawyer will do at Facebook? [1] https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/surveillance-under-patriot-act https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-su...

OrgNet 8y ago
And Obama promised to repeal the "PATRIOT" Act but instead signed to extend and expand it... If he had not signed anything, it would have expired all by itself... edit: sorry if you don't like the truth (I know that a lot of you commit to only one political party, but still... the truth is the truth.).
- munk-a 8y ago
  As all administrations have done and will continue to do for the foreseeable future...
  - hyperbovine 8y ago
    Two{four, five, ten} wrongs do not a right make...
    - munk-a 8y ago
      Absolutely, I'm waiting for a real leader to get into office who will actually strike these recent security theatre laws down. My comment wasn't greatly worded, but in no way is Obama innocent or deserving of defense here - but at the same time Bush definitely deserves the biggest blame, Obama and Trump share blame equally.
      - OrgNet 8y ago
        Obama is more to blame because he did the opposite of what he promised during his campaign... I don't recall Trump making any promises to reduce spying on citizens... Actually, I voted for Trump because I thought that he would make the breaking point come sooner rather then later (because the way it's going, that's how it's going to end anyways).
        gizmo385 8y ago
        > Actually, I voted for Trump because I thought that he would make the breaking point come sooner rather then later (because the way it's going, that's how it's going to end anyways). I'm a bit confused here. You voted for Trump because you thought he would be, effectively, a cherry bomb to blow up the status quo? And you think that's working? I'd argue that what is actually happening is that people are rushing to define the cherry bomb as the status quo rather than actually shift the status quo back to something a bit more reasonable and responsible.
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > * I'm waiting for a real leader to get into office who will actually strike these recent security theatre laws down.* Why not work to pass laws at the state level? Or have your state ratify an amendment to the Constitution? Not all roads lead to Washington.
        munk-a 8y ago
        Sorry, have a state pass a law defying the PATRIOT ACT? That would be ineffective as my voting state has very little NSA infrastructure to effect and no states could effect the more troubling portions of the Act. As an aside my state has joined the NPVIC[1] already, and tends to be more reasonable than the national level - but there are real pieces of change that can only happen nationally. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... if your state isn't green, I'd encourage you to lobby locally to influence it towards signing on[2]. [2] It is depressing that there is a lot of alignment between this map and the GOP/DEM traditionally safe states - voter suppression is a serious strike against personal liberties.
  - OrgNet 8y ago
    right... sometimes I think the NSA is the true leader of this country
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > As all administrations have done and will continue to do for the foreseeable future Which is why no democratic system is designed to count on nice people being in power.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
benatkin 8y ago
It isn't relevant, though. The PATRIOT Act had pretty broad support. Just because she helped write it doesn't mean that she supports it more than other lawyers – just that she's a talented enough lawyer to be working on such major projects. It's the same as complaining about individual multi-millionaires who optimize their taxes.
- istjohn 8y ago
  A popular poor decision is still a poor decision. We censure plenty of actions in history that were popular at the time. We should require people in positions of power and influence to be guided by an inner moral compass--not merely whatever is profitable, popular, or personally advantageous.
- Barrin92 8y ago
  I think you can deduce some things from the projects people are willing to work on. If I was a lawyer say, I wouldn't have worked on it (and I categorically reject work on privacy violating systems as a software engineer), because it would feel to me like doing my part in enabling a surveillance system that is very, very, objectionable. So at least what we can say I guess is that she doesn't mind doing that. And I think the same goes for multi-millionaires. I would not hire a tax-dodging rich individual (optimization is a nice euphemism), and particularly not when I run a business where that is in conflict with the alleged values of the business.
- whytaka 8y ago
  > The PATRIOT Act had pretty broad support. By whom? Congress, constitutional lawyers, or the people?
  - mdorazio 8y ago
    Sadly, both Congress and the people at the time [1][2]. It was full-on panic mode in response to 9/11. I don't remember much about the constitutional lawyer side at the time. A couple years later the public started changing its mind [3], though Congress arguably still isn't even close. [1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s313 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s313 [2] http://www.sheldensays.com/debating_the_usa_patriot_act.htm http://www.sheldensays.com/debating_the_usa_patriot_act.htm [3] https://news.gallup.com/poll/9205/public-little-concerned-about-patriot-act.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/9205/public-little-concerned-ab...
OrgNet 8y ago
And Obama promised to repeal the "PATRIOT" Act but instead signed to extend and expand it... If he had not signed anything, it would have expired all by itself... edit: sorry if you don't like the truth (I know that a lot of you commit to only one political party, but still... the truth is the truth.).
squarefoot 8y ago
"I wonder what this lawyer will do at Facebook?" Connections with powerful govt people?

OrgNet 8y ago

And Obama promised to repeal the "PATRIOT" Act but instead signed to extend and expand it... If he had not signed anything, it would have expired all by itself... edit: sorry if you don't like the truth (I know that a lot of you commit to only one political party, but still... the truth is the truth.).

munk-a 8y ago
As all administrations have done and will continue to do for the foreseeable future...
- hyperbovine 8y ago
  Two{four, five, ten} wrongs do not a right make...
  - munk-a 8y ago
    Absolutely, I'm waiting for a real leader to get into office who will actually strike these recent security theatre laws down. My comment wasn't greatly worded, but in no way is Obama innocent or deserving of defense here - but at the same time Bush definitely deserves the biggest blame, Obama and Trump share blame equally.
    - OrgNet 8y ago
      Obama is more to blame because he did the opposite of what he promised during his campaign... I don't recall Trump making any promises to reduce spying on citizens... Actually, I voted for Trump because I thought that he would make the breaking point come sooner rather then later (because the way it's going, that's how it's going to end anyways).
      - gizmo385 8y ago
        > Actually, I voted for Trump because I thought that he would make the breaking point come sooner rather then later (because the way it's going, that's how it's going to end anyways). I'm a bit confused here. You voted for Trump because you thought he would be, effectively, a cherry bomb to blow up the status quo? And you think that's working? I'd argue that what is actually happening is that people are rushing to define the cherry bomb as the status quo rather than actually shift the status quo back to something a bit more reasonable and responsible.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > * I'm waiting for a real leader to get into office who will actually strike these recent security theatre laws down.* Why not work to pass laws at the state level? Or have your state ratify an amendment to the Constitution? Not all roads lead to Washington.
      - munk-a 8y ago
        Sorry, have a state pass a law defying the PATRIOT ACT? That would be ineffective as my voting state has very little NSA infrastructure to effect and no states could effect the more troubling portions of the Act. As an aside my state has joined the NPVIC[1] already, and tends to be more reasonable than the national level - but there are real pieces of change that can only happen nationally. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... if your state isn't green, I'd encourage you to lobby locally to influence it towards signing on[2]. [2] It is depressing that there is a lot of alignment between this map and the GOP/DEM traditionally safe states - voter suppression is a serious strike against personal liberties.
- OrgNet 8y ago
  right... sometimes I think the NSA is the true leader of this country
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > As all administrations have done and will continue to do for the foreseeable future Which is why no democratic system is designed to count on nice people being in power.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

benatkin 8y ago

It isn't relevant, though. The PATRIOT Act had pretty broad support. Just because she helped write it doesn't mean that she supports it more than other lawyers – just that she's a talented enough lawyer to be working on such major projects. It's the same as complaining about individual multi-millionaires who optimize their taxes.

istjohn 8y ago
A popular poor decision is still a poor decision. We censure plenty of actions in history that were popular at the time. We should require people in positions of power and influence to be guided by an inner moral compass--not merely whatever is profitable, popular, or personally advantageous.
Barrin92 8y ago
I think you can deduce some things from the projects people are willing to work on. If I was a lawyer say, I wouldn't have worked on it (and I categorically reject work on privacy violating systems as a software engineer), because it would feel to me like doing my part in enabling a surveillance system that is very, very, objectionable. So at least what we can say I guess is that she doesn't mind doing that. And I think the same goes for multi-millionaires. I would not hire a tax-dodging rich individual (optimization is a nice euphemism), and particularly not when I run a business where that is in conflict with the alleged values of the business.
whytaka 8y ago
> The PATRIOT Act had pretty broad support. By whom? Congress, constitutional lawyers, or the people?
- mdorazio 8y ago
  Sadly, both Congress and the people at the time [1][2]. It was full-on panic mode in response to 9/11. I don't remember much about the constitutional lawyer side at the time. A couple years later the public started changing its mind [3], though Congress arguably still isn't even close. [1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s313 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s313 [2] http://www.sheldensays.com/debating_the_usa_patriot_act.htm http://www.sheldensays.com/debating_the_usa_patriot_act.htm [3] https://news.gallup.com/poll/9205/public-little-concerned-about-patriot-act.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/9205/public-little-concerned-ab...

OrgNet 8y ago

squarefoot 8y ago

"I wonder what this lawyer will do at Facebook?" Connections with powerful govt people?