4 ms·

> Contemporary mass surveillance relies upon annual presidential executive orders declaring a continued State of National Emergency, first signed by George W.

by apo 7y ago

> Contemporary mass surveillance relies upon annual presidential executive orders declaring a continued State of National Emergency, first signed by George W. Bush on September 14, 2001 and then continued on an annual basis by President Barack Obama,[3] and upon several subsequent national security Acts including the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendment Act's PRISM surveillance program. Mass surveillance is a bipartisan effort. Electing a Democrat to the White House is very unlikely to change this situation. The Obama administration went above and beyond any prior presidency in its aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers to these unconstitutional activities. FWIW, the language in Fourth Amendment is pretty clear: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. What's happening now is the very antithesis of probably cause. And everyone is the target. The worst part of all is that zero credible evidence has been presented that a single terrorist attack has been prevented by mass surveillance.

marak830 7y ago
This is purely from an outside perspective btw, but from what myself and friends have conversed about, the us doesn't seem to have a left. At least not a particularly powerful political left.
- tehjoker 7y ago
  As a US leftist, this is our analysis as well. Unfortunately, after Students for a Democratic Society broke up and the anti-war movement dissipated after the Vietnam War the Regan/Thacher revolution crushed what remained and we live in the aftermath of unchecked corporate and imperial power. In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. While it was far from perfect, it ideologically at least forced the American system to at least make comparisons and perform token gestures towards a more just society. That's all gone now. The current crop of leftists is a combination of older people who became politically conscious before the 1980s (i.e. 50+ years old like Bernie Sanders), people burned by 2008, and people who were deeply shocked by Trump's election and started reading about the economic and political underpinnings of it, and some representatives of minorities that consistently feel the boot of oppression. Fortunately, there is some rising consciousness, but who knows where everything will go. We're in for a wild ride...
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  There’s little to no absolute left in the US, but there is always a left side of the right.
parliament32 7y ago
Regarding the national emergencies, here's the best part: You can't really declare a military national emergency without a declared war going on. But since the US wants to keep it's emergency-surveillance powers, and it can't choose random countries to go to war with constantly... they declared a "War on Terror", which (while sounding like a campaign slogan) satisfies the requirement for "the country is at war so we can take wartime measures". The best part is "Terror" isn't something that can legally ever lose/surrender (or win, for that matter), so this "war" (and the associated national emergencies) will go on for as long as the US government wants. It's all very clever, really.
- lisper 7y ago
  "Clever" is not exactly the word I would choose to describe the situation.
- faceblob2 7y ago
  The cleverest part is repeatedly staging false flag terror events against one's own people, blaming it on a patsy or simply an idea ("terror"), pounding fear-based jingoism into the public psyche, and using this to justify any authoritarian constitution-crushing measures out of government's putative concern for citizens' safety. It's clever because nobody could be that evil. Or at least, not our boys.
Der_Einzige 7y ago
Progressive Dems like Bernie Sanders are considerably less friendly to mass surveillance than centerist Dems like Obama. Bernie votes against the Patriot act every time. You can elect people who will fight it. Folks just don't want too because it might involve pot getting legalized and "socialism"
daniel-cussen 7y ago
How could digital data storage media not count as "effects"? It's not letters, sure, but it's definitely "effects." Especially because the last word in a lawyerly list of items is usually a catch-all designed to future-proof the law. It was meant to catch things they couldn't conceive of at the time.

by apo 7y ago

marak830 7y ago

This is purely from an outside perspective btw, but from what myself and friends have conversed about, the us doesn't seem to have a left. At least not a particularly powerful political left.

tehjoker 7y ago
As a US leftist, this is our analysis as well. Unfortunately, after Students for a Democratic Society broke up and the anti-war movement dissipated after the Vietnam War the Regan/Thacher revolution crushed what remained and we live in the aftermath of unchecked corporate and imperial power. In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. While it was far from perfect, it ideologically at least forced the American system to at least make comparisons and perform token gestures towards a more just society. That's all gone now. The current crop of leftists is a combination of older people who became politically conscious before the 1980s (i.e. 50+ years old like Bernie Sanders), people burned by 2008, and people who were deeply shocked by Trump's election and started reading about the economic and political underpinnings of it, and some representatives of minorities that consistently feel the boot of oppression. Fortunately, there is some rising consciousness, but who knows where everything will go. We're in for a wild ride...
mixmastamyk 7y ago
There’s little to no absolute left in the US, but there is always a left side of the right.

parliament32 7y ago

Regarding the national emergencies, here's the best part: You can't really declare a military national emergency without a declared war going on. But since the US wants to keep it's emergency-surveillance powers, and it can't choose random countries to go to war with constantly... they declared a "War on Terror", which (while sounding like a campaign slogan) satisfies the requirement for "the country is at war so we can take wartime measures". The best part is "Terror" isn't something that can legally ever lose/surrender (or win, for that matter), so this "war" (and the associated national emergencies) will go on for as long as the US government wants. It's all very clever, really.

lisper 7y ago
"Clever" is not exactly the word I would choose to describe the situation.
faceblob2 7y ago
The cleverest part is repeatedly staging false flag terror events against one's own people, blaming it on a patsy or simply an idea ("terror"), pounding fear-based jingoism into the public psyche, and using this to justify any authoritarian constitution-crushing measures out of government's putative concern for citizens' safety. It's clever because nobody could be that evil. Or at least, not our boys.

Der_Einzige 7y ago

Progressive Dems like Bernie Sanders are considerably less friendly to mass surveillance than centerist Dems like Obama. Bernie votes against the Patriot act every time. You can elect people who will fight it. Folks just don't want too because it might involve pot getting legalized and "socialism"

daniel-cussen 7y ago

How could digital data storage media not count as "effects"? It's not letters, sure, but it's definitely "effects." Especially because the last word in a lawyerly list of items is usually a catch-all designed to future-proof the law. It was meant to catch things they couldn't conceive of at the time.