8 ms·

Reads like a mirror of whats currently happening regarding all the covid associated law changes. /edit I added some more context in a child comment

tines 6y ago
Can you give an example?
- troughway 6y ago
  Not the OP, but HN could hardly stomach Snowden coming out without twisting themselves over with “oh yeah we knew that already, right fellas?”, never mind Assange who they still claim is a Russian shill. I would keep conspiracy talk far away from this board.
- btilly 6y ago
  We are in a state of emergency where the government has taken pretty direct control of people's lives, and businesses only remain in existence due to massive government intervention. It is for a good cause. However a couple of years from now, there will remain a temptation to use the same tools to address whatever normal problems we have. And that is a big step towards a planned economy like the Soviet Union had. It may sound like a wild conspiracy theory, and certainly the people who are doing it don't intend any such end. However I cannot forget that 9/11 has transformed us into a permanent surveillance state where our communications are tracked, travel by plane involves a search where someone gets to look at your privates, and it is considered normal in low crime neighborhoods to require security badges and/or passing armed guards to get into office buildings. If you'd asked the people who did that whether they had any such intent, I'm sure that they would have said no.
  - OminousWeapons 6y ago
    > It is for a good cause. However a couple of years from now, there will remain a temptation to use the same tools to address whatever normal problems we have. And that is a big step towards a planned economy like the Soviet Union had. It is difficult for me to imagine another set of scenarios that could plausibly lead to popular support of a lockdown. Even our past lockdowns from this year were poorly enforced and basically voluntary (the worst punishment was largely being fined). Yeah businesses shuttered but at GREAT political expense to politicians which is why we have half assed our lockdowns repeatedly. Politicians couldn't bear any more pain. The last thing they want to do is lock down again. > I cannot forget that 9/11 has transformed us into a permanent surveillance state where our communications are tracked, travel by plane involves a search where someone gets to look at your privates Yeah 9/11 definitely enhanced the surveillance state which is deeply unfortunate, but we had security screening for planes long before we had 9/11, and it wasn't just 9/11 that made the experience miserable, it was the 10 follow on attacks targeting different vulns in the screening process (liquids, shoes, blah blah). The security measures need to be decently strong because we vehemently refuse to employ the more effective authoritarian technique of flagging passengers based on history and demographics like they do in places like Israel (eg, simply flag anyone with a higher probability of being a muslim because most attacks were performed by muslims). We are actually resisting the aggressive response in this case. > it is considered normal in low crime neighborhoods to require security badges and/or passing armed guards to get into office building This has nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11.
    - btilly 6y ago
      Yeah 9/11 definitely enhanced the surveillance state which is deeply unfortunate, but we had security screening for planes long before we had 9/11, and it wasn't just 9/11 that made the experience miserable, it was the 10 follow on attacks targeting different vulns in the screening process (liquids, shoes, blah blah). Actually there was no attack involving liquids. There was "chatter" indicating that someone might be thinking of combining liquids to make a bomb. We freaked and instituted the rule. Then discovered that it was a false alarm. But, having alerted everyone that terrorists could try to make a bomb that way, we now have the liquids rule. (Though the arbitrariness of 3 ounces is made clear by the rule that now lets 12 ounce bottles of hand sanitizer through...) The security measures need to be decently strong because we vehemently refuse to employ the more effective authoritarian technique of flagging passengers based on history and demographics like they do in places like Israel (eg, simply flag anyone with a higher probability of being a muslim because most attacks were performed by muslims). We are actually resisting the aggressive response in this case. There are two issues at play here. The first is that for political reasons, we don't want to do enhanced checks against the actual biggest danger - Saudi Arabia. (Half the 9/11 bombers were from there.) Second, targeting on the basis of religion poses some major Constitutional problems in the USA. And religious affiliation is not information that we can rely on having about people coming from elsewhere in the world. And third, the supply of potential terrorists is sufficiently large and Al Qaeda sufficiently well-organized that they could simply choose terrorists who don't appear to fit whatever our screening criteria happened to be. Israel doesn't have that problem because there aren't a supply of people from around the world who are willing to die for the Palestinian cause. However we had a British guy carrying a bomb in his shoe, a Russian (well actually Chechen) who set off a bomb in Boston, a white American shooting up an army base in Texas, and a Nigerian who carried a bomb in his underwear. This has nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11. To the contrary. I lived in New York when 9/11 happened. A ton of office buildings went from no security guard to security guards. Other office buildings that I later worked in in Los Angeles made the same shift at about the same time. The timing wasn't a coincidence.
- laszlokorte 6y ago
  I see that I am downvoted and I guess it is because my comment has been very simplistic and not explained well. I will try (in a perspective here from Germany): In general nothing here is really bad, nobody is killed or deported. So of course a comparison to the linked article is an exaggeration. But nonetheless since April the general mood in the country is be-surprised-and-accept driven: Businesses are closed on short term (last time on a friday end of september it was decided that on monday all restaurants, sport centers etc) must close (*takaway only). Because covid is propagated as this extreme dangerous risk nobody can complain. The whole public is only waiting what next rule is announced from week to week or month to month. People who refuse to wear a mask (for various reasons in various situations) are losing their jobs - either because the employer wants to get rid of them anyway and uses the not-mask-wearing as excuse or because their is real hate and fear between people in different groups. Their is no real philosophically based discussion about risk realted tradeoffs - only dictated policy. And in the background basic laws are rewritten/adjusted to reduce the overall freedom. For example here in Germany a basic right of privacy at home so except with an order of a judge the police is not allowed to enter. But it is tried (or even succeeded? I do not know) to allow police to enter homes in general in order to check if more than X people are inside. Or it is argued that people who violate a quarantine order should be locked into a psychiatry. Some (few) people fight back but in genral changes are just announced and accepted. It's a really slow process so many do not or want not to notice it but since april there are a lot of long term changes on the way that will alter the whole system to be more tolitarian/less free and which for sure will persist even after covid - all with covid as excuse.
  - tines 6y ago
    I appreciate your clarification, and for the record I am not one of the ones who downvoted you. I agree that police being free to enter your house without probable cause of a crime is not good, and I'm not sure how many people are arguing that those who violate the quarantine should be put in psychiatric care. That just seems like nonsense, I'd have to have proof that someone is seriously advocating that before opining. However, I think it's acknowledged that in dire times such as war and pestilence, the government can temporarily do things it couldn't do before until the crisis is over. For example, if an invading force has set up a machine gun on your property and the army attacks them, you probably shouldn't be able to sue them for trespassing. On the other hand, we have a constitutional right not to be required to give quarter to soldiers. What's the difference? It's the duration and immediacy of the danger I think. This is a judgment call. Of course the problem lies in the government usurping power for an unlimited or ill-defined time, such as for the "war on terror" which never ends. The pandemic, on the other hand, should have a definite and quantitative end, and I don't think stay-at-home orders or mask mandates necessarily lead to authoritarian progressions or curtailing of personal rights. Nobody is saying that the government should have a right to curtail, for example, the right to peaceably assemble forever; just until thousands of people per day stop dying. Maybe I'm wrong though, what do you think?
throwaway3699 6y ago
The current law changes are definitely terrifying, but I too would like to hear some specific points about how these are similar situations.
- laszlokorte 6y ago
  I tried to list a few examples that came to my mind in a sibling comment. But the issue is that it's not just about specific examples but about the overall drift in perspective, production of fear and slooow but steady changes. From my understanding that's exactly one of the points the OP article touched uppon: If you ask for specific examples of bad changes I can name a few and you can justfy each of them in one way or another. But the sum of it all points to a really bad outcome from which we all be looking back in a few years and will wonder how we got there. Actually the downvotes my original comment receives demonstrate the exact behavior the OP article describes.

tines 6y ago

Can you give an example?

troughway 6y ago
Not the OP, but HN could hardly stomach Snowden coming out without twisting themselves over with “oh yeah we knew that already, right fellas?”, never mind Assange who they still claim is a Russian shill. I would keep conspiracy talk far away from this board.
btilly 6y ago
We are in a state of emergency where the government has taken pretty direct control of people's lives, and businesses only remain in existence due to massive government intervention. It is for a good cause. However a couple of years from now, there will remain a temptation to use the same tools to address whatever normal problems we have. And that is a big step towards a planned economy like the Soviet Union had. It may sound like a wild conspiracy theory, and certainly the people who are doing it don't intend any such end. However I cannot forget that 9/11 has transformed us into a permanent surveillance state where our communications are tracked, travel by plane involves a search where someone gets to look at your privates, and it is considered normal in low crime neighborhoods to require security badges and/or passing armed guards to get into office buildings. If you'd asked the people who did that whether they had any such intent, I'm sure that they would have said no.
- OminousWeapons 6y ago
  > It is for a good cause. However a couple of years from now, there will remain a temptation to use the same tools to address whatever normal problems we have. And that is a big step towards a planned economy like the Soviet Union had. It is difficult for me to imagine another set of scenarios that could plausibly lead to popular support of a lockdown. Even our past lockdowns from this year were poorly enforced and basically voluntary (the worst punishment was largely being fined). Yeah businesses shuttered but at GREAT political expense to politicians which is why we have half assed our lockdowns repeatedly. Politicians couldn't bear any more pain. The last thing they want to do is lock down again. > I cannot forget that 9/11 has transformed us into a permanent surveillance state where our communications are tracked, travel by plane involves a search where someone gets to look at your privates Yeah 9/11 definitely enhanced the surveillance state which is deeply unfortunate, but we had security screening for planes long before we had 9/11, and it wasn't just 9/11 that made the experience miserable, it was the 10 follow on attacks targeting different vulns in the screening process (liquids, shoes, blah blah). The security measures need to be decently strong because we vehemently refuse to employ the more effective authoritarian technique of flagging passengers based on history and demographics like they do in places like Israel (eg, simply flag anyone with a higher probability of being a muslim because most attacks were performed by muslims). We are actually resisting the aggressive response in this case. > it is considered normal in low crime neighborhoods to require security badges and/or passing armed guards to get into office building This has nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11.
  - btilly 6y ago
    Yeah 9/11 definitely enhanced the surveillance state which is deeply unfortunate, but we had security screening for planes long before we had 9/11, and it wasn't just 9/11 that made the experience miserable, it was the 10 follow on attacks targeting different vulns in the screening process (liquids, shoes, blah blah). Actually there was no attack involving liquids. There was "chatter" indicating that someone might be thinking of combining liquids to make a bomb. We freaked and instituted the rule. Then discovered that it was a false alarm. But, having alerted everyone that terrorists could try to make a bomb that way, we now have the liquids rule. (Though the arbitrariness of 3 ounces is made clear by the rule that now lets 12 ounce bottles of hand sanitizer through...) The security measures need to be decently strong because we vehemently refuse to employ the more effective authoritarian technique of flagging passengers based on history and demographics like they do in places like Israel (eg, simply flag anyone with a higher probability of being a muslim because most attacks were performed by muslims). We are actually resisting the aggressive response in this case. There are two issues at play here. The first is that for political reasons, we don't want to do enhanced checks against the actual biggest danger - Saudi Arabia. (Half the 9/11 bombers were from there.) Second, targeting on the basis of religion poses some major Constitutional problems in the USA. And religious affiliation is not information that we can rely on having about people coming from elsewhere in the world. And third, the supply of potential terrorists is sufficiently large and Al Qaeda sufficiently well-organized that they could simply choose terrorists who don't appear to fit whatever our screening criteria happened to be. Israel doesn't have that problem because there aren't a supply of people from around the world who are willing to die for the Palestinian cause. However we had a British guy carrying a bomb in his shoe, a Russian (well actually Chechen) who set off a bomb in Boston, a white American shooting up an army base in Texas, and a Nigerian who carried a bomb in his underwear. This has nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11. To the contrary. I lived in New York when 9/11 happened. A ton of office buildings went from no security guard to security guards. Other office buildings that I later worked in in Los Angeles made the same shift at about the same time. The timing wasn't a coincidence.
laszlokorte 6y ago
I see that I am downvoted and I guess it is because my comment has been very simplistic and not explained well. I will try (in a perspective here from Germany): In general nothing here is really bad, nobody is killed or deported. So of course a comparison to the linked article is an exaggeration. But nonetheless since April the general mood in the country is be-surprised-and-accept driven: Businesses are closed on short term (last time on a friday end of september it was decided that on monday all restaurants, sport centers etc) must close (*takaway only). Because covid is propagated as this extreme dangerous risk nobody can complain. The whole public is only waiting what next rule is announced from week to week or month to month. People who refuse to wear a mask (for various reasons in various situations) are losing their jobs - either because the employer wants to get rid of them anyway and uses the not-mask-wearing as excuse or because their is real hate and fear between people in different groups. Their is no real philosophically based discussion about risk realted tradeoffs - only dictated policy. And in the background basic laws are rewritten/adjusted to reduce the overall freedom. For example here in Germany a basic right of privacy at home so except with an order of a judge the police is not allowed to enter. But it is tried (or even succeeded? I do not know) to allow police to enter homes in general in order to check if more than X people are inside. Or it is argued that people who violate a quarantine order should be locked into a psychiatry. Some (few) people fight back but in genral changes are just announced and accepted. It's a really slow process so many do not or want not to notice it but since april there are a lot of long term changes on the way that will alter the whole system to be more tolitarian/less free and which for sure will persist even after covid - all with covid as excuse.
- tines 6y ago
  I appreciate your clarification, and for the record I am not one of the ones who downvoted you. I agree that police being free to enter your house without probable cause of a crime is not good, and I'm not sure how many people are arguing that those who violate the quarantine should be put in psychiatric care. That just seems like nonsense, I'd have to have proof that someone is seriously advocating that before opining. However, I think it's acknowledged that in dire times such as war and pestilence, the government can temporarily do things it couldn't do before until the crisis is over. For example, if an invading force has set up a machine gun on your property and the army attacks them, you probably shouldn't be able to sue them for trespassing. On the other hand, we have a constitutional right not to be required to give quarter to soldiers. What's the difference? It's the duration and immediacy of the danger I think. This is a judgment call. Of course the problem lies in the government usurping power for an unlimited or ill-defined time, such as for the "war on terror" which never ends. The pandemic, on the other hand, should have a definite and quantitative end, and I don't think stay-at-home orders or mask mandates necessarily lead to authoritarian progressions or curtailing of personal rights. Nobody is saying that the government should have a right to curtail, for example, the right to peaceably assemble forever; just until thousands of people per day stop dying. Maybe I'm wrong though, what do you think?

throwaway3699 6y ago

The current law changes are definitely terrifying, but I too would like to hear some specific points about how these are similar situations.

laszlokorte 6y ago
I tried to list a few examples that came to my mind in a sibling comment. But the issue is that it's not just about specific examples but about the overall drift in perspective, production of fear and slooow but steady changes. From my understanding that's exactly one of the points the OP article touched uppon: If you ask for specific examples of bad changes I can name a few and you can justfy each of them in one way or another. But the sum of it all points to a really bad outcome from which we all be looking back in a few years and will wonder how we got there. Actually the downvotes my original comment receives demonstrate the exact behavior the OP article describes.