12 ms·

Trying to litigate a matter of national intelligence through the courts is the wrong approach to use. The government has nearly unlimited powers in matters of n

Trying to litigate a matter of national intelligence through the courts is the wrong approach to use. The government has nearly unlimited powers in matters of national security, which includes the collection of intelligence. The right approach for those who believe to have standing is to write to your congressman or senator, especially if they sit on the House or the Senate Intelligence committees. Or, better, to run for office yourself. The latter advice applies to a host of other issues. If you want to save the environment, do not study environmental science. Study politics, and become a politician, at the local, state, or federal level. Gain some hard political power to make or break laws and policies. If you care about voting rights, do not become an activist. Become a politician, and marshal support for a bill. If you care about government surveillance, do not try to fix the problem through your lawyer. Become a member of Congress and marshal support for a bill. We want to have our cake and eat it. To solve the problems of society without making sacrifices. To go home at 6pm and tell the wife that you won in court against the government, have successfully nullified the government's surveillance powers, go to bed at 10, and go to work in the morning. Rather than leave your field to run for office, and possibly make a permanent career change. How many software engineers on this forum would consider becoming full time politicians for the remainder of their career and leave the tech field entirely? Few. Because as much as we like to write walls of text about the issues we pretend to be passionate about, few of us consider these problems to be little more than fictional annoyances that we don't seriously, really care about enough to make personal sacrifices to change. /rant

rmah 5y ago
I find it sad that the above comment was heavily downvoted given that he's is correct.
- nickysielicki 5y ago
  Hardly. > Trying to litigate a matter of national intelligence through the courts is the wrong approach to use. The government has nearly unlimited powers in matters of national security, which includes the collection of intelligence. The right approach for those who believe to have standing is to write to your congressman or senator, especially if they sit on the House or the Senate Intelligence committees. This isn't the way the government is supposed to work. We cannot count on the legislature to pass constitutional laws in all circumstances, that's why we have these landmark court cases that overturn bad laws. To say that the real solution is to just hope and pray that the legislature comes to their senses and reforms the laws themselves completely circumvents the role of our courts. If that was realistic, why do we have courts at all?
  - riversflow 5y ago
    >This isn't the way the government is supposed to work. But clearly this is how the government currently works. If you don't want it to work that way, you'll need to change it. >To say that the real solution is to just hope and pray that the legislature comes to their senses No, the solution isn't hope and prayers, its activism, donations and getting others politically involved (especially about things that aren't the president).
    - nickysielicki 5y ago
      The courts are an independent body of government, the legislature has (and should always have) zero impact on the way that the courts make decisions. That's by design. This decision was rooted in common law. The onus is on the courts to reassert authority to review these cases, not on anyone else. There are no elections or legislation that will impact this.
      - pas 5y ago
        Clearly the elections end up influencing who sits on the bench.
        nickysielicki 5y ago
        In this decision, there were three judges: > Judge Diaz [Obama] wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge Motz [Clinton] joined as to Parts I and II.A, and in which Judge Rushing [Trump] joined as to Part II.B.2 and C. > Judge Motz [Clinton] wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge Rushing [Trump] wrote an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment. https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201191.P.pdf https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201191.P.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fourth_Circuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals... Three judges from three administrations and both parties, all in agreement and disagreement. It's that way because they're a circuit court and they're applying law and precedent.
ziddoap 5y ago
"Just become a politician, gain political power, and change everything" What about the rest of the owl?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Did you expect changing the way an entire country does something would be easy?
  - ziddoap 5y ago
    Quite the opposite, which is why my comment is poking fun at the parent post which summarizes to "just become a powerful politician".
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      But the "joke" only works if parent had presented the solution as something that shouldn't be difficult or that was the expectation. If the expectation is that changing this thing is difficult, and parent gave solutions that are indeed difficult, how does pointing out that it is actually difficult add up to humor?
      - ziddoap 5y ago
        >only works if parent had presented the solution as something that shouldn't be difficult Sort of like presenting a decades long journey of politics as: >Become a member of Congress and marshal support for a bill. Or telling people they should just: >Gain some hard political power to make or break laws and policies. Because it certainly read to me that the parent is grossly understating the effort, time, commitment, and luck required to just "become a member of congress" and wield "some hard political power to make or break laws". They make it seem like tomorrow I can walk into Congress and get to changing laws by Monday. Hence, where's the rest of the owl?
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
waiseristy 5y ago
Don't know why you were immediately down-voted, litigation is the wrong approach to use, since the litigation process is already captured by our national security cabal. I think many of us here writing walls of text plan to run for office, but do not have access to the kind of capital that it would take to actually have a chance
- WealthVsSurvive 5y ago
  Yes, I'd like to know exactly what part of our current US government is tenable even from within. The only office I can think of is the unitary executive. The Senate was created in the founding father's own words to protect the "opulent from the many". The house is perpetually obstructed by this Senate, the likes of which smarter nations have discarded. But, even the house is captured in such a manner that citizens in more populated states have less representative voting power than slaves during the 3/5 compromise. What other option is left, aside from rebirth? It's no coincidence that dark forces conspire to now "get out in front" of this zeitgeist and swap the baby in its cradle for something ugly.
- kelnos 5y ago
  Unless you are rich, you can't just decide to run for President (or Congress) tomorrow without having any existing political experience. First stop would be to run for a local elected office, like a school board, county/city treasurer, or something like that. If your city has some sort of city council, work your way up to that. From there, give mayor a go. Next stop might be your state legislature. From there, you might have enough popularity and name recognition to run for the US House. If the US Senate is your goal, you may have to spend more time at the state level -- controller, secretary of state, perhaps lieutenant governor or governor -- before you'll have the backing for a US Senate run. And that's the thing. Even if everything goes to plan, you're looking at 10-20 years before you're competitive enough to get into US Congress (either chamber, but the Senate will take more work and time). I'm not surprised that it's hard for people to go from "I'm really upset with how the US is turning into a surveillance state; I wish there was something I could do to change that", to "I'm gonna ditch my existing career and dedicate the next several decades of my life to politics". And consider that doing all that is no guarantee you'll be successful! Even if you make it to the House or Senate, it'll still be a hugely uphill battle to get any kind of surveillance reform bill passed and signed into law.
deathanatos 5y ago
The legislative branch asked: > "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" To which, of course, Clapper answered, under oath, > "No, sir." And then, later, as the article recounts: > Upstream's existence was revealed in leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 and the lawsuit was filed in the aftermath of those revelations. Or as Snowden puts it: > "seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress" The legislative branch cannot check the executive branch if the executive branch simply lies when asked "are you violating the Constitution?". I have no idea why Feinstein herself (as then chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee) doesn't laud Snowden as a hero for revealing the truth: that the committee she chaired got lied to. I have no idea why California continues to re-elect her, beyond they see "Democrat" and vote. Choose a different democrat.
- WillPostForFood 5y ago
  The lie is now well known, and the legislature is still free to check the executive branch and the NSA.
  - DudeInBasement 5y ago
    "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you" - Schumer. Please site 1 example of them using their power of ledger
- gweinberg 5y ago
  Yes. The courts can't control the executive branch, the legislature can't control the executive branch, the president can't control the executive branch.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    It sounds like you're bordering on deep-state conspiracy theory wrongthink here.
- 5y ago
gorwell 5y ago
The sacrifice element is key. To quote Douglas Adams, “The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem. And so this is the situation we find: a succession of Galactic Presidents who so much enjoy the fun and palaver of being in power that they very rarely notice that they’re not. And somewhere in the shadows behind them—who? Who can possibly rule if no one who wants to do it can be allowed to?”
- akimball 5y ago
  One word answer: sortition
nescioquid 5y ago
Of course, that is the correct answer! But, if you actually want to change the country, you must first go into finance or otherwise accumulate the wealth and influence needed to "corrupt" enough legislators into abolishing the current campaign financing and lobbying rules, so that all those whom you exhort might actually have a chance of winning office. Note this also immediately removes your source of power (not something people often do voluntarily). I really don't see an obvious way to change things from within the system. I hope there is, otherwise we get either unending corporate feudalism or revolution.
- indigochill 5y ago
  And how does one see revolution going against the world's most-funded military (by a long shot) staffed by lifelong professional soldiers wielding an arsenal almost all of which is extremely restricted? I'm not saying revolution would be desirable (heck, I wouldn't have supported the original American revolution - why kill people over taxation?), but the concept of revolution is some weird persistent American fantasy just because it miraculously worked once three centuries ago against an adversary across the ocean during the Age of Sail (and when France immediately tried the same thing, it devastated their country). It doesn't even bear mentioning today. Anyway, undermining corporate feudalism seems more likely. People just have to sacrifice convenience and support ethical small businesses. Corporate behemoths rely on the masses for profitability. Cut that off, and they have no legs to stand on.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    > And how does one see revolution going against the world's most-funded military (by a long shot) staffed by lifelong professional soldiers wielding an arsenal almost all of which is extremely restricted? The military is made up of citizens who would likely be divided in case of a revolution. And what the last several military involvements have shown, if anything, is that a bunch of motivated amatuers with ready access to guns and extensive knowledge of the terrain can give our elite military serious problems.
  - nescioquid 5y ago
    I agree with you about revolution, though things could play out more along the lines of 1989 in Romania or East Germany. At some point, officials quit obeying orders among mass demonstrations. > ...undermining corporate feudalism seems more likely. People just have to sacrifice convenience and support ethical small businesses. I am dubious that we can essentially consume our way out of our political problems.
FpUser 5y ago
Translation - everyone who wants to have their rights respected must quit doing whatever they do and become a politician. And we of course would leave it to a career politicians to bake our bread, write software etc. etc.
lsiebert 5y ago
If you care about an issue, any issue, the answer is to find like minded people and build or attend a meeting, a coalition, a movement, or some other form of solidarity between individuals to pursue it. Maybe that means you get elected, maybe it means candidates seek your support, but unless you have millions of dollars to donate, your biggest power is not as an individual, but as part of a group.
danielrpa 5y ago
I thought that our representative system existed exactly so we don't all need to become politicians or have to vote on every issue through direct democracy. There is hope for software engineers working together to improve access to information instead of, argh, becoming all politicians. That also would be to the detriment of the entire human race which wouldn't have as many software engineers.
TeMPOraL 5y ago
At the risk of sounding defeatist, I don't think this strategy works. It's a static view of what is a dynamic system with strong feedback loops. Feedback loops that all but ensure one of the following outcomes: - You succeed in becoming a politician with the power you need, but in the process you either no longer care about your original goal, or are bound by enough deals with other people that you can't do anything about your goal. - You succeed in becoming a politician, but you get marginalized because your co-workers realize you can't be trusted to play along. - You fail at becoming a politician, because your co-workers realize you won't play along, and ensure you never get anywhere close to any power. The way I see it, the whole system has evolved to protect itself from changes that hurt its participants.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Consultant32452 5y ago
If you want to understand how to actually save the environment become an economist. If you want the hypothetical power to save the environment but no ability to effectively do so become a politician. If you want to save the environment, become a billionaire. They are the only ones with the power to move the needle in a way that isn't limited by bumper marketability to the media.

rmah 5y ago

I find it sad that the above comment was heavily downvoted given that he's is correct.

nickysielicki 5y ago
Hardly. > Trying to litigate a matter of national intelligence through the courts is the wrong approach to use. The government has nearly unlimited powers in matters of national security, which includes the collection of intelligence. The right approach for those who believe to have standing is to write to your congressman or senator, especially if they sit on the House or the Senate Intelligence committees. This isn't the way the government is supposed to work. We cannot count on the legislature to pass constitutional laws in all circumstances, that's why we have these landmark court cases that overturn bad laws. To say that the real solution is to just hope and pray that the legislature comes to their senses and reforms the laws themselves completely circumvents the role of our courts. If that was realistic, why do we have courts at all?
- riversflow 5y ago
  >This isn't the way the government is supposed to work. But clearly this is how the government currently works. If you don't want it to work that way, you'll need to change it. >To say that the real solution is to just hope and pray that the legislature comes to their senses No, the solution isn't hope and prayers, its activism, donations and getting others politically involved (especially about things that aren't the president).
  - nickysielicki 5y ago
    The courts are an independent body of government, the legislature has (and should always have) zero impact on the way that the courts make decisions. That's by design. This decision was rooted in common law. The onus is on the courts to reassert authority to review these cases, not on anyone else. There are no elections or legislation that will impact this.
    - pas 5y ago
      Clearly the elections end up influencing who sits on the bench.
      - nickysielicki 5y ago
        In this decision, there were three judges: > Judge Diaz [Obama] wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge Motz [Clinton] joined as to Parts I and II.A, and in which Judge Rushing [Trump] joined as to Part II.B.2 and C. > Judge Motz [Clinton] wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge Rushing [Trump] wrote an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment. https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201191.P.pdf https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201191.P.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fourth_Circuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals... Three judges from three administrations and both parties, all in agreement and disagreement. It's that way because they're a circuit court and they're applying law and precedent.

ziddoap 5y ago

"Just become a politician, gain political power, and change everything" What about the rest of the owl?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Did you expect changing the way an entire country does something would be easy?
- ziddoap 5y ago
  Quite the opposite, which is why my comment is poking fun at the parent post which summarizes to "just become a powerful politician".
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    But the "joke" only works if parent had presented the solution as something that shouldn't be difficult or that was the expectation. If the expectation is that changing this thing is difficult, and parent gave solutions that are indeed difficult, how does pointing out that it is actually difficult add up to humor?
    - ziddoap 5y ago
      >only works if parent had presented the solution as something that shouldn't be difficult Sort of like presenting a decades long journey of politics as: >Become a member of Congress and marshal support for a bill. Or telling people they should just: >Gain some hard political power to make or break laws and policies. Because it certainly read to me that the parent is grossly understating the effort, time, commitment, and luck required to just "become a member of congress" and wield "some hard political power to make or break laws". They make it seem like tomorrow I can walk into Congress and get to changing laws by Monday. Hence, where's the rest of the owl?
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

waiseristy 5y ago

Don't know why you were immediately down-voted, litigation is the wrong approach to use, since the litigation process is already captured by our national security cabal. I think many of us here writing walls of text plan to run for office, but do not have access to the kind of capital that it would take to actually have a chance

WealthVsSurvive 5y ago
Yes, I'd like to know exactly what part of our current US government is tenable even from within. The only office I can think of is the unitary executive. The Senate was created in the founding father's own words to protect the "opulent from the many". The house is perpetually obstructed by this Senate, the likes of which smarter nations have discarded. But, even the house is captured in such a manner that citizens in more populated states have less representative voting power than slaves during the 3/5 compromise. What other option is left, aside from rebirth? It's no coincidence that dark forces conspire to now "get out in front" of this zeitgeist and swap the baby in its cradle for something ugly.
kelnos 5y ago
Unless you are rich, you can't just decide to run for President (or Congress) tomorrow without having any existing political experience. First stop would be to run for a local elected office, like a school board, county/city treasurer, or something like that. If your city has some sort of city council, work your way up to that. From there, give mayor a go. Next stop might be your state legislature. From there, you might have enough popularity and name recognition to run for the US House. If the US Senate is your goal, you may have to spend more time at the state level -- controller, secretary of state, perhaps lieutenant governor or governor -- before you'll have the backing for a US Senate run. And that's the thing. Even if everything goes to plan, you're looking at 10-20 years before you're competitive enough to get into US Congress (either chamber, but the Senate will take more work and time). I'm not surprised that it's hard for people to go from "I'm really upset with how the US is turning into a surveillance state; I wish there was something I could do to change that", to "I'm gonna ditch my existing career and dedicate the next several decades of my life to politics". And consider that doing all that is no guarantee you'll be successful! Even if you make it to the House or Senate, it'll still be a hugely uphill battle to get any kind of surveillance reform bill passed and signed into law.

deathanatos 5y ago

The legislative branch asked: > "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" To which, of course, Clapper answered, under oath, > "No, sir." And then, later, as the article recounts: > Upstream's existence was revealed in leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 and the lawsuit was filed in the aftermath of those revelations. Or as Snowden puts it: > "seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress" The legislative branch cannot check the executive branch if the executive branch simply lies when asked "are you violating the Constitution?". I have no idea why Feinstein herself (as then chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee) doesn't laud Snowden as a hero for revealing the truth: that the committee she chaired got lied to. I have no idea why California continues to re-elect her, beyond they see "Democrat" and vote. Choose a different democrat.

WillPostForFood 5y ago
The lie is now well known, and the legislature is still free to check the executive branch and the NSA.
- DudeInBasement 5y ago
  "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you" - Schumer. Please site 1 example of them using their power of ledger
gweinberg 5y ago
Yes. The courts can't control the executive branch, the legislature can't control the executive branch, the president can't control the executive branch.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  It sounds like you're bordering on deep-state conspiracy theory wrongthink here.
5y ago

gorwell 5y ago

The sacrifice element is key. To quote Douglas Adams, “The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem. And so this is the situation we find: a succession of Galactic Presidents who so much enjoy the fun and palaver of being in power that they very rarely notice that they’re not. And somewhere in the shadows behind them—who? Who can possibly rule if no one who wants to do it can be allowed to?”

akimball 5y ago
One word answer: sortition

nescioquid 5y ago

Of course, that is the correct answer! But, if you actually want to change the country, you must first go into finance or otherwise accumulate the wealth and influence needed to "corrupt" enough legislators into abolishing the current campaign financing and lobbying rules, so that all those whom you exhort might actually have a chance of winning office. Note this also immediately removes your source of power (not something people often do voluntarily). I really don't see an obvious way to change things from within the system. I hope there is, otherwise we get either unending corporate feudalism or revolution.

indigochill 5y ago
And how does one see revolution going against the world's most-funded military (by a long shot) staffed by lifelong professional soldiers wielding an arsenal almost all of which is extremely restricted? I'm not saying revolution would be desirable (heck, I wouldn't have supported the original American revolution - why kill people over taxation?), but the concept of revolution is some weird persistent American fantasy just because it miraculously worked once three centuries ago against an adversary across the ocean during the Age of Sail (and when France immediately tried the same thing, it devastated their country). It doesn't even bear mentioning today. Anyway, undermining corporate feudalism seems more likely. People just have to sacrifice convenience and support ethical small businesses. Corporate behemoths rely on the masses for profitability. Cut that off, and they have no legs to stand on.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  > And how does one see revolution going against the world's most-funded military (by a long shot) staffed by lifelong professional soldiers wielding an arsenal almost all of which is extremely restricted? The military is made up of citizens who would likely be divided in case of a revolution. And what the last several military involvements have shown, if anything, is that a bunch of motivated amatuers with ready access to guns and extensive knowledge of the terrain can give our elite military serious problems.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  I agree with you about revolution, though things could play out more along the lines of 1989 in Romania or East Germany. At some point, officials quit obeying orders among mass demonstrations. > ...undermining corporate feudalism seems more likely. People just have to sacrifice convenience and support ethical small businesses. I am dubious that we can essentially consume our way out of our political problems.

FpUser 5y ago

Translation - everyone who wants to have their rights respected must quit doing whatever they do and become a politician. And we of course would leave it to a career politicians to bake our bread, write software etc. etc.

lsiebert 5y ago

If you care about an issue, any issue, the answer is to find like minded people and build or attend a meeting, a coalition, a movement, or some other form of solidarity between individuals to pursue it. Maybe that means you get elected, maybe it means candidates seek your support, but unless you have millions of dollars to donate, your biggest power is not as an individual, but as part of a group.

danielrpa 5y ago

I thought that our representative system existed exactly so we don't all need to become politicians or have to vote on every issue through direct democracy. There is hope for software engineers working together to improve access to information instead of, argh, becoming all politicians. That also would be to the detriment of the entire human race which wouldn't have as many software engineers.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

At the risk of sounding defeatist, I don't think this strategy works. It's a static view of what is a dynamic system with strong feedback loops. Feedback loops that all but ensure one of the following outcomes: - You succeed in becoming a politician with the power you need, but in the process you either no longer care about your original goal, or are bound by enough deals with other people that you can't do anything about your goal. - You succeed in becoming a politician, but you get marginalized because your co-workers realize you can't be trusted to play along. - You fail at becoming a politician, because your co-workers realize you won't play along, and ensure you never get anywhere close to any power. The way I see it, the whole system has evolved to protect itself from changes that hurt its participants.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Consultant32452 5y ago

If you want to understand how to actually save the environment become an economist. If you want the hypothetical power to save the environment but no ability to effectively do so become a politician. If you want to save the environment, become a billionaire. They are the only ones with the power to move the needle in a way that isn't limited by bumper marketability to the media.