4 ms·

Scotus has refused to hear cases on Mass Surveillance for a long time. It tells you the quality of the court, as this is likely the largest single issue of our

Scotus has refused to hear cases on Mass Surveillance for a long time. It tells you the quality of the court, as this is likely the largest single issue of our time, touching everything from freedom to democracy to criminal law to the role of the judiciary and congress themselves...

tablespoon 4y ago
> It tells you the quality of the court, as this is likely the largest single issue of our time, touching everything from freedom to democracy to criminal law to the role of the judiciary and congress themselves... It doesn't really. This is one of those policy areas that the "tech subculture" tends to fixate on, but that doesn't in any way mean it's actually "the largest single issue of our time." It's pretty helpful to be mindful of your own biases and those of your subculture when making claims like that. What issues does the "tech subculture" not really pay attention to that could actually be far more significant?
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  With the greatest of respect, that's like saying Roe vs Wade was a niche gynaecology case or Miranda rights are just a question of procedural formalities. I am all for getting out of my tech bubble, but mass surveillance is way way beyond just the tech sector. The existence of warrantless wiretapping brings into question whether the courts even have the right to overrule government actions (a power SCOTUS gave itself back in the early days of the republic). They also circumvent key parts of 100 year old criminal law like the exclusionary rule. And that's just the legalise parts. Not to mention freedom, privacy, democracy etc.
  - nceqs3 4y ago
    >The existence of warrantless wiretapping If only FISA required warrants, ohh wait!
    - LatteLazy 4y ago
      Which would be great if FISA courts approval rate for warrants didn't make Soviet tribunals look soft. Or if FISA actually granted warrants for mass surveillance. Which they legally can't. And when the government did it anyway and lied to the court about it and it was reveiled at least one judge resigned in protest, but government kept doing it anyway. I mean seriously, FISA is a shitty system and even that wasn't shitty enough for what the US wants to do to its own people. If you want FISA, then you actually agree that we need to shut down 99% of the NSA and bring the executive branch to heel...
    - raxxorraxor 4y ago
      This lacking rhetorical remark is just stupid.
- janalsncm 4y ago
  > What issues does the "tech subculture" not really pay attention to that could actually be far more significant? Here’s one. They heard a case Moore v Harper that tests independent state legislature theory. Should state legislatures be allowed complete control over electors? Depending on how they rule, you’ll either never hear about it again or it will own the news cycle for a month.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  What does this even mean? Right, maybe there are other significant issues. Shouldn't be a competition, no? If it wasn't significant, it wouldn't be practiced by security agencies that long withdrew themselves from control. This is a complete new form of information gathering. That people aren't really good to classify abstract dangers is certainly a problem. People that know the technical aspects are able to classify the problem and inform others that are less tech savy. The normal user doesn't know how you can correlate data and extrapolate information. Nevertheless it is very much possible to an extend never before seen in any society. What do you believe to be more significant? Ressource consumption, politics, ecologic problems? All these issues are very intertwined with any other political topic.
concordDance 4y ago
How is it bigger issue than AI or climate change or dysgenics?
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  If the court were likely to hear a single case on whether all of AI or all of Climate Change were legal, and rule in a way that forces a change in government action, then those would be bigger cases. But I don't think the court is about to make climate change illegal (sadly) so...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ActorNightly 4y ago
Nah. The vast majority of people just virtue signal about privacy. They don't actually care (and when I say care, I mean feel strongly enough about it to change their actions to specifically avoid surveillance). Supreme Court is def stacked, but in this case, its likely they don't wanna waste their time with something that will 100% have no actionable outcome.
- possiblerobot 4y ago
  Is closing the door when you poop virtue signaling? Or are people really more interested in being seen closing the door? I think when given a set of options they understand, many people will choose more privacy from companies and the government because that’s what they want. I think that’s especially true when they understand the actual scope and scale of the surveillance.
- sholladay 4y ago
  Privacy done correctly - especially to a degree that can meaningfully defend against the techniques used for mass surveillance - is technically complicated. The general public feels helpless on the matter. That is why you hear people argue in favor of privacy without taking much action. Improved education will make them feel empowered to act. But we also have to improve the software. Many people switched to Signal recently when they heard about it for the first time. The only ones I know who stopped using it did so because of UX flaws. Why is there no mainstream browser with an "Enable Tor" button? Probably because it's the browser makers that are virtue signaling, not the public. The browser makers all rely on tracking you to make their business model sustainable. Give the people a true, reasonable choice for privacy and they will likely take it.
  - drsnow 4y ago
    >Why is there no mainstream browser with an "Enable Tor" button? Because using anything other than the Tor Browser Bundle is a good way to differentiate your usage from that of the vast majority of Tor users and render yourself more easily identifiable than otherwise.
m463 4y ago
There are a lot of checks and balances that break down over time. (I think of money/lobbying/laws/regulatory capture/copyright/etc) That said it's amazing that our government was basically architected in the 1700's. I wonder what the next iteration of government will look like?
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  I don't think the US will get one. Historically the only reforms the US has really seen were when it faced disaster (the great depression, WW1 and 2 and the cold war). The price of external hegemony is internal paralysis I suspect... I actually think SCOTUS is one of the better or at least more reformable parts. We've had terrible courts (deciding ex slaves cannot be citizens or sue in court for instance). And good ones. Right now, were in a reactionary phase after the 60s and 70s produced a great cultural advance. Once that dies out we might see more progress. Until then we wait and hope...
  - m463 4y ago
    I wasn't really asking about what the US will evolve into... I was wondering maybe.. mars? some new frontier where people can form their own government?

tablespoon 4y ago

> It tells you the quality of the court, as this is likely the largest single issue of our time, touching everything from freedom to democracy to criminal law to the role of the judiciary and congress themselves... It doesn't really. This is one of those policy areas that the "tech subculture" tends to fixate on, but that doesn't in any way mean it's actually "the largest single issue of our time." It's pretty helpful to be mindful of your own biases and those of your subculture when making claims like that. What issues does the "tech subculture" not really pay attention to that could actually be far more significant?

LatteLazy 4y ago
With the greatest of respect, that's like saying Roe vs Wade was a niche gynaecology case or Miranda rights are just a question of procedural formalities. I am all for getting out of my tech bubble, but mass surveillance is way way beyond just the tech sector. The existence of warrantless wiretapping brings into question whether the courts even have the right to overrule government actions (a power SCOTUS gave itself back in the early days of the republic). They also circumvent key parts of 100 year old criminal law like the exclusionary rule. And that's just the legalise parts. Not to mention freedom, privacy, democracy etc.
- nceqs3 4y ago
  >The existence of warrantless wiretapping If only FISA required warrants, ohh wait!
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    Which would be great if FISA courts approval rate for warrants didn't make Soviet tribunals look soft. Or if FISA actually granted warrants for mass surveillance. Which they legally can't. And when the government did it anyway and lied to the court about it and it was reveiled at least one judge resigned in protest, but government kept doing it anyway. I mean seriously, FISA is a shitty system and even that wasn't shitty enough for what the US wants to do to its own people. If you want FISA, then you actually agree that we need to shut down 99% of the NSA and bring the executive branch to heel...
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    This lacking rhetorical remark is just stupid.
janalsncm 4y ago
> What issues does the "tech subculture" not really pay attention to that could actually be far more significant? Here’s one. They heard a case Moore v Harper that tests independent state legislature theory. Should state legislatures be allowed complete control over electors? Depending on how they rule, you’ll either never hear about it again or it will own the news cycle for a month.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
What does this even mean? Right, maybe there are other significant issues. Shouldn't be a competition, no? If it wasn't significant, it wouldn't be practiced by security agencies that long withdrew themselves from control. This is a complete new form of information gathering. That people aren't really good to classify abstract dangers is certainly a problem. People that know the technical aspects are able to classify the problem and inform others that are less tech savy. The normal user doesn't know how you can correlate data and extrapolate information. Nevertheless it is very much possible to an extend never before seen in any society. What do you believe to be more significant? Ressource consumption, politics, ecologic problems? All these issues are very intertwined with any other political topic.

concordDance 4y ago

How is it bigger issue than AI or climate change or dysgenics?

LatteLazy 4y ago
If the court were likely to hear a single case on whether all of AI or all of Climate Change were legal, and rule in a way that forces a change in government action, then those would be bigger cases. But I don't think the court is about to make climate change illegal (sadly) so...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ActorNightly 4y ago

Nah. The vast majority of people just virtue signal about privacy. They don't actually care (and when I say care, I mean feel strongly enough about it to change their actions to specifically avoid surveillance). Supreme Court is def stacked, but in this case, its likely they don't wanna waste their time with something that will 100% have no actionable outcome.

possiblerobot 4y ago
Is closing the door when you poop virtue signaling? Or are people really more interested in being seen closing the door? I think when given a set of options they understand, many people will choose more privacy from companies and the government because that’s what they want. I think that’s especially true when they understand the actual scope and scale of the surveillance.
sholladay 4y ago
Privacy done correctly - especially to a degree that can meaningfully defend against the techniques used for mass surveillance - is technically complicated. The general public feels helpless on the matter. That is why you hear people argue in favor of privacy without taking much action. Improved education will make them feel empowered to act. But we also have to improve the software. Many people switched to Signal recently when they heard about it for the first time. The only ones I know who stopped using it did so because of UX flaws. Why is there no mainstream browser with an "Enable Tor" button? Probably because it's the browser makers that are virtue signaling, not the public. The browser makers all rely on tracking you to make their business model sustainable. Give the people a true, reasonable choice for privacy and they will likely take it.
- drsnow 4y ago
  >Why is there no mainstream browser with an "Enable Tor" button? Because using anything other than the Tor Browser Bundle is a good way to differentiate your usage from that of the vast majority of Tor users and render yourself more easily identifiable than otherwise.

m463 4y ago

There are a lot of checks and balances that break down over time. (I think of money/lobbying/laws/regulatory capture/copyright/etc) That said it's amazing that our government was basically architected in the 1700's. I wonder what the next iteration of government will look like?

LatteLazy 4y ago
I don't think the US will get one. Historically the only reforms the US has really seen were when it faced disaster (the great depression, WW1 and 2 and the cold war). The price of external hegemony is internal paralysis I suspect... I actually think SCOTUS is one of the better or at least more reformable parts. We've had terrible courts (deciding ex slaves cannot be citizens or sue in court for instance). And good ones. Right now, were in a reactionary phase after the 60s and 70s produced a great cultural advance. Once that dies out we might see more progress. Until then we wait and hope...
- m463 4y ago
  I wasn't really asking about what the US will evolve into... I was wondering maybe.. mars? some new frontier where people can form their own government?