10 ms·

What strikes me most strongly about all this is how utterly weird it is. Border guards give 'enhanced pat downs' to a middle class suburban family and find no

What strikes me most strongly about all this is how utterly weird it is. Border guards give 'enhanced pat downs' to a middle class suburban family and find no weapons or contraband, but then open the family computer to find an unlicensed Finding Nemo avi, and haul them all off to jail. It's just such a bizarre mix of nanny-state and fascism. I know it's a pointless rhetorical question, but... how on earth has it come to this??

pwg 15y ago
> how on earth has it come to this?? First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Martin Niemöller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6) It has come to this one small step at a time. That is how politicians work. They know that the "whole" is to scary for voters to accept all at once. So they find just what they can get away with this year, then grab a tiny bit more next year, and so on. Eventually, everyone looks back and thinks "how on earth has it come to this??"
- tjoff 15y ago
  The scary part is that I don't imagine any politician actually wanting this. Or am I just too naive?
  - omgsean 15y ago
    They're not scrutinized at the border.
  - batista 15y ago
    I'll go with the too naive. What they want is maximum power/profit. And it's not politicians --those are mostly puppets. America is/is becoming a corporate state, and corporatism was the very essence of Mussolini's fascism. The very notion of lobbyist groups is fascistic (Mussolini himself partitioned the power system in Italy to consist of various group interests in a great extend). Power and law become then an exchange between groups (lobbying), experts (often paid lackeys of said groups), and politicians, and democracy goes out of the window. The democratic alternative would have been several opposed political parties, so that the play for power is open to the general masses --the population that supports them-- directly, and is carried out as a public struggle for the vote. But the differences between Republicans and Democrats in most matters are mostly marginal or a joke, and mainly in issues that don't matter to the actual power play --- like playing pro or against "gay marriage" to appeal to conservative or progressive voters, the same voters that both parties pass laws to make them poorer and more controlled in every possible way.
    - CWuestefeld 15y ago
      America is/is becoming a corporate state You're being way too reductionist, buying the anti-capitalist propaganda. To be sure, there's plenty of bad things to be said about corporations. But it's tremendously naive to believe that it's corporations that are calling all the shots. Remember, the corporations looking for these perks are every bit as dependent on the power of government as the government is on corporate donations. So directing ire at corporations for trying to get rents out of the government, without simultaneously excoriating government officials for selling out, is misguided. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the only viable strategy to combat this is to combat the government abuses. The corporations are doing what's natural: find places where they can get advantages over competitors, and take them to maximize shareholder value. But the government officials are more culpable. They are making promises that they (seem to) have no intention of keeping, and in doing so are blatantly violating their oaths of office. While the negative end results is the result of each, I believe that the members of the government are more immoral, and more deserving of our anger. And the answer is not greater legislation to control corporations. That's just giving the government more power that they can sell to the highest bidder. The answer is to strip away the government's power. This may seem counterintuitive, because it appears to leave us unprotected against corporate abuse. But when the vehicle to that abuse is through government power, then curtaining that power leaves the corporations themselves unarmed against us. This is really quite analogous to the arguments for/against gun control. Sure, demanding licensing of guns, etc., keeps the weapons out of the hands of much of the public. But the bad guys still get the guns, and the poor law-abiding citizens are then left defenseless. It's better, in my mind, to ensure that we can all compete on a level playing field, rather than handicap the citizenry so that the bad guys (or the corporations) get the power.
      - Hoff 15y ago
        ...You're being way too reductionist, buying the anti-regulation propaganda. To be sure, there's plenty of bad things to be said about regulations. But it's tremendously naive to believe that a lack of regulations - a case which we have recently experienced with the deregulation of the finance markets and of Wall Street, and the subsequent financial melt-down - will cure our ills. There is ample evidence of corporate fraud in recent years, not the least of which is around the mortgage securitization processes. We need a level playing field, with known, equitable rules, and with enforcement, and with judicial review. Commit to regulation and a pro-governance model? Lose. Commit to a corporate model and a pro-corporate model? Lose. It's about balance.
- mbreese 15y ago
  Do you realize how many people will find it offensive that you are using this quote to compare a treaty to the holocaust? There is a big difference between a treaty which may infringe on civil liberties and killing people based on their beliefs or ethnicity. It's okay to make slippery slope arguments, but let's not get into Godwin territory.
  - archgoon 15y ago
    I think it would be sad if Niemoller's point, that one must speak up for the rights of others, or no one will speak up for yours, was decided to be inapplicable in all situations, since his experience involved Nazis.
    - pjscott 15y ago
      There's always some excuse to avoid his point, especially when it most needs to be heard.
  - Silhouette 15y ago
    I realise this is always a sensitive area, but please consider that there are in fact laws on the books and government policies in many Western countries today that are every bit as evil as the kind of thing that was going on in Germany at that time. We have detention without trial for extended periods, or indefinitely if you mutter the magic word "terrorism". We have outright torture of detainees, and people dying in prisons. If a suspect does get to trial, it might be in a secretive court where they have no opportunity to confront their accuser or see and challenge all of the evidence against them. We have laws that allow government agents to infringe on almost every fundamental civil liberty by one kind of executive order or another, some of which are strikingly similar to the Enabling Act in their effect even if the intent was not necessarily the same. We have routine invasion of privacy and monitoring of the general populace without any reasonable grounds for suspicion/probable cause/whatever you like to call it. There are well-documented cases of routine national surveillance being set up by police or security services without any oversight or consent from elected governments. We have seen far too many cases of obvious abuse of peaceful protesters (or simply those caught in the wrong place at the wrong time) and in some cases we have seen courts accept a defence of the indefensible. We have seen deaths at the hands of police actions that were later shown to be completely unjustified and an operational screw-up from start to finish, for which no-one has ever been held accountable. The biggest difference between the situation today and the situation in Germany around the Second World War is a matter of scale, nothing more. And I think that is exactly the lesson that Pastor Niemoeller was trying to teach. While matters of intellectual property are hardly the stuff of revolutions, when you get into things like routine searches of private matters without justification, which in turn build on other obvious abuses that have been going in in the interests of "security" at transport hubs in recent years, I think you're way over the line into "why haven't we stopped this madness yet".
eurohacker 15y ago
but... how on earth has it come to this?? ,ay be it that the old oligarchy wants to preserve their power in society and wants that decisions are traditionally made in Bilderberg meetings , and its not good for them if something unplanned happens in the world - such as Arab springs Jay Rockefeller: Internet should have never existed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY
derleth 15y ago
> fascism How this this fascism in particular and not, say, Communism?
- gasull 15y ago
  In Communism (Stalinism), all the enterprises are owned by the Government. In Fascism the Government is owned by (some of) the corporations.
  - derleth 15y ago
    > In Fascism the Government is owned by (some of) the corporations. No, in Fascism the government owns the corporations and uses them to control society.
    - gasull 15y ago
      Not according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#General_characteristics_of_fascist_economies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#General_c... > "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."
      - wazoox 15y ago
        This eerily reminds me of recent events about private banks and public debts.
      - derleth 15y ago
        That doesn't support your position.
        gasull 15y ago
        In Fascism they are private enterprises. That's what the link says. In Communism they aren't private.
mbreese 15y ago
how on earth has it come to this?? Why do you believe that it has come to this? Has this happened to someone? Or are you just believing what is on wikipedia?
skeptical 15y ago
By taking advantage of the mindset of most off the people that still looks at the 'war on piracy' as a legit thing. That includes most of HN's uses unfortunately

pwg 15y ago

> how on earth has it come to this?? First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Martin Niemöller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6) It has come to this one small step at a time. That is how politicians work. They know that the "whole" is to scary for voters to accept all at once. So they find just what they can get away with this year, then grab a tiny bit more next year, and so on. Eventually, everyone looks back and thinks "how on earth has it come to this??"

tjoff 15y ago
The scary part is that I don't imagine any politician actually wanting this. Or am I just too naive?
- omgsean 15y ago
  They're not scrutinized at the border.
- batista 15y ago
  I'll go with the too naive. What they want is maximum power/profit. And it's not politicians --those are mostly puppets. America is/is becoming a corporate state, and corporatism was the very essence of Mussolini's fascism. The very notion of lobbyist groups is fascistic (Mussolini himself partitioned the power system in Italy to consist of various group interests in a great extend). Power and law become then an exchange between groups (lobbying), experts (often paid lackeys of said groups), and politicians, and democracy goes out of the window. The democratic alternative would have been several opposed political parties, so that the play for power is open to the general masses --the population that supports them-- directly, and is carried out as a public struggle for the vote. But the differences between Republicans and Democrats in most matters are mostly marginal or a joke, and mainly in issues that don't matter to the actual power play --- like playing pro or against "gay marriage" to appeal to conservative or progressive voters, the same voters that both parties pass laws to make them poorer and more controlled in every possible way.
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    America is/is becoming a corporate state You're being way too reductionist, buying the anti-capitalist propaganda. To be sure, there's plenty of bad things to be said about corporations. But it's tremendously naive to believe that it's corporations that are calling all the shots. Remember, the corporations looking for these perks are every bit as dependent on the power of government as the government is on corporate donations. So directing ire at corporations for trying to get rents out of the government, without simultaneously excoriating government officials for selling out, is misguided. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the only viable strategy to combat this is to combat the government abuses. The corporations are doing what's natural: find places where they can get advantages over competitors, and take them to maximize shareholder value. But the government officials are more culpable. They are making promises that they (seem to) have no intention of keeping, and in doing so are blatantly violating their oaths of office. While the negative end results is the result of each, I believe that the members of the government are more immoral, and more deserving of our anger. And the answer is not greater legislation to control corporations. That's just giving the government more power that they can sell to the highest bidder. The answer is to strip away the government's power. This may seem counterintuitive, because it appears to leave us unprotected against corporate abuse. But when the vehicle to that abuse is through government power, then curtaining that power leaves the corporations themselves unarmed against us. This is really quite analogous to the arguments for/against gun control. Sure, demanding licensing of guns, etc., keeps the weapons out of the hands of much of the public. But the bad guys still get the guns, and the poor law-abiding citizens are then left defenseless. It's better, in my mind, to ensure that we can all compete on a level playing field, rather than handicap the citizenry so that the bad guys (or the corporations) get the power.
    - Hoff 15y ago
      ...You're being way too reductionist, buying the anti-regulation propaganda. To be sure, there's plenty of bad things to be said about regulations. But it's tremendously naive to believe that a lack of regulations - a case which we have recently experienced with the deregulation of the finance markets and of Wall Street, and the subsequent financial melt-down - will cure our ills. There is ample evidence of corporate fraud in recent years, not the least of which is around the mortgage securitization processes. We need a level playing field, with known, equitable rules, and with enforcement, and with judicial review. Commit to regulation and a pro-governance model? Lose. Commit to a corporate model and a pro-corporate model? Lose. It's about balance.
mbreese 15y ago
Do you realize how many people will find it offensive that you are using this quote to compare a treaty to the holocaust? There is a big difference between a treaty which may infringe on civil liberties and killing people based on their beliefs or ethnicity. It's okay to make slippery slope arguments, but let's not get into Godwin territory.
- archgoon 15y ago
  I think it would be sad if Niemoller's point, that one must speak up for the rights of others, or no one will speak up for yours, was decided to be inapplicable in all situations, since his experience involved Nazis.
  - pjscott 15y ago
    There's always some excuse to avoid his point, especially when it most needs to be heard.
- Silhouette 15y ago
  I realise this is always a sensitive area, but please consider that there are in fact laws on the books and government policies in many Western countries today that are every bit as evil as the kind of thing that was going on in Germany at that time. We have detention without trial for extended periods, or indefinitely if you mutter the magic word "terrorism". We have outright torture of detainees, and people dying in prisons. If a suspect does get to trial, it might be in a secretive court where they have no opportunity to confront their accuser or see and challenge all of the evidence against them. We have laws that allow government agents to infringe on almost every fundamental civil liberty by one kind of executive order or another, some of which are strikingly similar to the Enabling Act in their effect even if the intent was not necessarily the same. We have routine invasion of privacy and monitoring of the general populace without any reasonable grounds for suspicion/probable cause/whatever you like to call it. There are well-documented cases of routine national surveillance being set up by police or security services without any oversight or consent from elected governments. We have seen far too many cases of obvious abuse of peaceful protesters (or simply those caught in the wrong place at the wrong time) and in some cases we have seen courts accept a defence of the indefensible. We have seen deaths at the hands of police actions that were later shown to be completely unjustified and an operational screw-up from start to finish, for which no-one has ever been held accountable. The biggest difference between the situation today and the situation in Germany around the Second World War is a matter of scale, nothing more. And I think that is exactly the lesson that Pastor Niemoeller was trying to teach. While matters of intellectual property are hardly the stuff of revolutions, when you get into things like routine searches of private matters without justification, which in turn build on other obvious abuses that have been going in in the interests of "security" at transport hubs in recent years, I think you're way over the line into "why haven't we stopped this madness yet".

eurohacker 15y ago

but... how on earth has it come to this?? ,ay be it that the old oligarchy wants to preserve their power in society and wants that decisions are traditionally made in Bilderberg meetings , and its not good for them if something unplanned happens in the world - such as Arab springs Jay Rockefeller: Internet should have never existed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY

derleth 15y ago

> fascism How this this fascism in particular and not, say, Communism?

gasull 15y ago
In Communism (Stalinism), all the enterprises are owned by the Government. In Fascism the Government is owned by (some of) the corporations.
- derleth 15y ago
  > In Fascism the Government is owned by (some of) the corporations. No, in Fascism the government owns the corporations and uses them to control society.
  - gasull 15y ago
    Not according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#General_characteristics_of_fascist_economies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#General_c... > "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."
    - wazoox 15y ago
      This eerily reminds me of recent events about private banks and public debts.
    - derleth 15y ago
      That doesn't support your position.
      - gasull 15y ago
        In Fascism they are private enterprises. That's what the link says. In Communism they aren't private.

mbreese 15y ago

how on earth has it come to this?? Why do you believe that it has come to this? Has this happened to someone? Or are you just believing what is on wikipedia?

skeptical 15y ago

By taking advantage of the mindset of most off the people that still looks at the 'war on piracy' as a legit thing. That includes most of HN's uses unfortunately