3 ms·

To any HN community that was here prior to the Edward Snowden releases: Prior to 2013, we had enough evidence (Mark Klein, etc) that US Gov was actively conduc

To any HN community that was here prior to the Edward Snowden releases: Prior to 2013, we had enough evidence (Mark Klein, etc) that US Gov was actively conducting bulk warrantless surveillance of Americans (not suspected of a crime). Back then, was there a dominant HN vibe about domestic spying (eg: yawn, apologist, anger)?

eastbound 3y ago
The mood back then was that domestic spying didn’t exist. As in: Imagine the scale it requires, you’re stupid if you believe, what, that the NSA tapes all of our records?!? Put your tinfoil hat back.
- jerkstate 3y ago
  I dunno, there's always been a greybeard contingent here that's been in or around telecom or otherwise know about Operation Shamrock, Echelon, room 641A, and so on, before Snowden.
  - fnordfnordfnord 3y ago
    Yeah and it was pretty common to be voted down and called a crank over it too.
    - pessimizer 3y ago
      Hence, "greybeard." Even when people are talking about something that they know to be true, they ground themselves in derogatory stereotypes about the people who were right.
      - jerkstate 3y ago
        Do you consider “greybeard” to be a derogatory stereotype? I sure don’t..
        20after4 3y ago
        I've seen it used with either positive or negative connotations depending on the context.
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    This is why I framed the question to see if there was a 'dominant vibe'. It sounds like there were voices in a position to best know but that they were a minority. I think I can infer that their education explanations didn't meaningfully change that dominant vibe.
colordrops 3y ago
You were called a nutjob for trying to bring it up. Once it became public, a lot of the narrative that you see now was developed behind the scenes by the people responsible for these systems. The (yawn, apologist, anger) was created as a playbook, and most people don't think for themselves, so they parrot this narrative. It is 100% clear that domestic spying in the US is unconstitutional and unethical. There is no debate, and those that present it as a debate, or even that you are naive for not wanting it, are in service of the narrative.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > The (yawn, apologist, anger) was created as a playbook, To be pedantic on this one point, I don't think that's the case. Warrantless surveillance of citizens not suspected of a crime is a divisive activity. People will reasonably stake out a position. I certainly did and do.
  - colordrops 3y ago
    It wasn't "divisive" until it was revealed to exist, and the narrative was pushed. The division was sowed. Before people knew of the extensive surveillance, there was no division - you were nuts for thinking that our government was capable of trampling on the law to do something like this in secret. It's only after the revelations that the waffling around whether it was legal and whether it was ethical started to arise.

eastbound 3y ago

The mood back then was that domestic spying didn’t exist. As in: Imagine the scale it requires, you’re stupid if you believe, what, that the NSA tapes all of our records?!? Put your tinfoil hat back.

jerkstate 3y ago
I dunno, there's always been a greybeard contingent here that's been in or around telecom or otherwise know about Operation Shamrock, Echelon, room 641A, and so on, before Snowden.
- fnordfnordfnord 3y ago
  Yeah and it was pretty common to be voted down and called a crank over it too.
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    Hence, "greybeard." Even when people are talking about something that they know to be true, they ground themselves in derogatory stereotypes about the people who were right.
    - jerkstate 3y ago
      Do you consider “greybeard” to be a derogatory stereotype? I sure don’t..
      - 20after4 3y ago
        I've seen it used with either positive or negative connotations depending on the context.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  This is why I framed the question to see if there was a 'dominant vibe'. It sounds like there were voices in a position to best know but that they were a minority. I think I can infer that their education explanations didn't meaningfully change that dominant vibe.

colordrops 3y ago

You were called a nutjob for trying to bring it up. Once it became public, a lot of the narrative that you see now was developed behind the scenes by the people responsible for these systems. The (yawn, apologist, anger) was created as a playbook, and most people don't think for themselves, so they parrot this narrative. It is 100% clear that domestic spying in the US is unconstitutional and unethical. There is no debate, and those that present it as a debate, or even that you are naive for not wanting it, are in service of the narrative.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> The (yawn, apologist, anger) was created as a playbook, To be pedantic on this one point, I don't think that's the case. Warrantless surveillance of citizens not suspected of a crime is a divisive activity. People will reasonably stake out a position. I certainly did and do.
- colordrops 3y ago
  It wasn't "divisive" until it was revealed to exist, and the narrative was pushed. The division was sowed. Before people knew of the extensive surveillance, there was no division - you were nuts for thinking that our government was capable of trampling on the law to do something like this in secret. It's only after the revelations that the waffling around whether it was legal and whether it was ethical started to arise.