3 ms·

Its fascinating and frightening watching the advancement of the legal powers and psychology necessary for a dictatorship in the USA. Its an open question whethe

by dmfdmf 15y ago

Its fascinating and frightening watching the advancement of the legal powers and psychology necessary for a dictatorship in the USA. Its an open question whether Americans will see it in time to stop it before said powers are used to suspend the constitution, in the "public interest" (via the Democrats) or "national security" (via the Republicans). In the end, the specific rationalization won't matter. Don't forget, the Nazis did not "take over" Germany but were legally voted into office where they proceeded to legally suspend the rights of German citizens. It is no accident that the US government is trying to control and throttle the internet. As dictatorships around the world have discovered, its the internet and freedom OR dictatorship. Our homegrown power lusters, such as Obama, are paying lip service to our rights while doing everything in their power to abrogate them. The internet has destroyed the traditional means (primarily via the NYT and the MSM) of controlling the political discourse and agenda . Like it or not, we are in the middle of the greatest social revolution since the invention of the printing press destroyed the power of the Catholic Church. See Clay Shirky's article on this topic; http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/ http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking... Nobody really knows how this will turn out.

coffeemug 15y ago
There is no evidence that any individual, oligarchy, or organization is driving the country towards a dictatorship. The truth is actually quite a bit scarier - it's the massive, complex, screeching, unstoppable human system that happened to have evolved a set of incentives that have nothing to do with dictatorship but drive the country towards one anyway. The congressmen are concerned by the next election, and the primary concern that currently drives american voters is the economy. So they're working to protect the intellectual property since it's pretty much the only thing we produce. That's a tiny assault on the constitution. The president is terrified of another terrorist attack because it will probably mean the end of his administration. So he has massive incentives to expand the rights of security organizations. That's a tiny assault on the constitution. The mayors are concerned with looking tough on crime, so they incentivize the police officers to stretch the concept of probably cause to clean up the streets. That's a tiny assault on the constitution from the other side, the municipalities. This goes on, and on. If we had a person or an organization to take a stand against, things would have been much easier. But how do you take a stand against a massive system that includes every commercial organization, individual, municipality, and state and federal agency in the country? Ultimately, a small group citizens concerned about individual freedoms cannot fight a massive system head on. There isn't enough energy or resources for dealing with millions of little issues one by one. The only way to make a difference is change the minds of the electorate in a scalable way. We haven't figured out a way to do that yet, because the right idea, the right meme that resonates with the majority of the populace hasn't been feed. This is why things may seem hopeless. But as we've grown to appreciate, this can change in a matter of days. TL;DR: freedom needs a viral YouTube video.
- tptacek 15y ago
  That, or, we built one of the most (econ) productive decades in the history of the country on a foundation of hastily constructed and sloppily deployed technology that is riddled from stem to stern with security vulnerabilities and are now belatedly realizing that most nation states can rally together a group of local teenagers and use them to plausibly cause 9-10 figure damages; that, unlike when Wargames was filmed, in the world of 2012 it might actually be possible for a "hacker" halfway around the world to disrupt the electrical grid or shut down trading on an electronic market, and now we're all going to spend 4 years arguing about who's going to pay to fix it. Unfortunately for the thread, what I just described is an economic and engineering problem, not the narrative arc of a Cory Doctorow novel; in other words, my comment is boring, and so surely scores lower than its parents on HN.
  - aero142 15y ago
    There is a big difference between what a bill says it does and what it will actually do. In this case, I am very confident that this bill will not improve the security problem you describe. I'm not even sure it's possible to write such a bill even with the best of intentions and the brightest people.
    - snowwrestler 15y ago
      You have to understand the problems that CISPA seeks to solve. 1) Corporations will not share cybersecurity vulnerability data for fear of attracting lawsuits. As a result, known, relatively simple attacks succeed at company after company after company. CISPA seeks to solve this problem by limiting liability for voluntary data sharing. In theory this will help improve everyone's security by improving the dissemination of knowledge. 2) Federal cybersecurity intelligence is classified and therefore not available to private companies, who by the way run the vast majority of the U.S. data infrastructure. CISPA commands federal intelligence services to create a way to share their classified data with companies. Again: better dissemination of knowledge. Both of these would help improve security.
- dmfdmf 15y ago

by dmfdmf 15y ago

coffeemug 15y ago

There is no evidence that any individual, oligarchy, or organization is driving the country towards a dictatorship. The truth is actually quite a bit scarier - it's the massive, complex, screeching, unstoppable human system that happened to have evolved a set of incentives that have nothing to do with dictatorship but drive the country towards one anyway. The congressmen are concerned by the next election, and the primary concern that currently drives american voters is the economy. So they're working to protect the intellectual property since it's pretty much the only thing we produce. That's a tiny assault on the constitution. The president is terrified of another terrorist attack because it will probably mean the end of his administration. So he has massive incentives to expand the rights of security organizations. That's a tiny assault on the constitution. The mayors are concerned with looking tough on crime, so they incentivize the police officers to stretch the concept of probably cause to clean up the streets. That's a tiny assault on the constitution from the other side, the municipalities. This goes on, and on. If we had a person or an organization to take a stand against, things would have been much easier. But how do you take a stand against a massive system that includes every commercial organization, individual, municipality, and state and federal agency in the country? Ultimately, a small group citizens concerned about individual freedoms cannot fight a massive system head on. There isn't enough energy or resources for dealing with millions of little issues one by one. The only way to make a difference is change the minds of the electorate in a scalable way. We haven't figured out a way to do that yet, because the right idea, the right meme that resonates with the majority of the populace hasn't been feed. This is why things may seem hopeless. But as we've grown to appreciate, this can change in a matter of days. TL;DR: freedom needs a viral YouTube video.

tptacek 15y ago
That, or, we built one of the most (econ) productive decades in the history of the country on a foundation of hastily constructed and sloppily deployed technology that is riddled from stem to stern with security vulnerabilities and are now belatedly realizing that most nation states can rally together a group of local teenagers and use them to plausibly cause 9-10 figure damages; that, unlike when Wargames was filmed, in the world of 2012 it might actually be possible for a "hacker" halfway around the world to disrupt the electrical grid or shut down trading on an electronic market, and now we're all going to spend 4 years arguing about who's going to pay to fix it. Unfortunately for the thread, what I just described is an economic and engineering problem, not the narrative arc of a Cory Doctorow novel; in other words, my comment is boring, and so surely scores lower than its parents on HN.
- aero142 15y ago
  There is a big difference between what a bill says it does and what it will actually do. In this case, I am very confident that this bill will not improve the security problem you describe. I'm not even sure it's possible to write such a bill even with the best of intentions and the brightest people.
  - snowwrestler 15y ago
    You have to understand the problems that CISPA seeks to solve. 1) Corporations will not share cybersecurity vulnerability data for fear of attracting lawsuits. As a result, known, relatively simple attacks succeed at company after company after company. CISPA seeks to solve this problem by limiting liability for voluntary data sharing. In theory this will help improve everyone's security by improving the dissemination of knowledge. 2) Federal cybersecurity intelligence is classified and therefore not available to private companies, who by the way run the vast majority of the U.S. data infrastructure. CISPA commands federal intelligence services to create a way to share their classified data with companies. Again: better dissemination of knowledge. Both of these would help improve security.
dmfdmf 15y ago