17 ms·
Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight
- okaydude100 2y ago[flagged]
- hamhock666 2y agoYes if the people are not there to hold leaders accountable in a democracy, bad things like this will continue to happen
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- WarOnPrivacy 2y agoDoes anyone want to suggest some reasons why, the one thing that D+R always, always, always agree on is this: US Gov/LEO/IC must be gifted the most power possible to surveil Americans who are not suspected of a crime
- kolanos 2y agoAbsolute power corrupts absolutely.
- outlore 2y agohorseshoe theory. D+R are not so different. D in US is more right than other countries' left leaning parties
- dexwiz 2y agoBoth sides are mostly rich or put there by the rich. A few populist reps get outsized airtime, but that isn’t the majority of people running the show.
- ryandrake 2y agoThere are a lot more similarities between "both sides" than that. They make a big show out of arguing over a small number of things they disagree on. But for many important things, they don't significantly differ. The two parties do not significantly differ on indefinite detention of American citizens on US soil. The two parties do not significantly differ on domestic spying, dragnet-style data collection and warrantless wiretapping. The two parties do not significantly differ on allowing extra-judicial targeted killings. The two parties do not significantly differ on the use of unmanned drones, either for combat or domestic surveillance. The two parties both support pre-emptive "cyber" war and non-defensive hacking. The two parties do not significantly differ on their support for continuing the War On Terror. The two parties both support maintaining US military bases around the world. The two parties do not significantly differ on favoring Keynesian economics. The two parties support delegating monetary policy decisions to the Federal Reserve, including support for quantitative easing. The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of earmarks and pork barrel spending. Neither of the two parties have (recently) proposed plans for balancing the budget. Neither of the two parties plans to significantly cut defense spending. The two parties both favor taxpayer-funded foreign aid. The two parties are largely backed by the same corporate sponsors and special interest groups, with a few key differences. The two parties both backed TARP and in general favor bailing out companies too big to fail. The two parties do not significantly differ on their general support of "economic stimulus" as a tool to prop up the economy. The two parties do not significantly differ on their support for and allegiance to Israel. The two parties both favor and continue sanctions on Iran. The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of super PAC funding and their support of unlimited spending from corporations and special interest groups. The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of gerrymandering to gain political advantage. The two parties oppose any measures that would strengthen the viability of a third party.
- golergka 2y agoMany of these points are just common sense. Does America really need a major party that's insane on one of the important issues?
- avianlyric 2y agoMinor correction > D in US is more right than other countries' left leaning parties D in US is more right than other countries' right leaning parties
- SSJPython 2y ago> D in US is more right than other countries' left leaning parties I don't think this is accurate. Maybe on healthcare and welfare, sure. But on many social issues, the Democrats are much further to the left than the European left. On issues such as abortion, gender/sexuality, migration, and race, the Democrats are more extreme compared to Labour in the UK, SPD in Germany, and the PSOE in Spain. Even the left in France isn't as socially extremist as the Democrats.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Larrikin 2y agoIt's a boring take from more than 30 years ago that was kinda true in the Regan years when the dominant voting groups could pretend that elected officials and government didn't actually matter because they all voted similarly and discrimination against groups that disagreed had been publicly accepted for decades. Historical electoral maps were not usually competitive at all like they are now. The both parties are the same is such a lazy take, except in super limited circumstances like this naked power grab in the article. Both are going to use it in wildly different ways
- mamonster 2y ago>Even the left in France isn't as socially extremist as the Democrats. Depends which left which you are talking about. LFI is certainly on that level in their way, PS/Place Publique are not(given that "printemps républicain" was part of what killed popular support for the party).
- monocasa 2y agoI mean, those countries have other further left parties with held seats in their legislatures up to and including outright explicit communist parties. Those parties you listed are known for being center to center left in Europe, sometimes explicitly escuing the left as UK Labour and SPD have done. Excpet PSOE which is farther left than the Democrats, having all of the identity politics of the Democratic party while being explicitly and empathetically pro union. Heads would have rolled if PSOE had broken the rail workers strike that like Biden did. The also tried to legalize abortion in the Spanish constitution in the 1970s, and haven't wavered on their view of abortion since. They passed same sex marriage when they got their first chance to (and before the US did), and used the same opportunity to expand transgender rights.
- dukeyukey 2y agoLeft and right are different in different countries. In the US, the Republicans are generally pro-building (see where new homes and factories are being built). But in the UK, the left party (Labour) is the one pushing for less onerous planning.
- hamhock666 2y agoBecause it gives them more power, and nobody cares to organize or do anything about it in terms of voting out said politicians.
- dotnet00 2y agoThey're ultimately the same, the partisanship is mostly a farce as they both know that they're the only realistic options, so as long as neither side goes out of its way to seriously be better than the other, they can both enjoy the perks of being in power eventually, and therefore increased power is always good from their pov as regardless of party, they'll eventually have access to that power too.
- coolbreezetft24 2y ago> the partisanship is mostly a farce This was noticeably on display for me in 2020 right after it was determined that Biden had won the election. Lindsey Graham, a Republican Senator, was caught on video in the Senate chamber warmly congratulating and hugging Kamala Harris, a D senator and VP-elect. It was as if they both knew Graham's hyper-partisan antics during the preceding months before the vote was all just an act - a part of the game. I'd bet that he secretly voted for Biden/Harris as well and will do so again.
- Cacti 2y agoThis is basic human empathy from a very small group of insiders. I mean, this is their job. Do you think they all go around work being dicks to each other all day every day? Besides, it cost him nothing.
- int_19h 2y agoTheir job is to represent us, supposedly. And they keep trying to whip their own supporters into frenzy against each other (quite successfully, I should note - so much so that it's already getting violent at times). The fact that the people doing so are themselves chum buddies tells volumes.
- bugglebeetle 2y agoI would imagine because the IC already uses those same surveillance powers to get dirt on enough politicians to make sure this happens.
- stufffer 2y agoThey had to add a rule about not using it to spy on Congress. That tells you all you need to know about how often fisa is abused.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y agoThis may turn out to be the most true thing ever uttered on the internet.
- vkou 2y ago[flagged]
- kbolino 2y agoThe bureaucrats regularly present scary information to the politicians to justify their actions and powers. The juiciest bits of intelligence are intentionally selected for escalation up the chain, with many being presented ASAP at the highest levels (SECDEF, President) and/or retained for later demonstration to oversight authorities (FISA court, Congressional committees). While much of "raw" intelligence is not reliable, the agencies can curate the best (most believable/most sensational/most verified) intelligence reports over time. Given recent events in the Middle East and the fact that both parties' senior politicians mostly lean the same way in terms of which sides they support, this result is unsurprising if disappointing.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Tarq0n 2y agoI suspect in the incentives, the downside risk weighs much heavier for these people. If they block surveillance powers and another 9/11 happened they'd be dragged over the coals, whereas approving them is pretty risk free.
- api 2y agoIf anything happens any politician who voted no can be accused of being responsible for “missing the next 9/11” or being “soft on terror.” If nothing happens most people don’t understand or care either way.
- Nifty3929 2y agoBecause politicians want power and control over the citizens. They might use it for different things, but power is power.
- Dalewyn 2y agoI'm pretty damn sure you have it backwards. The intelligence crapmunity wants power, and politicians are merely the means to an end. See what happens when a politician of any stature dares to defy them.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- greenavocado 2y agoChuck Schumer: "Six ways from Sunday"
- memish 2y ago“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-trump-being-really-dumb-by-going-after-intelligence-community/ https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-t...
- CamperBob2 2y agoIf that were true, Trump would have been carried out of Helsinki feet-first.
- pas 2y agowhy, what was/happened in Helsinki?
- CamperBob2 2y agoTrump announced that he believed Putin over his own intelligence. But then there was the time Biden installed Hunter on the White House staff and ordered that he be given a security clearance, despite dozens of discrepancies, undisclosed foreign contacts, and other red flags on the paperwork. Oh, wait, no, that was Trump, too.
- ipaddr 2y agoThe only person willing to take them on is Trump. Look at all of the fake cases and mainstream media attacking that followed. I don't think anyone can stop them now. When America is replaced as a world power that day will come.
- tophi 2y ago[flagged]
- webninja 2y agoOne way some people suggest is at least one of the 3-letter intelligence communities will send/drop CP on their computer or phone if that congressmen doesn’t vote their way. If that’s even partially true, then it makes them more powerful than all of the elected bodies. https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ThIfbGXWTxBITTsj18aBw https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ThIfbGXWTxBITTsj18aBw
- verdverm 2y agoI think you have things a bit backwards. Without FISA, the intelligence agencies have less oversight and fewer restrictions. > The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon's usage of federal resources, including law enforcement agencies, to spy on political and activist groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...
- hypothesis 2y ago> Without FISA, the intelligence agencies have less oversight and fewer restrictions. What restrictions are you talking about? Constitutional warrant requirement was sidestepped using this law and you are still cheering here.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoWell, before FISA, constitutional warrant requirements were not sidestepped, they were simply ignored. So now we're acknowledging that the constitutional requirements are still there, but now we use this weird dodge to get around it. So is that better or worse?
- hypothesis 2y agoAre you really asking if being unconstitutional is worse than being codified and legal? I’m not the one here cheering for demise of constitutional republic…
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoNeither am I cheering for it. Don't put words in my mouth. I am seriously asking whether being flat-out unconstitutional is worse than building a (legislated and approved) backdoor around the constitution, yes. I mean, better than both would be to just follow the constitution, but that wasn't the question.
- akira2501 2y agoCorruption of our intelligence agencies to the point they've been weaponized against our own elected officials.
- int_19h 2y agoHave there ever been a point where our law enforcement and intelligence agencies haven't been weaponized by our politicians against their opposition? FBI under Hoover, COINTELPRO, Watergate...
- ComposedPattern 2y agoI would guess that Democratic and Republican politicians want to give more power to the USA government because they are the USA government.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoThe F in FISA stands for foreign.
- ofslidingfeet 2y agoOnce upon a time, this would have been the only thing the internet talked about today. Top of reddit, thousands of comments on news articles, etc. Now we get suppression and astroturfing from a bunch of autocrats who despise democracy and call themselves the "Intelligence Community."
- karpatic 2y agoIt was noticeable how hard the topic felt suppressed, even on hn somehow
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoSince it expired at midnight and reauthorization passed after midnight, was there a period where the government acted illegally in continuing surveillance? How does that work?
- Brybry 2y agoLegally there wasn't a need to rush, the FISA court had certified the process until 2025. [1] But probably companies could have stopped cooperating and challenged it in court. [1] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-urges-colleagues-to-reject-expanding-warrantless-fisa-702-surveillance#:~:text=renewed https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-urges...
- njarboe 2y agoHere is a link to how the senators voted[1]. [1]https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1182/vote_118_2_00150.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1... Unfortunately both my senators voted for it. I did call their offices Thursday to no avail.
- bwanab 2y agoIt's the first time I can ever remember on a contested vote where both the two Democratic Senators from my current bluer than blue state voted the same (nay) as the two Republican Senators from my former redder than red state. Strange bedfellows in interesting times.
- throwaway35777 2y ago{Montana, North Dakota} --> {Washington}?
- bilekas 2y agoYou don't see any value in FISA?
- bilekas 2y agoLots of people downvote. Would love opinions.
- hackernewds 2y agowhat change would a call affect?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- hellcow 2y agoI'm really disappointed that even in CA (which is pushing for better privacy rights with CCPA), one of our senators voted for this.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- calibas 2y agoSo if I communicate with a non-US citizen, I effectively forfeit my right to privacy? Am I understand this correctly?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- v7n 2y agoForfeiting sounds intentional. How would you know the nationality of all participants in a conversation?
- Barracoon 2y agoTechnically, it’s if you communicate to a target of a foreign intelligence investigation AND they deem you suspect enough to request FISA approval to access your side of the communication.
- fifteen1506 2y agonetwork American (tm)
- jedberg 2y agoWhat's most interesting is that this wasn't on party lines. The yes/no mix is very mixed party-wise. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1182/vote_118_2_00150.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
- hammock 2y agoAgreed that’s interesting. Really makes you think about all these crackpots talking about a uniparty, deep state vs the people, etc
- screenoridesaga 2y ago[dead]
- stanford_labrat 2y agoBecause in reality the two party system is not accurate. It’s rich versus poor, those with power versus those without. Nobility versus peasants. That’s just how it works.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Gud 2y agoThat's how it works in the USA, not necessarily how it works. Other forms of governing exists. A big step forward for the USA would be a vast reduction of federal power over the states.
- pessimizer 2y agoOther countries don't institutionalize the two-party system by law. Because it would be insane and antidemocratic to create a complicated network of laws that would have to be eliminated state by state in order to ordain that an entire country must be ruled by two intimately-linked private clubs in turn.
- WhereIsTheTruth 2y agoDemocracy baby! /s
- Buttons840 2y agoPeople who get elected are not like regular people. Until we fill at least one branch of government with randomly selected people, we don't have a democracy.
- ein0p 2y agoOnly one thing can make these people work past midnight: abusing the American public. “Representation”, my ass. None of them represents me or anyone I know.
- Zancarius 2y agoAgreed, but the cynical side of me thinks that they are representing their constituents. It's just that neither you nor me are their constituents. They pay lip service only during an election year. I'm politically very conservative. I hate every single one of the Republicans. They claim to want smaller government and less intrusion and then vote for... bigger government, more intrusion, and endless wars. I still vote, though. Mostly, at this point, it feels like an act of protest more than anything.
- ein0p 2y agoI struggle to nail down my political affiliation because there’s literally just one party. They quibble over materially irrelevant hot button issues to create the illusion of choice, but all the bullshit that robs me and my kids or strips us of our rights is _always_ “bipartisan”, passed without reading in the dead of the night. And yeah the only two choices in our upcoming “elections” here are a guy with profound dementia who shakes hands with invisible people, and a narcissist moron con man who writes at a fourth grade level and capitalizes nouns for no reason. And neither side considers this to be a problem. I’m beginning to think this is some kind of a joke and the ruling class is just trying to see how far they can take it before people revolt.
- thejazzman 2y ago"pro life" is a pretty hard (and exploitive) line separating the two
- ein0p 2y agoKeep paying attention to that while they borrow $2T a year and give it to their friends.
- xyst 2y agoThis was going to pass regardless of the outcry. The unnecessary drama of stalling until after midnight is all theater. We need a significant change in leadership for all those that voted this in. If I recall correctly, this bill also includes an expansion of surveillance performed by federal law enforcement agencies and NSA.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> This was going to pass regardless of the outcry There was a real moment in the House where it might not have, at least without a warrant requirement. My Congresswoman was one of the attack dogs on this issue. She thought they would get an outpouring of support. She didn’t. The call sheets registered basically zero calls in support, and several lobbying against. So she caved. (This is a pattern I saw play out in New York years earlier in another privacy battle.) > The unnecessary drama of stalling until after midnight is all theater Sort of. The Senate calendar is funky. Putting it at the end of the roll was theatre. Having something voted on after midnight was not.
- user_7832 2y ago> There was a real moment in the House where it might not have, at least without a warrant requirement. My Congresswoman was one of the attack dogs on this issue. She thought they would get an outpouring of support. She didn’t. The call sheets registered basically zero calls in support, and several lobbying against. So she caved. (This is a pattern I saw play out in New York years earlier in another privacy battle.) What's odd/interesting to me is that there's been little chatter of late regarding this. I spend an unhealthy amount of time on HN/Reddit/X and save for a few mild posts (as opposed to alarmist or clickbaity) on the topic, I barely see anything. During the net neutrality thing back when Ajit Pai was around I remember there was massive support. And I don't think I've ever heard of the NY privacy thing you mention. I wonder why it's so.
- FezzikTheGiant 2y agoHey, I replied to your comment about building an open source version of Aqua Voice. Emailed you about it too. Let me know your thoughts.
- srj 2y agoI find you can get a good idea of what's going on from reading between the lines of Wyden's statements. As a member of the intelligence committee he cannot directly disclose the operational details, but you can look at where he's concerned. From the CNN article on this: >> Another amendment at issue was from Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, a member of the Intelligence Committee. His amendment, which was co-sponsored by several of the most liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans in the chamber, would strike a new part of the program that he argued would lead every day Americans into helping the government spy if they have “access to equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store wire or electronic communications.” On the face of it, any cellphone or smartwatch seems to fit that definition. They could be converting everything into a listening device, recording all of it, and then making it available to intel officers only when they query for it and can argue one party is a foreign national.
- hangsi 2y ago"Beautiful. Unethical. Dangerous." So says Morgan Freeman's character Lucius Fox in 2008 in The Dark Knight[0]. The rest of the tech imagined in that scene is plausible today too, considering the density of WiFi/5G and research demonstrating the potential for its use as passive radar [1]. That paper metions a cooperative base station, but I am wondering if there is any value gained in knowing exactly what the traffic is (such as some of the intelligence community does) in modelling how the waves propagate and performing an even more passive observation. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRELLH86Edo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRELLH86Edo [1] Samczyński et al. 2021 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9661315 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=966...
- araes 2y agoOther info: This reauthorization of FISA includes the Turner-Himes amendment introduced by Reps. Mike Turner (R-OH) and Jim Himes (D-CT). (introduced House, passed Senate) The Turner-Himes amendment expands the definition of “electronic communications service (ECS) provider” to include “any service provider” that has “access to equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store wire or electronic communications.” (except not personal dwellings and restaurants) Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) comment: “It allows the government to force any American who installs, maintains, or repairs anything that transmits or stores communications to spy on the government’s behalf. That means anyone with access to a server, a wire, a cable box, a wifi router, or a phone. It would be secret: the Americans receiving the government directives would be bound to silence, and there would be no court oversight.” EFF comment: “The Justice Department is playing word games when it says the amendment doesn’t change the ‘structure’ of 702 because the law prohibits targeting entities inside the United States. Garland’s pledge, isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on; if this amendment becomes law, the DOJ can and almost certainly will rely on it to conscript other providers who fit within its very broad scope.” Notably, Trump doesn't like FISA? (removed yelly caps) “Kill FISA, it was illegally used against me, and many others. They spied on my campaign!!!” Pelosi's speech was amusing: “I don’t have the time right now, but if members want to know I’ll tell you how we could have been saved from 9/11 if we didn’t have to have the additional warrants.” https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/18/24134196/senate-cloture-vote-fisa-section-702-surveillance https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/18/24134196/senate-cloture-v... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/12/fisa-surveillance-act-reauthorized https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/12/fisa-surveil...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- _8j50 2y agoThis is FISA right? The target is foreign individuals and entities? It seems by default HN is against it, can someone articulate why? There are elected representatives of the people providing oversight and it seems to have strong bipartisan support. Is there a popular line of thought with tech people that is suggesting foreign surveillance isn't neccesary? Or should some provision of the law be updated to protect americans' data?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- int_19h 2y agoThere's so much information online on why and how FISA is bad, this is honestly hard to take as a serious question asked in good faith. But assuming that it is, start with the Wikipedia article for FISA and go from there; it has plenty food for thought, and links to more.
- _8j50 2y agoThis the only relevant paragraph under the criticism section of the wiki page: > The ACLU considers the FISA Act to be unconstitutional for several reasons including: the law was designed to mainly address terrorism threats, but in fact intercepts communications that have nothing to do with terrorism or criminal activity of any kind; and that "the government can create huge databases that contain information about U.S. persons obtained without warrants and then search these databases at a later point." As I understand, these databases are only created if the other party is foreign, is that not the case? I asked in earnest but you made this about my intent instead of articulating your views. My conclusion so far is that the HN crowd is jumping on the bandwagon and can't take any critique of the popular sentiment. I have much critique of the patriot act and other provisions but FISA itself has been around since 1978 apparently. I was merely trying to figure out what specifically were the opposing views because in general, foreign surveillance is not optional.
- int_19h 2y agoThis is not just about FISA but about all the amendments that have been tacked onto it since then. The criticism of those amendments is covered in the corresponding section in the Wikipedia article. All this stuff has been around for literally decades at this point, and at some point people just get tired rehashing the same old stuff to every new person coming in and asking, "what's wrong with that?".
- deviantbit 2y agoIt amazes me how we can pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights we want to abate, while all of it is being obscured into history. We were united around the Bill of Rights, now we've been brainwashed into believing no one should have rights. 1A, Nope, you have to have facts, and specific facts, and a subject-matter expert, source? 2A, Ban all guns, the government will protect us. 3A, No worry, they're not soldiers, they're law enforcement. 4A, Unreasonable search and seizure? What was unreasonable about us listening to your phone call? 5,6,7A, Fair trail? What public figure is getting a fair trail, and has been unreasonable fines? But he deserves it. 8A, The death penalty is fair, right? I mean, if evidence ever shows up that exonerates them, we can dig them up, right? 9A I don't think anyone cares what order we get rid of these, right? 10A Those states don't have rights, it's my body, right? I don't vote anymore. No offense, you all disgust me.
- kdasme 2y agoI can relate to your opinions. Still, I’m going to mentions this: please, vote. Otherwise you are a part of the problem.
- deviantbit 2y agoWe were once called liberals. We believed in unalienable rights. Guess what, my liberties are gone, people are dying in wars, and I'm not happy. If you wanted to be part of this experiment we call the United States, you could gain citizenship by learning and understanding what liberalism meant. Not anymore, just cross the border, we will give you a debit card, and just wait, because we're going to make you a citizen, and your uneducated self will help us burn this nation to the ground. No war will go unfunded, no problem will be solved, and we will teach you to hate everyone else. This while everyone is screaming about their abortion access while the Nation goes bankrupt. We have $34T in debt, every 93 days we add another $1T. If you're all such internet geniuses, you should have figured that soon, and very soon, that starts walking away from the Treasuries' ability to pay just the interest. Democrats will scream raise taxes on the rich, but guess what, there are not enough of them to tax. They won't agree to cutting spending cuts. Republicans will refuse to cut the military because we have to defend Taiwan, and against every mythical and imaginary enemy. But wait, there is more, Democrats want to expand surveillance on anyone practicing the 1A, the 2A, while violating the 4A & 5A. Everything is about what you can get from this country. No one listened to John F. Kennedy. He was murdered. "Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country..." It is all about what you can get out of this for yourself. It doesn't matter if you're a billionaire or some guy on the street. You're trying to get what is best for you, not what is best for all of us. I want what is best for this Nation. I served, my grandfathers served, my children serve now. But F-U when you tell me I'm part of the problem. I understood what I was fighting for, you have no clue why we're even here.
- alex_young 2y agoThis isn’t just a reauthorization. It included provisions that make most US businesses give the NSA direct access to communications equipment: https://x.com/lizagoitein/status/1781546937675657392?s=46&t=Q5EXJgwOhFksDcS2uz525w https://x.com/lizagoitein/status/1781546937675657392?s=46&t=...
- enlightenedfool 2y agoThe surveillance state is bound to happen anyway. There’s just no path for one country to be an ideal democracy with a world full of autocracies. The citizens of US had a good run while it lasted. They did fight well and was worth a try.