4 ms·

Wired used to be a magazine I subscribed and enjoyed reading. Too bad it is now yet another partisan piece. Government surveillance isn't ramping up under Trum

Wired used to be a magazine I subscribed and enjoyed reading. Too bad it is now yet another partisan piece. Government surveillance isn't ramping up under Trump. It was already here under Obama.

pavel_lishin 2y ago
The concern isn't about surveillance, as much as it is about what's being done with the data being collected.
- burningChrome 2y ago
  Which has been happening for decades. I find it more troubling the relationships between the government and the media more than I do surveillance at this point. When you have news outlets publishing outright lies and propaganda to create a narrative for an election, I think that is a lot more dangerous. Like when Democrats were touting Liz Cheney's endorsement of Harris. The same person whose father they wanted to string up by his thumbs, called him a war criminal and all kinds of adjectives to describe his massive no bid contracts for Halliburton during the Iraq wars. Trump said he's like to see what happens when she is handed a rifle and goes out and has seven or eight guns pointed at her. This comment was then repackaged to say that Trump was endorsing the assassination of Liz Cheney. That's not misconstruing something. That's not leaving out a detail here and there. It was an outright lie and straight misinformation that was pushed all over the media for two days. Even liberal leaning outlets had to finally step in and say that, no, that's not what he said. When you cannot trust the media any more because they are no longer one of the last checks on government overreach and influence and instead have a relationship where the government dictates to the media what they can and cannot report? That to me, is far more dangerous than surveillance.
  - beej71 2y ago
    > When you cannot trust the media any more because they are no longer one of the last checks on government overreach and influence I'd argue you can't trust them because of the First Amendment. They have a lot of leeway to say whatever they want. Like with an individual, trust is either earned or theirs to lose. > instead have a relationship where the government dictates to the media what they can and cannot report? That to me, is far more dangerous than surveillance. It is very dangerous. Is this happening, though? I don't recall Biden calling for pulling news channels' permits. Did he revoke press corps passes?
    - burningChrome 2y ago
      >> It is very dangerous. Is this happening, though? I don't recall Biden calling for pulling news channels' permits. Did he revoke press corps passes? So you don't remember the government going to social media platforms during Covid telling them they have to suppress information that contradicts the idea that if you get the vaccine you're 100% protected from getting or passing on the virus? Or the 55 CIA agents who signed a letter stating the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation even though they knew it wasn't, and then directed the media to push this complete lie to the general public? There are copious other examples, but you don't need to pull news channels permits or press passes. You just tell them what to report instead.
      - beej71 2y ago
        I remember the government asking them to do it, but have no recollection of them being required to do it. I do, however, recall Trump pulling White House press passes and threatening to cancel broadcast licenses. P.S. Go after Hunter all you want. Nobody cares.
Molitor5901 2y ago
I think mass government surveillance has been around since the mid-90s. In each successive administration it has been expanded. There's an excellent book called "No Place to Hide" by Robert O'Harrow, Jr. Written around 2002, it details public and private surveillance and how much of a losing battle it was for privacy. In 2002. As for Wired, I has been a subscriber for 15 years but the magazine became 80% advertisements, 15% paid promotional articles, and 5% actual news. The online has gotten a little better but.. Matt Honan destroyed Wired.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  The post 9/11 GWOT BS was when they really integrated and formalized all of it and generally ramped it up at all levels. It's just now tricking down to the everyman. Before it used to be they were going after the MLKs and the commie leaders. Then it was the people who pose smaller threats, infiltrating small extremist groups of all sorts of bents. Now it's trickled down even further to the random individuals who are buying shrooms and glock switches online and then getting harassed by the feds for it.
- autoexec 2y ago
  Obama campaigned on ending domestic spying by the NSA, and even taking into account that politicians will say anything to be elected, and that Obama was a skilled orator who was saying things I wanted to hear at the time, I really believed him when it said it was a dangerous violation of our civil liberties, but as soon as he was in office he expanded their spying powers and his speeches became pro-surveillance. At this point I'm not sure any president has the power to do anything about the NSA. Congress sure doesn't. The Director of National Intelligence outright lied to them and never saw a single consequence for it.
stevekemp 2y ago
It was the Clinton administration, back in the early nineties, that was all for pushing mandatory key escrow and the use of the Clipper Chip: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip So yes, you're right, it's nothing new for Trump, but it was old news under Obama too.
frontalier 2y ago
the wiki page for the 2010s global surveillance disclosures cites multiple wired articles here's some more articles to refresh your memory: https://duck.com/?q=site%3Awired.com+surveilance&df=2021-01-01..2023-12-31 https://duck.com/?q=site%3Awired.com+surveilance&df=2021-01-...

Wired used to be a magazine I subscribed and enjoyed reading. Too bad it is now yet another partisan piece. Government surveillance isn't ramping up under Trump. It was already here under Obama.

pavel_lishin 2y ago

The concern isn't about surveillance, as much as it is about what's being done with the data being collected.

burningChrome 2y ago
Which has been happening for decades. I find it more troubling the relationships between the government and the media more than I do surveillance at this point. When you have news outlets publishing outright lies and propaganda to create a narrative for an election, I think that is a lot more dangerous. Like when Democrats were touting Liz Cheney's endorsement of Harris. The same person whose father they wanted to string up by his thumbs, called him a war criminal and all kinds of adjectives to describe his massive no bid contracts for Halliburton during the Iraq wars. Trump said he's like to see what happens when she is handed a rifle and goes out and has seven or eight guns pointed at her. This comment was then repackaged to say that Trump was endorsing the assassination of Liz Cheney. That's not misconstruing something. That's not leaving out a detail here and there. It was an outright lie and straight misinformation that was pushed all over the media for two days. Even liberal leaning outlets had to finally step in and say that, no, that's not what he said. When you cannot trust the media any more because they are no longer one of the last checks on government overreach and influence and instead have a relationship where the government dictates to the media what they can and cannot report? That to me, is far more dangerous than surveillance.
- beej71 2y ago
  > When you cannot trust the media any more because they are no longer one of the last checks on government overreach and influence I'd argue you can't trust them because of the First Amendment. They have a lot of leeway to say whatever they want. Like with an individual, trust is either earned or theirs to lose. > instead have a relationship where the government dictates to the media what they can and cannot report? That to me, is far more dangerous than surveillance. It is very dangerous. Is this happening, though? I don't recall Biden calling for pulling news channels' permits. Did he revoke press corps passes?
  - burningChrome 2y ago
    >> It is very dangerous. Is this happening, though? I don't recall Biden calling for pulling news channels' permits. Did he revoke press corps passes? So you don't remember the government going to social media platforms during Covid telling them they have to suppress information that contradicts the idea that if you get the vaccine you're 100% protected from getting or passing on the virus? Or the 55 CIA agents who signed a letter stating the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation even though they knew it wasn't, and then directed the media to push this complete lie to the general public? There are copious other examples, but you don't need to pull news channels permits or press passes. You just tell them what to report instead.
    - beej71 2y ago
      I remember the government asking them to do it, but have no recollection of them being required to do it. I do, however, recall Trump pulling White House press passes and threatening to cancel broadcast licenses. P.S. Go after Hunter all you want. Nobody cares.

Molitor5901 2y ago

I think mass government surveillance has been around since the mid-90s. In each successive administration it has been expanded. There's an excellent book called "No Place to Hide" by Robert O'Harrow, Jr. Written around 2002, it details public and private surveillance and how much of a losing battle it was for privacy. In 2002. As for Wired, I has been a subscriber for 15 years but the magazine became 80% advertisements, 15% paid promotional articles, and 5% actual news. The online has gotten a little better but.. Matt Honan destroyed Wired.

potato3732842 2y ago
The post 9/11 GWOT BS was when they really integrated and formalized all of it and generally ramped it up at all levels. It's just now tricking down to the everyman. Before it used to be they were going after the MLKs and the commie leaders. Then it was the people who pose smaller threats, infiltrating small extremist groups of all sorts of bents. Now it's trickled down even further to the random individuals who are buying shrooms and glock switches online and then getting harassed by the feds for it.
autoexec 2y ago
Obama campaigned on ending domestic spying by the NSA, and even taking into account that politicians will say anything to be elected, and that Obama was a skilled orator who was saying things I wanted to hear at the time, I really believed him when it said it was a dangerous violation of our civil liberties, but as soon as he was in office he expanded their spying powers and his speeches became pro-surveillance. At this point I'm not sure any president has the power to do anything about the NSA. Congress sure doesn't. The Director of National Intelligence outright lied to them and never saw a single consequence for it.

stevekemp 2y ago

It was the Clinton administration, back in the early nineties, that was all for pushing mandatory key escrow and the use of the Clipper Chip: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip So yes, you're right, it's nothing new for Trump, but it was old news under Obama too.

frontalier 2y ago

the wiki page for the 2010s global surveillance disclosures cites multiple wired articles here's some more articles to refresh your memory: https://duck.com/?q=site%3Awired.com+surveilance&df=2021-01-01..2023-12-31 https://duck.com/?q=site%3Awired.com+surveilance&df=2021-01-...