4 ms·

The fact that money is trickling into this campaign, while campaigns such as one to send a heckled school bus driver on vacation explode with hundreds of thousa

The fact that money is trickling into this campaign, while campaigns such as one to send a heckled school bus driver on vacation explode with hundreds of thousands of dollars, shows our society's ignorance. This man is a hero, and is likely to be cannon fodder for the US Justice system. John Mccain went on CNN this morning and said that this whole thing isn't a big issue in the minds of most Americans and there won't be much if any political fallout. I am sure he is saying that with polling numbers in hand. Mark Udall, who has been trying to warn Americans about this for years, also appeared and was made to look like an overaggressive alarmist. They may as well have superimposed a tinfoil hat on him. This whole thing gives us a very scary glimpse into how pliable the populace is. Many assumed that the NSA was doing this, but not so obvious until this incident was the depth of ambivalence Americans have toward their rights. The stage is now set for a remakably dark future, and by the time the populace finally has enough, they will no longer have the power to stop it.

jnbiche 13y ago
I'm incredibly sad reading this, but I feel it's a pretty accurate glimpse into the future. People can't be bothered to care. Outside of libertarians, most people on the right are totally OK with this kind of wholesale spying on the population (since they've "done nothing wrong"). Outside of civil libertarians, most on the left are also OK with this, because "their guy" is in the White House (the fact that they pilloried Bush for the same behavior doesn't seem to occur to them). But the scariest thing of all is that all of these people in aggregate are a small portion of the population -- the vast majority just don't care enough about "politics" to inform themselves.
untog 13y ago
Let me throw a concept out there: there is not objective "correct" position to take in this case. Who are we to say that this level of surveillance is not worth it? We know very little if anything of what it has achieved. Consider for a while that the population is not "pliable", but that it is possible to have a differing opinion on this topic.
- downandout 13y ago
  This is how it starts. History proves that those who are willing to conditionally waive their rights (to privacy in this case) will see an inevitable erosion, followed by an unconditional elimination of those rights.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    History has demonstrated the opposite, at least in the U.S. You had no right to privacy on a telephone line, unlil eventually Congress passed a law against wiretapping and set controls on when the government could wiretap, controls which were later strengthened by the Supreme Court. Cell phones: Started off with no privacy. If you had a radio scanner you could legally intercept conversations, even if you were the government (after all, they were being broadcast right in the clear in plain view of anyone who had an antenna). Again, Congress passed a law to ban deliberate interception of these communications and set similar control s on the government. Even beepers had a specific law passed for them. On the other hand, your slippery slope argument has itself been used to support horrific policies. Does anyone remember the reasoning for Vietnam? It was based on a slippery-slope argument itself. The flipside of having a democracy is that people might actually choose to entrust the government with a given power. For example, the American people have seen practically no qualms whatsoever about the American government having things which are much more potentially dangerous: nuclear weapons.
- Amadou 13y ago
  I disagree. It is objectively correct that these programs need significantly more public accountability. The fact that their existence has been an official state secret is about as contradictory to American principles of government by the will of the people as it can get. I am aware of the argument that disclosing their existence makes them less effective and to that I say if we must violate our principles to defend them, we aren't really defending them.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  Idiotic sentiment. We know pretty well what is achieved based on government statistics and the "successes" that they actually show us: there is practically nothing achieved because the terror threat is practically non-existent for the US. I also have an anti-tiger rock. Just imagine how many tiger maulings that thing has saved me from! It was a steal at $100 Billion.
Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
I think there's a difference between the media and the populace.
supjeff 13y ago
Media is used to tell people they are part of a minority all the time. You and I don't actually know how many people know about this, and how many people care, so talking heads will gladly tell us we're all alone in our outrage and we shouldn't expect anything to happen.
saraid216 13y ago
Has it been posted to Reddit yet?

jnbiche 13y ago

I'm incredibly sad reading this, but I feel it's a pretty accurate glimpse into the future. People can't be bothered to care. Outside of libertarians, most people on the right are totally OK with this kind of wholesale spying on the population (since they've "done nothing wrong"). Outside of civil libertarians, most on the left are also OK with this, because "their guy" is in the White House (the fact that they pilloried Bush for the same behavior doesn't seem to occur to them). But the scariest thing of all is that all of these people in aggregate are a small portion of the population -- the vast majority just don't care enough about "politics" to inform themselves.

untog 13y ago

Let me throw a concept out there: there is not objective "correct" position to take in this case. Who are we to say that this level of surveillance is not worth it? We know very little if anything of what it has achieved. Consider for a while that the population is not "pliable", but that it is possible to have a differing opinion on this topic.

downandout 13y ago
This is how it starts. History proves that those who are willing to conditionally waive their rights (to privacy in this case) will see an inevitable erosion, followed by an unconditional elimination of those rights.
- mpyne 13y ago
  History has demonstrated the opposite, at least in the U.S. You had no right to privacy on a telephone line, unlil eventually Congress passed a law against wiretapping and set controls on when the government could wiretap, controls which were later strengthened by the Supreme Court. Cell phones: Started off with no privacy. If you had a radio scanner you could legally intercept conversations, even if you were the government (after all, they were being broadcast right in the clear in plain view of anyone who had an antenna). Again, Congress passed a law to ban deliberate interception of these communications and set similar control s on the government. Even beepers had a specific law passed for them. On the other hand, your slippery slope argument has itself been used to support horrific policies. Does anyone remember the reasoning for Vietnam? It was based on a slippery-slope argument itself. The flipside of having a democracy is that people might actually choose to entrust the government with a given power. For example, the American people have seen practically no qualms whatsoever about the American government having things which are much more potentially dangerous: nuclear weapons.
Amadou 13y ago
I disagree. It is objectively correct that these programs need significantly more public accountability. The fact that their existence has been an official state secret is about as contradictory to American principles of government by the will of the people as it can get. I am aware of the argument that disclosing their existence makes them less effective and to that I say if we must violate our principles to defend them, we aren't really defending them.
flyinRyan 13y ago
Idiotic sentiment. We know pretty well what is achieved based on government statistics and the "successes" that they actually show us: there is practically nothing achieved because the terror threat is practically non-existent for the US. I also have an anti-tiger rock. Just imagine how many tiger maulings that thing has saved me from! It was a steal at $100 Billion.

Andrew_Quentin 13y ago

I think there's a difference between the media and the populace.

supjeff 13y ago

Media is used to tell people they are part of a minority all the time. You and I don't actually know how many people know about this, and how many people care, so talking heads will gladly tell us we're all alone in our outrage and we shouldn't expect anything to happen.

saraid216 13y ago

Has it been posted to Reddit yet?