4 ms·

The scary thing is this: these people were already voted away. People voted for Obama when he promised the end of warrantless wiretapping, the closing down of G

The scary thing is this: these people were already voted away. People voted for Obama when he promised the end of warrantless wiretapping, the closing down of Guantanamo, etc. Why should voters believe the next guy who promises these things? It feels hopeless.

Mordor 13y ago
All the more reason to push for Obama's resignation.
- Amygaz 13y ago
  And to elect who? Someone who most likely voted for that IAH to start with?
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    IAH also happens to be the code for George Bush International Airport.
    - oinksoft 13y ago
      Sr. got an airport named after him? Reminds me when they renamed National to Reagan National. I thought Nixon National would be catchier if the bar's that low.
      - heynk 13y ago
        He also got the Center of Intelligence named after him: https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/todays-cia/george-bush-center-for-intelligence https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/todays-cia/george-bush-center-...
inthewind 13y ago
Welcome to democracy (or rather the facade)! Does the US president actually have that much individual power anyway? I wish it was more like the film Dave, inasmuch as that the president on his first day questions all the wrongs, and suggests to put them all right! People love a figurehead to moan and blame, but it's not ever as simple as that. I'm not making excuses for Obama, but he's also up against the establishment. The weird thing is, I'd read about Prism a few weeks back, and like others have just been under the assumption that my electronic data isn't secure. That's not to say I'm happy about it. If the NSA wasn't doing it, then someone else would be. I know that's a pretty crappy line, but it's the normal diatribe for the advocation of defence policies. I'm totally disillusioned with British politics, so have the same sinking feeling, along with others to the point of apathy - which is really quite sad. I think the expression is 'don't let the bastards grind you down', I feel ground down. Our current government is a sad mishmash of nearly theres, and we haven't even got a viable opposition at the moment. Good times. That along with media lies, and the average Joe paying the price for corporate crimes - is all pretty shitty. The worst thing about all of this, is that you end up questioning whether this is legitimate or not, is the US just bigging up their capabilities - is this all just disinfo? Either way, the hot pot of data that a silo like Facebook has, is just gagging to get into the hands of the wrong doers, and that's probably a tough force to be reckoned with.
- danenania 13y ago
  "I'm not making excuses for Obama, but he's also up against the establishment." Obama's not 'up against' the establishment. He is the establishment. After everything he's done, how on earth are people still ascribing good intentions to this guy?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - inthewind 13y ago
    That's not what I was getting at. I was suggesting that pointing the finger of blame at one person, and placing the onus on them - and asking them to resign is a little shortsighted. Expecting the problem to just vanish is merely wishful thinking. Is he or is he not the establishment, that's probably another debate in itself. I'm over the pond here, so I can't quite grok the American reaction to the recent news over this Prism stuff. I'd expect the Hacker news community to be pissed, but what's the general feeling over there?
    - Loughla 13y ago
      what's the general feeling over there? Mostly people fall into two categories: ignorant or apathetic. Either people watch too much national news, and don't really hear this story, or if they do know about it they don't believe it's that big of a deal. Here in the midwest, "I have nothing to hide" is a popular comment.
      - Amadou 13y ago
        There are all kinds of intellectual arguments against the "I have nothing to hide" excuse, but the argument itself is emotional - "I am a good person, bad things do not happen to good people." We need examples, emotional heart-string tugging examples of good people who had something to hide and suffered because it was exposed. I don't have any off the top of my head, but perhaps someone has already realized this and started collecting them somewhere on the web?
Shivetya 13y ago
what was the excuse for voting for him again in 2012? really I fail to understand people here, One day they bitch about invasion of privacy the next day they want the same people to have every bit of control over their health care. Well guess what, you cannot have it both ways. Granted he had help from a major government agency interfering with groups opposed to his reelection from gathering funds. So perhaps you didn't have a choice in who won.
- anonyfuss 13y ago
  > what was the excuse for voting for him again in 2012? Romney. Unfortunately. > One day they bitch about invasion of privacy the next day they want the same people to have every bit of control over their health care. In one instance we have the institution of a massive surveillance state, with always-on data gathering of "meta-data" across the internet and phone calls, and seemingly secret-if-any limitations on how that data is used. "Trust us", they say. In the other, we have difficult-to-abuse sharing of medical data, subject to transparency, protected by extremely strong HIPAA laws. These are not even remotely the same thing.
- lukeschlather 13y ago
  > One day they bitch about invasion of privacy the next day they want the same people to have every bit of control over their health care. Well guess what, you cannot have it both ways. This is just as flawed as the arguments that giving the government access to your email is no big deal because you gave access to Google, and they're a massive organization too, right? I have no problem with Medicare having access to the health records of every American. Single-payer healthcare is a great system. This is completely tangential to giving the NSA/FBI similar access to information. Comparatively speaking, it might actually be more difficult for the NSA to get unwarranted access to government medical records, since we have extensive laws on the books protecting such data. Your argument is an absolute red herring.
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    Not sure why you're getting the downvote. This is obviously true. It's also important to consider not just the size of the organization, but the nature and extent of its powers. For instance, Google - no matter how big - cannot arrest you, try you, convict you, or imprison you. Your health insurer isn't going to send the Marines to attack another nation, no matter how many doctors they have in their network. I could go on, but the point should be clear: military and law enforcement have a unique - and uniquely dangerous - set of powers. Accordingly, they operate under structures for accountability unlike those that exist anywhere else. The extraordinary trust they're given in some areas is balanced by a distinctly high and formalized level of distrust in others (e.g. actions that are subject to prior judicial review and approval). So contrary to what you insist, we can give some powers to some organizations, withhold the same power from others. And we can base those organization's ability exist and operate legally on the degree to which they respect and abide by these divisions, and the rule of law. When it turns out that (a) they don't and (b) we can't respond to these violations, it's a signal that the most basic arrangement keeping our society viable is coming undone. That's a problem that needs to be solves. But thanks to the principle of divided power, it doesn't mean we have to give up intelligent arrangements for sending email or handling health care data in order to keep the police and military in line.

Mordor 13y ago

All the more reason to push for Obama's resignation.

Amygaz 13y ago
And to elect who? Someone who most likely voted for that IAH to start with?
- stcredzero 13y ago
  IAH also happens to be the code for George Bush International Airport.
  - oinksoft 13y ago
    Sr. got an airport named after him? Reminds me when they renamed National to Reagan National. I thought Nixon National would be catchier if the bar's that low.
    - heynk 13y ago
      He also got the Center of Intelligence named after him: https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/todays-cia/george-bush-center-for-intelligence https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/todays-cia/george-bush-center-...

inthewind 13y ago

Welcome to democracy (or rather the facade)! Does the US president actually have that much individual power anyway? I wish it was more like the film Dave, inasmuch as that the president on his first day questions all the wrongs, and suggests to put them all right! People love a figurehead to moan and blame, but it's not ever as simple as that. I'm not making excuses for Obama, but he's also up against the establishment. The weird thing is, I'd read about Prism a few weeks back, and like others have just been under the assumption that my electronic data isn't secure. That's not to say I'm happy about it. If the NSA wasn't doing it, then someone else would be. I know that's a pretty crappy line, but it's the normal diatribe for the advocation of defence policies. I'm totally disillusioned with British politics, so have the same sinking feeling, along with others to the point of apathy - which is really quite sad. I think the expression is 'don't let the bastards grind you down', I feel ground down. Our current government is a sad mishmash of nearly theres, and we haven't even got a viable opposition at the moment. Good times. That along with media lies, and the average Joe paying the price for corporate crimes - is all pretty shitty. The worst thing about all of this, is that you end up questioning whether this is legitimate or not, is the US just bigging up their capabilities - is this all just disinfo? Either way, the hot pot of data that a silo like Facebook has, is just gagging to get into the hands of the wrong doers, and that's probably a tough force to be reckoned with.

danenania 13y ago
"I'm not making excuses for Obama, but he's also up against the establishment." Obama's not 'up against' the establishment. He is the establishment. After everything he's done, how on earth are people still ascribing good intentions to this guy?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- inthewind 13y ago
  That's not what I was getting at. I was suggesting that pointing the finger of blame at one person, and placing the onus on them - and asking them to resign is a little shortsighted. Expecting the problem to just vanish is merely wishful thinking. Is he or is he not the establishment, that's probably another debate in itself. I'm over the pond here, so I can't quite grok the American reaction to the recent news over this Prism stuff. I'd expect the Hacker news community to be pissed, but what's the general feeling over there?
  - Loughla 13y ago
    what's the general feeling over there? Mostly people fall into two categories: ignorant or apathetic. Either people watch too much national news, and don't really hear this story, or if they do know about it they don't believe it's that big of a deal. Here in the midwest, "I have nothing to hide" is a popular comment.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      There are all kinds of intellectual arguments against the "I have nothing to hide" excuse, but the argument itself is emotional - "I am a good person, bad things do not happen to good people." We need examples, emotional heart-string tugging examples of good people who had something to hide and suffered because it was exposed. I don't have any off the top of my head, but perhaps someone has already realized this and started collecting them somewhere on the web?

Shivetya 13y ago

what was the excuse for voting for him again in 2012? really I fail to understand people here, One day they bitch about invasion of privacy the next day they want the same people to have every bit of control over their health care. Well guess what, you cannot have it both ways. Granted he had help from a major government agency interfering with groups opposed to his reelection from gathering funds. So perhaps you didn't have a choice in who won.

anonyfuss 13y ago
> what was the excuse for voting for him again in 2012? Romney. Unfortunately. > One day they bitch about invasion of privacy the next day they want the same people to have every bit of control over their health care. In one instance we have the institution of a massive surveillance state, with always-on data gathering of "meta-data" across the internet and phone calls, and seemingly secret-if-any limitations on how that data is used. "Trust us", they say. In the other, we have difficult-to-abuse sharing of medical data, subject to transparency, protected by extremely strong HIPAA laws. These are not even remotely the same thing.
lukeschlather 13y ago
> One day they bitch about invasion of privacy the next day they want the same people to have every bit of control over their health care. Well guess what, you cannot have it both ways. This is just as flawed as the arguments that giving the government access to your email is no big deal because you gave access to Google, and they're a massive organization too, right? I have no problem with Medicare having access to the health records of every American. Single-payer healthcare is a great system. This is completely tangential to giving the NSA/FBI similar access to information. Comparatively speaking, it might actually be more difficult for the NSA to get unwarranted access to government medical records, since we have extensive laws on the books protecting such data. Your argument is an absolute red herring.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Not sure why you're getting the downvote. This is obviously true. It's also important to consider not just the size of the organization, but the nature and extent of its powers. For instance, Google - no matter how big - cannot arrest you, try you, convict you, or imprison you. Your health insurer isn't going to send the Marines to attack another nation, no matter how many doctors they have in their network. I could go on, but the point should be clear: military and law enforcement have a unique - and uniquely dangerous - set of powers. Accordingly, they operate under structures for accountability unlike those that exist anywhere else. The extraordinary trust they're given in some areas is balanced by a distinctly high and formalized level of distrust in others (e.g. actions that are subject to prior judicial review and approval). So contrary to what you insist, we can give some powers to some organizations, withhold the same power from others. And we can base those organization's ability exist and operate legally on the degree to which they respect and abide by these divisions, and the rule of law. When it turns out that (a) they don't and (b) we can't respond to these violations, it's a signal that the most basic arrangement keeping our society viable is coming undone. That's a problem that needs to be solves. But thanks to the principle of divided power, it doesn't mean we have to give up intelligent arrangements for sending email or handling health care data in order to keep the police and military in line.