3 ms·

> They're more afraid of terrorists than having privacy. Look at the polls: Hacker News seems to be in quite a bubble in this regard. Debatable. See polling at

by corin_ 13y ago

> They're more afraid of terrorists than having privacy. Look at the polls: Hacker News seems to be in quite a bubble in this regard. Debatable. See polling at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-usa-security-poll-idUSBRE95B1AF20130612 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-usa-security-po... as discussed on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5871423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5871423 Of course, the people who support him may still think that the spying is a good thing, just shouldn't be secretive... and maybe the 46% undecided will end up against him. But certainly doesn't seem as clear-cut as you suggest - do you have any examples of the polls you reference?

parasubvert 13y ago
It is debatable; the point is that this is not abhorrent to a clear majority... and if they ARE against it, it's not necessarily for principled reasons. The main example is a Pew Research Poll showing that objection/support is partisan or age-based (though all sub-groups still support it): http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/ http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph... Alternatively, Rasmussen says a majority do not approve. However, keep in mind the house effect of Rasmussen polling more republicans and the partisan divide may be driving this. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2013/59_oppose_government_s_secret_collecting_of_phone_records http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gene...
- bmelton 13y ago
  The sad likelihood of the matter is that largely, people who hated the Patriot Act under Bush don't mind it so much under Obama, and vice versa. http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/14/nsa-confidential-we-love-big-brother-if http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/14/nsa-confidential-we-lo... I don't know why so many people can't understand that a bad law is a bad law, and judge it as such. The criteria for whether a law is any good ought to be (at least partially) based on whether or not you'd support it if your opposition party were able to use it. If the answer is 'No', then it's bad, simply.

by corin_ 13y ago

parasubvert 13y ago

It is debatable; the point is that this is not abhorrent to a clear majority... and if they ARE against it, it's not necessarily for principled reasons. The main example is a Pew Research Poll showing that objection/support is partisan or age-based (though all sub-groups still support it): http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/ http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph... Alternatively, Rasmussen says a majority do not approve. However, keep in mind the house effect of Rasmussen polling more republicans and the partisan divide may be driving this. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2013/59_oppose_government_s_secret_collecting_of_phone_records http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gene...

bmelton 13y ago
The sad likelihood of the matter is that largely, people who hated the Patriot Act under Bush don't mind it so much under Obama, and vice versa. http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/14/nsa-confidential-we-love-big-brother-if http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/14/nsa-confidential-we-lo... I don't know why so many people can't understand that a bad law is a bad law, and judge it as such. The criteria for whether a law is any good ought to be (at least partially) based on whether or not you'd support it if your opposition party were able to use it. If the answer is 'No', then it's bad, simply.