30 ms·

Previously I would say the American public would riot in the streets should a reporter be charged with the crime of journalism. Based on the reaction to the rev

by pvnick 13y ago

Previously I would say the American public would riot in the streets should a reporter be charged with the crime of journalism. Based on the reaction to the revelation that the NSA is watching every single piece of Internet communication in the world, now I'm not so sure. The apathy to all matters beyond "Kim Kardashian is fat now" is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Edit: Just wanted to add in a thought. The only thing keeping a lawless government from pulling stunts like this is the fear of citizen revolt, and even then they generally proceed if the projected revolution strength is sufficiently weak.

JumpCrisscross 13y ago
Because rioting is an immature, knee-jerk reaction people in countries without proper avenues of political expression, e.g. the poor or uneducated, take? Riots are a way to signal the elites that the population feels some way. The U.S. has non-destructive ways of doing that, even if less emotionally satisfying than burning shit to make a point. Note that present polling indicates Americans, while holding a positive opinion of Snowden, still feel he should be prosecuted.
- jbooth 13y ago
  Non-destructive ways of doing that, like what? Electing a new President who very believably promises to do the opposite of what the last one did?
  - rz2k 13y ago
    However, the problem is not that elected officials are not listening to the people, it is that there is little concern from the electorate about privacy rights. Ultimately, the country does belong to you more for understanding the problems of eroding privacy rights more than someone who doesn't. One could argue that rioting would change the conversation in a productive way, but I expect it would further the cause of authoritarians if a group of people behind a minority viewpoint tried to advance their cause through the violence of rioting. I firmly believe that democracy can only function with transparency and a free press, but those are means to democracy, not a goal in themselves. It makes no sense to wish for riots, which are intrinsically anti-democratic when not expressing the will of the majority, for the sake of making a country safer for democracy. Much as when our country was torturing people, the problem is less that of a disobedient set of elected officials, and more that of some really bad ideas that are held by a large portion of the population. Unfortunately, right now the problem is not politicians who can be easily demonized, but a population that for now is largely ignorant about the power of data.
    - jbooth 13y ago
      I'm not necessarily wishing for riots with innocent shopkeepers' livelihoods being trashed. But I am saying that the normal democratic methods seem to fail us here -- this is a real "don't blame me, I voted for kodos" situation. If Obama, who was the most strident advocate against this stuff out of both parties in the 2008 primaries (except for maybe Kucinich), doesn't follow through on this stuff, what are the democratic options?
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Has anyone considered that maybe Obama felt that he was actually able to tamp down the excesses he railed against, and was able to be convinced of the use of the NSA once he took office and was able to be briefed on what they actually do? America wouldn't have lasted very long if a minority group set the cities on fire each and every single time an unpopular decision was made public. P.S. the democratic options involve letting your representatives and elected officials know that you are pissed, whether that's through letters, complaining to the media, peaceful protests, or all of the above. Sometimes the people don't naturally do what jbooth personally feels is right for the entire nation. Welcome to Democracy.
        jbooth 13y ago
        Did you read the first line of my comment where I said I wasn't in favor of actual violent rioting? It's right up there. I've knocked on probably 1,000 doors and made probably 5,000 phone calls for democrats over the last 10 years. I'm not some slacktivist, and I'm not saying that the whole world needs to agree with me, although the accusation of arrogance is well taken. We've seen no evidence that Obama changed anything about NSA wiretapping and a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that he probably didn't (how those drone strikes coming, and the medicinal marijuana crackdown)? When someone runs and is elected by a majority as being "the opposite of Bush", it'd be nice if he actually did something different.
        mpyne 13y ago
        > We've seen no evidence that Obama changed anything about NSA wiretapping The FISA was changed to require warrants in 2008 (though Obama was a Senator then, not sure what part he played in that as I don't remember the discussion from the time it occurred). The "watch list" the NSA was using was gigantic when Obama took office and was shrunk down to focus on those who might actually impact national security. > how those drone strikes coming Better than what we used to do, invade entire countries and drop 1000kg JDAMs everywhere, which involved far more "collateral damage". That is, of course, unless you're saying that we should simply wait until a group blows up something in America and then go destroy whatever state the operational cell was working out of. I personally prefer disrupting the cell and leaving the state intact (as do the states that we surreptitiously work with...) as it involves less human sacrifice on both sides, but that might just be me. > the medicinal marijuana crackdown Yeah, I got nothing. The sooner we move away from giving a shit about marijuana the better, as far as I'm concerned. > When someone runs and is elected by a majority as being "the opposite of Bush" They were both "opposite of Bush" so I hope you had more in mind than that when you voted. As it stands though, if you think Obama is just like Bush then you might want to re-evaluate history, as time has a habit of helping us forget the bad and remember the good. There was a reason that as far back as 2004 that Bush was already well down the road toward becoming the most unpopular President in decades, and that's because there was much worse things going on than drones...
  - JumpCrisscross 13y ago
    American public opinion is for prosecuting Snowden. This can be because they are un-informed or have a different value set from the mean of HN. If the former, how can we educate enough people to form a critical majority in favour of privacy reform? If the latter, the process is slower and more complicated. A starting point would be writing and paying visits to decision makers. My impression has been that the lack of communication from U.S. citizens to D.C. has left decision makers with the impression that this is, at most, a foreign relations problem. Not all elites are in D.C., mind you. Speak with influential and high profile individuals you know. Encourage them to bring this up in the media or at the next conference they are at. Sound difficult? Convincing people to change the status quo should be. Rioting to short-circuit this process is the equivalent of dialectical violence. Less charitably, it is the making of noise and commotion in the hope that someone else will pick up the baton and do the leg-work for you.
- joonix 13y ago
  And we can't dismiss the majority's viewpoint as "apathy" just because we don't agree with it or find it appalling. It's not constructive to do so. We're better off having a discussion of why people think this type of surveillance is good. They'll probably say "reduces crime/terrorism," and we can counter with "that's questionable, but even so, your rights and liberties are violated." Most would probably shrug, but that doesn't necessary imply apathy.
  - bostonpete 13y ago
    > why people think this type of surveillance is good There's a difference believing that this type of surveillance is good and believing that Snowden should be prosecuted for leaking in the way that he did.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      If anything I believe it would go the other way around; there are people who feel the surveillance is bad and still feel Snowden should be held to the same law that the rest of us are bound to.
  - Perceval 13y ago
    > "that's questionable, but even so, your rights and liberties are violated." A more pointed example might be: indiscriminate surveillance can be used by corrupt officials for political persecution of their domestic political enemies. Look no further than the recent IRS scandal to see the willingness and ability of people in positions of power using the levers of power against political opponents, even when the stakes are low or petty. The NSA database of information represents an unbelievable trove of opportunity for the very real prospect of the arbitrary abuse of political power, both by people within the U.S. government and by anyone who manages to illicitly gain access to that information (e.g. foreign hackers—and there's some evidence that Chinese hacking attempts on Google were aimed at the interface Google set up to provide information to the government).
ncallaway 13y ago
If they charge Glenn Greenwald with a crime, I will be out on the streets.
rtpg 13y ago
>Based on the reaction to the revelation that the NSA is watching every single piece of Internet communication in the world, now I'm not so sure. Except that's not what they're doing. People actually care about nuance, and things aren't black and white. I understand the notion of having principle, but it's been several weeks now and we need to stop having arguments in absolutes and start actually talking about what actually happens, what is actually useful and what should be changed.
- pvnick 13y ago
  I think when you consider the "upstream" portion of the prism slide titled "FAA702 Operations" (the one about splitting the fiber optic cables) that yes, my statement is correct.
  - MichaelSalib 13y ago
    You think the government is watching every piece of data on the internet for only $20million/year? Really?
    - pvnick 13y ago
      No, I think the government is watching every piece of data and that the $20 million/year refers to some bit of information we are not privy to. Btw, we already know this infrastructure exists [1]. William Binney, a well-known NSA whistlebower, has stated that there are 10-20 such installations around the United States [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A [2] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/al... Edit: FWIW I'm not the one downvoting you. I hardly ever do so, and when I do it's certainly not just out of disagreement
      - MichaelSalib 13y ago
        I guess I don't see how 20 installations would be nearly enough to track all or even most internet communications in the US. Given that core routers are on the very edge of feasible performance, I don't see how you could do substantial spying there, which means your spying has to be closer to the edges, which means a lot more than 20 installations. Moreover, such a large scale program really wouldn't centralize data in giant data center in Utah. When you're dealing with this much data, you need to process locally because the costs of transmitting data volumes that large is prohibitive.
irishcoffee 13y ago
> The apathy to all matters beyond "Kim Kardashian is fat now" is so thick you could cut it with a knife. It is interesting you note this. This seems to lend credence to the 'Brave New World' theory over the '1984' theory of how the American people feel about the government.
- pyrocat 13y ago
  I think we live in a sad middleground between the two.

by pvnick 13y ago

JumpCrisscross 13y ago

Because rioting is an immature, knee-jerk reaction people in countries without proper avenues of political expression, e.g. the poor or uneducated, take? Riots are a way to signal the elites that the population feels some way. The U.S. has non-destructive ways of doing that, even if less emotionally satisfying than burning shit to make a point. Note that present polling indicates Americans, while holding a positive opinion of Snowden, still feel he should be prosecuted.

jbooth 13y ago
Non-destructive ways of doing that, like what? Electing a new President who very believably promises to do the opposite of what the last one did?
- rz2k 13y ago
  However, the problem is not that elected officials are not listening to the people, it is that there is little concern from the electorate about privacy rights. Ultimately, the country does belong to you more for understanding the problems of eroding privacy rights more than someone who doesn't. One could argue that rioting would change the conversation in a productive way, but I expect it would further the cause of authoritarians if a group of people behind a minority viewpoint tried to advance their cause through the violence of rioting. I firmly believe that democracy can only function with transparency and a free press, but those are means to democracy, not a goal in themselves. It makes no sense to wish for riots, which are intrinsically anti-democratic when not expressing the will of the majority, for the sake of making a country safer for democracy. Much as when our country was torturing people, the problem is less that of a disobedient set of elected officials, and more that of some really bad ideas that are held by a large portion of the population. Unfortunately, right now the problem is not politicians who can be easily demonized, but a population that for now is largely ignorant about the power of data.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    I'm not necessarily wishing for riots with innocent shopkeepers' livelihoods being trashed. But I am saying that the normal democratic methods seem to fail us here -- this is a real "don't blame me, I voted for kodos" situation. If Obama, who was the most strident advocate against this stuff out of both parties in the 2008 primaries (except for maybe Kucinich), doesn't follow through on this stuff, what are the democratic options?
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Has anyone considered that maybe Obama felt that he was actually able to tamp down the excesses he railed against, and was able to be convinced of the use of the NSA once he took office and was able to be briefed on what they actually do? America wouldn't have lasted very long if a minority group set the cities on fire each and every single time an unpopular decision was made public. P.S. the democratic options involve letting your representatives and elected officials know that you are pissed, whether that's through letters, complaining to the media, peaceful protests, or all of the above. Sometimes the people don't naturally do what jbooth personally feels is right for the entire nation. Welcome to Democracy.
      - jbooth 13y ago
        Did you read the first line of my comment where I said I wasn't in favor of actual violent rioting? It's right up there. I've knocked on probably 1,000 doors and made probably 5,000 phone calls for democrats over the last 10 years. I'm not some slacktivist, and I'm not saying that the whole world needs to agree with me, although the accusation of arrogance is well taken. We've seen no evidence that Obama changed anything about NSA wiretapping and a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that he probably didn't (how those drone strikes coming, and the medicinal marijuana crackdown)? When someone runs and is elected by a majority as being "the opposite of Bush", it'd be nice if he actually did something different.
        mpyne 13y ago
        > We've seen no evidence that Obama changed anything about NSA wiretapping The FISA was changed to require warrants in 2008 (though Obama was a Senator then, not sure what part he played in that as I don't remember the discussion from the time it occurred). The "watch list" the NSA was using was gigantic when Obama took office and was shrunk down to focus on those who might actually impact national security. > how those drone strikes coming Better than what we used to do, invade entire countries and drop 1000kg JDAMs everywhere, which involved far more "collateral damage". That is, of course, unless you're saying that we should simply wait until a group blows up something in America and then go destroy whatever state the operational cell was working out of. I personally prefer disrupting the cell and leaving the state intact (as do the states that we surreptitiously work with...) as it involves less human sacrifice on both sides, but that might just be me. > the medicinal marijuana crackdown Yeah, I got nothing. The sooner we move away from giving a shit about marijuana the better, as far as I'm concerned. > When someone runs and is elected by a majority as being "the opposite of Bush" They were both "opposite of Bush" so I hope you had more in mind than that when you voted. As it stands though, if you think Obama is just like Bush then you might want to re-evaluate history, as time has a habit of helping us forget the bad and remember the good. There was a reason that as far back as 2004 that Bush was already well down the road toward becoming the most unpopular President in decades, and that's because there was much worse things going on than drones...
- JumpCrisscross 13y ago
  American public opinion is for prosecuting Snowden. This can be because they are un-informed or have a different value set from the mean of HN. If the former, how can we educate enough people to form a critical majority in favour of privacy reform? If the latter, the process is slower and more complicated. A starting point would be writing and paying visits to decision makers. My impression has been that the lack of communication from U.S. citizens to D.C. has left decision makers with the impression that this is, at most, a foreign relations problem. Not all elites are in D.C., mind you. Speak with influential and high profile individuals you know. Encourage them to bring this up in the media or at the next conference they are at. Sound difficult? Convincing people to change the status quo should be. Rioting to short-circuit this process is the equivalent of dialectical violence. Less charitably, it is the making of noise and commotion in the hope that someone else will pick up the baton and do the leg-work for you.
joonix 13y ago
And we can't dismiss the majority's viewpoint as "apathy" just because we don't agree with it or find it appalling. It's not constructive to do so. We're better off having a discussion of why people think this type of surveillance is good. They'll probably say "reduces crime/terrorism," and we can counter with "that's questionable, but even so, your rights and liberties are violated." Most would probably shrug, but that doesn't necessary imply apathy.
- bostonpete 13y ago
  > why people think this type of surveillance is good There's a difference believing that this type of surveillance is good and believing that Snowden should be prosecuted for leaking in the way that he did.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    If anything I believe it would go the other way around; there are people who feel the surveillance is bad and still feel Snowden should be held to the same law that the rest of us are bound to.
- Perceval 13y ago
  > "that's questionable, but even so, your rights and liberties are violated." A more pointed example might be: indiscriminate surveillance can be used by corrupt officials for political persecution of their domestic political enemies. Look no further than the recent IRS scandal to see the willingness and ability of people in positions of power using the levers of power against political opponents, even when the stakes are low or petty. The NSA database of information represents an unbelievable trove of opportunity for the very real prospect of the arbitrary abuse of political power, both by people within the U.S. government and by anyone who manages to illicitly gain access to that information (e.g. foreign hackers—and there's some evidence that Chinese hacking attempts on Google were aimed at the interface Google set up to provide information to the government).

ncallaway 13y ago

If they charge Glenn Greenwald with a crime, I will be out on the streets.

rtpg 13y ago

>Based on the reaction to the revelation that the NSA is watching every single piece of Internet communication in the world, now I'm not so sure. Except that's not what they're doing. People actually care about nuance, and things aren't black and white. I understand the notion of having principle, but it's been several weeks now and we need to stop having arguments in absolutes and start actually talking about what actually happens, what is actually useful and what should be changed.

pvnick 13y ago
I think when you consider the "upstream" portion of the prism slide titled "FAA702 Operations" (the one about splitting the fiber optic cables) that yes, my statement is correct.
- MichaelSalib 13y ago
  You think the government is watching every piece of data on the internet for only $20million/year? Really?
  - pvnick 13y ago
    No, I think the government is watching every piece of data and that the $20 million/year refers to some bit of information we are not privy to. Btw, we already know this infrastructure exists [1]. William Binney, a well-known NSA whistlebower, has stated that there are 10-20 such installations around the United States [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A [2] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/al... Edit: FWIW I'm not the one downvoting you. I hardly ever do so, and when I do it's certainly not just out of disagreement
    - MichaelSalib 13y ago
      I guess I don't see how 20 installations would be nearly enough to track all or even most internet communications in the US. Given that core routers are on the very edge of feasible performance, I don't see how you could do substantial spying there, which means your spying has to be closer to the edges, which means a lot more than 20 installations. Moreover, such a large scale program really wouldn't centralize data in giant data center in Utah. When you're dealing with this much data, you need to process locally because the costs of transmitting data volumes that large is prohibitive.

irishcoffee 13y ago

> The apathy to all matters beyond "Kim Kardashian is fat now" is so thick you could cut it with a knife. It is interesting you note this. This seems to lend credence to the 'Brave New World' theory over the '1984' theory of how the American people feel about the government.

pyrocat 13y ago
I think we live in a sad middleground between the two.