4 ms·

The difference between now and 1970 is clear: NSA surveillance doesn't affect the lives of the average american. Spying or not spying, the lives of most people

by hooande 13y ago

The difference between now and 1970 is clear: NSA surveillance doesn't affect the lives of the average american. Spying or not spying, the lives of most people are the same as they have been. The NSA has been doing what its doing for years, and most people have suffered no ill effect. We can't expect Congress to be up in arms about philosophical privacy issues. In the 70s on the other hand, Watergate was a really really big deal. It did have an effect on the daily lives of most americans. A US President had never resigned in disgrace before, and it was very much on peoples' minds. Congress was fulfilling it's role to help the nation heal in a time of crisis. The problem with this NSA story is that there hasn't been anything to make it "real" in the minds of the average citizen. If people thought that Obama was using surveillance to keep tabs on and punish his political enemies, people would be up in arms. If the government was kicking down doors and arresting people for thought crimes, Republicans in Congress would be out of their minds with rage. Given the current political situation, it would only take evidence of one abuse to make most americans rise up in protest. But we haven't seen that yet. This is why I think that Snowden overplayed his hand. Evidence of surveillance is shocking, but it's not enough to incite people to action. If he could have provided proof of just one actual abuse due to government surveillance, he would have made the impact that he wanted and so much more. As it is, I'm afraid that he might have thrown his lifestyle away for nothing.

sliverstorm 13y ago
That's a good point. If Snowden had, for example, released proof that Obama defeated Romney with the help of the NSA snooping, the Republicans probably would have sacked the White House by now.
205guy 13y ago
As opposed to taking a chance at preventing that abuse? Perhaps not as dramatic, but on the whole better to curtail it before. Once the level is abuse, it's much harder to correct. I do see what you're saying, though. The surveillance could just get more subtle, the secrecy of it better to prevent future leaks, so that the lying about could continue. And then the chance of abuse is still there. Who knows, maybe there are already cases of abuse, such as the Barrett Brown story. Maybe there are are others waiting to come out, or it will be easier to get them out after this first revelation.
rayiner 13y ago
I've said this before, but privacy activists need to get in bed with the hardcore conservatives on this one. Surveillance could be used to impose more aggressive policing of taxes, it could be used to track gun purchases and use, it could be used to track anti-abortionists, it could be used to spy on religious groups, etc. Is the NSA spying on state and local governments? Could surveillance be used to get a "47%" type soundbite to torpedo a future conservative candidate? Couching this debate in national security terms is a losing proposition, because conservatives tend to want to defer to the federal government in national security situations, and liberals are just ecstatic to finally have a President who isn't seen as "weak." And hanging out with the libertarians is pointless, because they do not and never will have any voting power in the U.S. But there is tremendous potential here for an appeal to the frothy Tea-party base of conservatives because there is a lot about NSA surveillance that is contrary to their interests, or at least they would understand so if the message were cast in their language.
- mpyne 13y ago
  And another thing is that if Snowden had been studiously careful not to overstate the situation, or allow Greenwald to overstate the situation, there would probably be a lot more uproar by the semi-interested citizenry. PRISM was advertised as being a $20 million backdoor into people's email and social media that would allow any ol' NSA analyst who felt bored to literally watch peoples' thoughts form in their minds. It turned out to be a $20 million program to automate an existing manual process, with at least some measure of oversight controls (including non-governmental oversight). Google, Facebook, and other companies were forced by Snowden's or Greenwald's lie to push back hard. WaPo revised their claim slightly to adjust, which caused the media to focus on the claim being 'walked back'. Clearing up that issue, in the process muddied up the whole issue, and at the same time Snowden's credibility was taking shots about his salary, releasing hacking details to China, etc. Snowden has done a lot right from the P.R. aspect but by damaging his credibility right from the get-go, he's allowed it to turn into the geopolitical equivalent of a he-said/she-said... which is not something most people have the gumption to care to try to resolve on their own. Especially in politics, where we essentially expect all sides to lie anyways. Another thing that probably didn't help was all the involvement from Russia, Hong Kong, and China, but especially WikiLeaks and Ecuador (who are only one step up from Venezuela nowadays). It is very hard to try to line yourself up as a concerned American citizen when you're sitting in a Russian airport, being coached by Assange, and trying to flee to 'Chavez's little brother'. To the extent that any change must necessarily be driven by the will of the people, that whole thing was a mistake.
frozenport 13y ago
Also the US was trying to figure out if it was going to help South Vietnam.

by hooande 13y ago

sliverstorm 13y ago

That's a good point. If Snowden had, for example, released proof that Obama defeated Romney with the help of the NSA snooping, the Republicans probably would have sacked the White House by now.

205guy 13y ago

As opposed to taking a chance at preventing that abuse? Perhaps not as dramatic, but on the whole better to curtail it before. Once the level is abuse, it's much harder to correct. I do see what you're saying, though. The surveillance could just get more subtle, the secrecy of it better to prevent future leaks, so that the lying about could continue. And then the chance of abuse is still there. Who knows, maybe there are already cases of abuse, such as the Barrett Brown story. Maybe there are are others waiting to come out, or it will be easier to get them out after this first revelation.

rayiner 13y ago

I've said this before, but privacy activists need to get in bed with the hardcore conservatives on this one. Surveillance could be used to impose more aggressive policing of taxes, it could be used to track gun purchases and use, it could be used to track anti-abortionists, it could be used to spy on religious groups, etc. Is the NSA spying on state and local governments? Could surveillance be used to get a "47%" type soundbite to torpedo a future conservative candidate? Couching this debate in national security terms is a losing proposition, because conservatives tend to want to defer to the federal government in national security situations, and liberals are just ecstatic to finally have a President who isn't seen as "weak." And hanging out with the libertarians is pointless, because they do not and never will have any voting power in the U.S. But there is tremendous potential here for an appeal to the frothy Tea-party base of conservatives because there is a lot about NSA surveillance that is contrary to their interests, or at least they would understand so if the message were cast in their language.

mpyne 13y ago
And another thing is that if Snowden had been studiously careful not to overstate the situation, or allow Greenwald to overstate the situation, there would probably be a lot more uproar by the semi-interested citizenry. PRISM was advertised as being a $20 million backdoor into people's email and social media that would allow any ol' NSA analyst who felt bored to literally watch peoples' thoughts form in their minds. It turned out to be a $20 million program to automate an existing manual process, with at least some measure of oversight controls (including non-governmental oversight). Google, Facebook, and other companies were forced by Snowden's or Greenwald's lie to push back hard. WaPo revised their claim slightly to adjust, which caused the media to focus on the claim being 'walked back'. Clearing up that issue, in the process muddied up the whole issue, and at the same time Snowden's credibility was taking shots about his salary, releasing hacking details to China, etc. Snowden has done a lot right from the P.R. aspect but by damaging his credibility right from the get-go, he's allowed it to turn into the geopolitical equivalent of a he-said/she-said... which is not something most people have the gumption to care to try to resolve on their own. Especially in politics, where we essentially expect all sides to lie anyways. Another thing that probably didn't help was all the involvement from Russia, Hong Kong, and China, but especially WikiLeaks and Ecuador (who are only one step up from Venezuela nowadays). It is very hard to try to line yourself up as a concerned American citizen when you're sitting in a Russian airport, being coached by Assange, and trying to flee to 'Chavez's little brother'. To the extent that any change must necessarily be driven by the will of the people, that whole thing was a mistake.

frozenport 13y ago

Also the US was trying to figure out if it was going to help South Vietnam.