5 ms·

>The majority of US citizens are more concerned about {the Soviets,Terrorism} than they are about NSA "accidentally" reading their emails. As somebody that's b

by pvnick 13y ago

>The majority of US citizens are more concerned about {the Soviets,Terrorism} than they are about NSA "accidentally" reading their emails. As somebody that's been on the ground passing out fliers for my town's restore the 4th rally that I helped organize yesterday, I've seen this apathy manifest itself not only in terms of disinterest, but also in outright anger that I would be so reckless and dangerous as to try and put pressure on our leaders to abide by the rule of law. I've been cussed out, called a communist by a military veteran, told to "get a job" (I actually have a great job), etc. It seems that if an issue does not directly affect the lives of the masses negatively, such as the food shortage and economic instability that catalyzed the popular military coup in Egypt, the docile public will support whatever it is the powers that be tell them to. Here's to hoping some of the remaining leaked documents provide evidence of just that...

tptacek 13y ago
I actually don't blame them. I believe we need better checks and more carefully written rules for NSA surveillance, but I feel like I'm pretty well educated on these issues and I don't believe NSA is deliberately abusing their power right now. Rather, I think the potential for abuse in the future has become too great. Large groups of people aren't great at at dealing with issues way out in the future like this.
larrys 13y ago
"It seems that if an issue does not directly affect the lives of the masses negatively" While that certainly could be the case, I think you are ignoring the fact that there are many citizens who perhaps have been around long than you have that have decided that it really isn't a problem from their perspective and that it's a necessary evil. Things can't be perfect. And that they have given it some thought and are willing to put a certain amount of trust in the system to produce the right outcome.
- pvnick 13y ago
  Yeah if that's the case then they should really just find a different country to live in that doesn't explicitly provide constitutional protection against this kind of stuff instead of supporting the illegal violation of ours. Too many people have died for these protections to let fear-based mindsets water down those accomplishments. I'm not even joking. If you aren't brave enough to live in a free society then you are free to leave and live in any number of nanny states.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    First, when you have to structure an argument around "they should just find a different country to live in", you know you're in the weeds. Second, when you're talking about the majority of Americans finding a new country to live in, you're not just in the weeds, but also howling at the moon from them. Third, it is fallacious to presume that people who don't have a problem with what NSA is doing now don't respect the 4th Amendment. It's right there in the text of the Constitution: searches must be reasonable. The Constitution punts on what "reasonable" means; that's why they used that word. There's no absolute for you to fall back on here. I happen to agree with you that omnibus metadata collection is dangerous and should be further checked by the law, but I can also see both sides of the issue, and you can't, and I think you should try.
    - pvnick 13y ago
      Like you, I'd like to consider myself decently well-versed on the issues and able to sympathize with both sides. However, I'm also coming from the position of hearing Greenwald describe an imminent set of leaks that describe the wholesale collection of phone conversation contents [1] (not just metadata) which IMO changes things drastically. You have to be reading from a dictionary of antonyms to find that under the definition of reasonable. I would personally be fine with just having more transparency and using warrants issued by real (not secret) courts, even if we keep some of the technologies themselves, since I'm sure they are powerful tools to protect against the real threat of terrorism. But yes, when I consider the millions of lives that have been given to accomplish and defend the set of protections we have as Americans, I do mean it when I say that those who prefer security to freedom should consider finding a different country in which to live, even if it's not logistically feasible to do so. That's just because I'm personally an idealistic, rather than pragmatic, person. I also apologize for getting overly political in this thread. I'm just coming off the tails of the rally yesterday. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-nsa-cell-phone-calls_n_3520424.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-nsa... - Read: "they're storing every call and have the capability to listen to them at any time"
      - 13y ago
lawnchair_larry 13y ago
Remember, democracy means you only have to fool the dumbest half of the population to get what you want.

by pvnick 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

I actually don't blame them. I believe we need better checks and more carefully written rules for NSA surveillance, but I feel like I'm pretty well educated on these issues and I don't believe NSA is deliberately abusing their power right now. Rather, I think the potential for abuse in the future has become too great. Large groups of people aren't great at at dealing with issues way out in the future like this.

larrys 13y ago

"It seems that if an issue does not directly affect the lives of the masses negatively" While that certainly could be the case, I think you are ignoring the fact that there are many citizens who perhaps have been around long than you have that have decided that it really isn't a problem from their perspective and that it's a necessary evil. Things can't be perfect. And that they have given it some thought and are willing to put a certain amount of trust in the system to produce the right outcome.

pvnick 13y ago
Yeah if that's the case then they should really just find a different country to live in that doesn't explicitly provide constitutional protection against this kind of stuff instead of supporting the illegal violation of ours. Too many people have died for these protections to let fear-based mindsets water down those accomplishments. I'm not even joking. If you aren't brave enough to live in a free society then you are free to leave and live in any number of nanny states.
- tptacek 13y ago
  First, when you have to structure an argument around "they should just find a different country to live in", you know you're in the weeds. Second, when you're talking about the majority of Americans finding a new country to live in, you're not just in the weeds, but also howling at the moon from them. Third, it is fallacious to presume that people who don't have a problem with what NSA is doing now don't respect the 4th Amendment. It's right there in the text of the Constitution: searches must be reasonable. The Constitution punts on what "reasonable" means; that's why they used that word. There's no absolute for you to fall back on here. I happen to agree with you that omnibus metadata collection is dangerous and should be further checked by the law, but I can also see both sides of the issue, and you can't, and I think you should try.
  - pvnick 13y ago
    Like you, I'd like to consider myself decently well-versed on the issues and able to sympathize with both sides. However, I'm also coming from the position of hearing Greenwald describe an imminent set of leaks that describe the wholesale collection of phone conversation contents [1] (not just metadata) which IMO changes things drastically. You have to be reading from a dictionary of antonyms to find that under the definition of reasonable. I would personally be fine with just having more transparency and using warrants issued by real (not secret) courts, even if we keep some of the technologies themselves, since I'm sure they are powerful tools to protect against the real threat of terrorism. But yes, when I consider the millions of lives that have been given to accomplish and defend the set of protections we have as Americans, I do mean it when I say that those who prefer security to freedom should consider finding a different country in which to live, even if it's not logistically feasible to do so. That's just because I'm personally an idealistic, rather than pragmatic, person. I also apologize for getting overly political in this thread. I'm just coming off the tails of the rally yesterday. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-nsa-cell-phone-calls_n_3520424.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-nsa... - Read: "they're storing every call and have the capability to listen to them at any time"
    - 13y ago

lawnchair_larry 13y ago

Remember, democracy means you only have to fool the dumbest half of the population to get what you want.