5 ms·

The FISC court has repeatedly made the wrong decisions. When their decisions have been brought to light, there's been massive public outrage, and an effort on t

The FISC court has repeatedly made the wrong decisions. When their decisions have been brought to light, there's been massive public outrage, and an effort on their part to to arrest the "leaker". These are all signs of a corrupt court, that needs to be dissolved.

mpyne 13y ago
Public outrage is not prima facie evidence of a wrong decision being made. If public outrage were all that was required then Sunil Tripathi would actually have been guilty of the Boston marathon bombings.
- Amadou 13y ago
  > Public outrage is not prima facie evidence of a wrong decision being made. For sufficiently large definitions of massive it is indeed prima facie evidence for the simple reason that the government exists to serve the people. If the people disagree with the government's actions then the government is, by definition, wrong. > If public outrage were all that was required then Sunil Tripathi would actually have been guilty of the Boston marathon bombings. Since his guilt or innocence is a matter of fact not opinion the analogy is deceptively unhelpful.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > For sufficiently large definitions of massive it is indeed prima facie evidence for the simple reason that the government exists to serve the people. If the people disagree with the government's actions then the government is, by definition, wrong. What about when a sufficiently large proportion of the population want to hold a minority in concentration camps? Or hold a minority to slavery? Or prevent them from being legally wed to the one they love? Many bad and wrong things have passed because of mob justice. > Since his guilt or innocence is a matter of fact not opinion the analogy is deceptively unhelpful. Since when has public opinion been based on facts alone? All history is one long string of examples of seemingly all sides misleading the public, if not lying outright.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      > What about when a sufficiently large proportion of the population want to hold a minority in concentration camps? Or hold a minority to slavery? Or prevent them from being legally wed to the one they love? Given a sufficiently large proportion of the population there is no amount of structure that can prevent those things. Ultimately all government is mob rule, structure can only withstand certain types and sizes of mobs for so long. I get that you are now using the word "wrong" as a moral judgment, but even morality is defined by the people themselves. > Since when has public opinion been based on facts alone? That's nonsensical. I said opinion does not define fact, your response -- facts alone don't define opinion. At best that's orthogonal to your original erroneous analogy.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        > but even morality is defined by the people themselves Absolutely not, and that mentality is a repeat of one of the most dangerous ideas to have ever been put into practice across history. Much of our 'progress' has human beings has been advancing past the idea that might (of the mob, or of the authority, or otherwise) alone makes right. It may be that the people shield you from punishment if you do something wrong, but it is still wrong and will always be wrong, though one can usually be rehabilitated.
        Amadou 13y ago
        >> but even morality is defined by the people themselves > Absolutely not, and that mentality is a repeat of one of the most dangerous ideas to have ever been put into practice across history. If not people, then who?
        mpyne 13y ago
        You'll need to ask your favorite philosopher for that. If you end up getting a good answer for it you could acquire fame throughout the world, I would imagine.
        13y ago
rayiner 13y ago
What "massive public outrage?" A pitiful 400 people showed up to the San Francisco "Restore the 4th" protests.
- e3pi 13y ago
  >What "massive public outrage?" A pitiful 400 people showed up to the San Francisco "Restore the 4th" protests. As far as I could tell, a total of `1' in Seattle. You know in Poker there's a `sucker' in every hand? Out on Westlake Center, Seattle, at noon on the 4th of July, that would be me. At least I left the pitchfork at home. The only other time I came over to participate in one of these group-hugs, was the Turkish/Egypt-O'clock WTO protest in 1999. That one was different. `Save the 4th' showed their cards, and NSA took the pot. The people have spoken: "meh".
  - SoftwareMaven 13y ago
    I disagree that it is that simple. I found out exactly an hour before the Utah NSA Datacenter event was scheduled to happen; not exactly easy to deal with on a national holiday. I also think the Occupy protests (and subsequent police actions) have had a very chilling effect on protests in the US.
- methehack 13y ago
  Just because people didn't give up their hotdogs to risk getting their heads smashed in doesn't mean there's not outrage.
  - ChrisAntaki 13y ago
    Agreed. National holidays might not be the best day to hold protests.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Yeah, "protests" seem to largely be an excuse for (... well ...for lack of less insulting terminology with any descriptive power..) "hippie minded" people to get together, bang some drums, and do some homeless camping. Expecting every issue of concern to the public to manifest itself in that way is patently absurd.
tptacek 13y ago
There was massive public outrage over the civil rights cases of the 50's and 60's, too.
joewallin 13y ago
Chris, you are exactly right. This court should be dissolved.

mpyne 13y ago

Public outrage is not prima facie evidence of a wrong decision being made. If public outrage were all that was required then Sunil Tripathi would actually have been guilty of the Boston marathon bombings.

Amadou 13y ago
> Public outrage is not prima facie evidence of a wrong decision being made. For sufficiently large definitions of massive it is indeed prima facie evidence for the simple reason that the government exists to serve the people. If the people disagree with the government's actions then the government is, by definition, wrong. > If public outrage were all that was required then Sunil Tripathi would actually have been guilty of the Boston marathon bombings. Since his guilt or innocence is a matter of fact not opinion the analogy is deceptively unhelpful.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > For sufficiently large definitions of massive it is indeed prima facie evidence for the simple reason that the government exists to serve the people. If the people disagree with the government's actions then the government is, by definition, wrong. What about when a sufficiently large proportion of the population want to hold a minority in concentration camps? Or hold a minority to slavery? Or prevent them from being legally wed to the one they love? Many bad and wrong things have passed because of mob justice. > Since his guilt or innocence is a matter of fact not opinion the analogy is deceptively unhelpful. Since when has public opinion been based on facts alone? All history is one long string of examples of seemingly all sides misleading the public, if not lying outright.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    > What about when a sufficiently large proportion of the population want to hold a minority in concentration camps? Or hold a minority to slavery? Or prevent them from being legally wed to the one they love? Given a sufficiently large proportion of the population there is no amount of structure that can prevent those things. Ultimately all government is mob rule, structure can only withstand certain types and sizes of mobs for so long. I get that you are now using the word "wrong" as a moral judgment, but even morality is defined by the people themselves. > Since when has public opinion been based on facts alone? That's nonsensical. I said opinion does not define fact, your response -- facts alone don't define opinion. At best that's orthogonal to your original erroneous analogy.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > but even morality is defined by the people themselves Absolutely not, and that mentality is a repeat of one of the most dangerous ideas to have ever been put into practice across history. Much of our 'progress' has human beings has been advancing past the idea that might (of the mob, or of the authority, or otherwise) alone makes right. It may be that the people shield you from punishment if you do something wrong, but it is still wrong and will always be wrong, though one can usually be rehabilitated.
      - Amadou 13y ago
        >> but even morality is defined by the people themselves > Absolutely not, and that mentality is a repeat of one of the most dangerous ideas to have ever been put into practice across history. If not people, then who?
        mpyne 13y ago
        You'll need to ask your favorite philosopher for that. If you end up getting a good answer for it you could acquire fame throughout the world, I would imagine.
        13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

What "massive public outrage?" A pitiful 400 people showed up to the San Francisco "Restore the 4th" protests.

e3pi 13y ago
>What "massive public outrage?" A pitiful 400 people showed up to the San Francisco "Restore the 4th" protests. As far as I could tell, a total of `1' in Seattle. You know in Poker there's a `sucker' in every hand? Out on Westlake Center, Seattle, at noon on the 4th of July, that would be me. At least I left the pitchfork at home. The only other time I came over to participate in one of these group-hugs, was the Turkish/Egypt-O'clock WTO protest in 1999. That one was different. `Save the 4th' showed their cards, and NSA took the pot. The people have spoken: "meh".
- SoftwareMaven 13y ago
  I disagree that it is that simple. I found out exactly an hour before the Utah NSA Datacenter event was scheduled to happen; not exactly easy to deal with on a national holiday. I also think the Occupy protests (and subsequent police actions) have had a very chilling effect on protests in the US.
methehack 13y ago
Just because people didn't give up their hotdogs to risk getting their heads smashed in doesn't mean there's not outrage.
- ChrisAntaki 13y ago
  Agreed. National holidays might not be the best day to hold protests.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Yeah, "protests" seem to largely be an excuse for (... well ...for lack of less insulting terminology with any descriptive power..) "hippie minded" people to get together, bang some drums, and do some homeless camping. Expecting every issue of concern to the public to manifest itself in that way is patently absurd.

tptacek 13y ago

There was massive public outrage over the civil rights cases of the 50's and 60's, too.

joewallin 13y ago

Chris, you are exactly right. This court should be dissolved.