4 ms·

Voting isn't the be-all and end-all of the political process. If you think that you will effect substantial change by showing up every 4 years and ticking a bo

Voting isn't the be-all and end-all of the political process. If you think that you will effect substantial change by showing up every 4 years and ticking a box, then of course you'll be disappointed. If you care about fixing this issue, then organize. Yes, it's more work than the bare minimum effort of ticking a box. Surprise -- real change takes a ton of hard work.

dkhenry 13y ago
Voting is the end all be all of the political process. Also it happens yearly, and in most places multiple times per year. Go collect signatures and put yourself on the ballot, Yes it takes hard work, but that hard work is to get people to check a box and vote. As a example of this please pay attention to the turnout percentage in the upcoming election in New Jersey for senator. Everyone agrees that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will most likely sit in that seat for decades, but I image we will see less then 25% turnout.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Have you tried? I admire your confidence in getting any result out of being on a ballot.
pstuart 13y ago
The comment was a snarky dismissal of the political process and Obama as well. There are some truths to it but doesn't add to the conversation. I don't think the answer is necessarily technical, e.g., more encryption, because having an encrypted channel is meaningless if the data is going to sit on some server unencrypted. It has to be a "hearts and minds" issue of having everybody care that this is happening. When I talk to people about this the common response is "I have nothing to hide" and they therefore don't seem to be all that bothered. Edit: replying to fotbr below Voting for Obama did matter because the other option was McCain/Palin. That would be different. Just like if Al Gore had been elected we would have had a different experience than we did with Bush. Not saying utopia, but if you don't think there's a difference then you are blinded by your cynicism.
- nathan_long 13y ago
  A move in the right direction would be to make and sell easy, strong, encrypted communication apps and services for those who may have something to hide: eg, journalists. Journalists have a clear need for freedom from government scrutiny in their communications. They know this and (I think) are already embracing encryption solutions. As technologists, we can build and sell great ones. Government efforts to outlaw or compromise those will be like kicking the media's beehive, and will only highlight the need for their existence in the minds of the public.
- fotbr 13y ago
  It was a snarky dismissal, yes, but I think it points out something quite valuable that a lot of people overlook -- Obama's election message was that voting matters, that it effects change, and that he was different, etc. He has utterly and completely failed to live up to that message. Which is fine, he was a politician trying to get elected and that's the way the system works -- anyone who honestly believes ANYTHING a politician says during a campaign (or any other time, for that matter) needs their head examined. Technical means can be a solution, but it falls back to the way encrypted communications have traditionally been done: I encrypt it locally, send only the encrypted copy (ideally destroying the "plain-text" copy), and use a key (or set of keys, depending on the encryption scheme chosen) that only the recipient has possession of. This involves work; exchanging keys, etc. Any steps or solutions to make things easier necessarily involve trusting third parties, which increases the possibility of that trust, and therefore your message security, being betrayed. As for the hearts and minds issue - I don't believe the trite saying: "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". I am, however, extremely cynical and pessimistic. So while I don't think the current trend towards a surveillance state is good at all, I do think the system is too far gone to successfully change it. The saying "power corrupts" has more truth to it than anyone really wants to admit. Bureaucracies do not like to reduce their size, or their power. Making that happen is, sadly, more likely than not going to require force and bloodshed - a path I'd rather not have this country go down. I realize this type of thinking doesn't really help, as it offers no solutions for actual change, but that's the reason why I'm not "all that bothered" by any of the recent revelations - it's less a matter of being "bothered" and more a matter of being resigned to the reality that the average person; or even a majority of them, cannot make real change happen in a peaceful way anymore - the best we can hope for is to put a new coat of paint on while the structure keeps rotting.

dkhenry 13y ago

Voting is the end all be all of the political process. Also it happens yearly, and in most places multiple times per year. Go collect signatures and put yourself on the ballot, Yes it takes hard work, but that hard work is to get people to check a box and vote. As a example of this please pay attention to the turnout percentage in the upcoming election in New Jersey for senator. Everyone agrees that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will most likely sit in that seat for decades, but I image we will see less then 25% turnout.

icebraining 13y ago
Have you tried? I admire your confidence in getting any result out of being on a ballot.

pstuart 13y ago

The comment was a snarky dismissal of the political process and Obama as well. There are some truths to it but doesn't add to the conversation. I don't think the answer is necessarily technical, e.g., more encryption, because having an encrypted channel is meaningless if the data is going to sit on some server unencrypted. It has to be a "hearts and minds" issue of having everybody care that this is happening. When I talk to people about this the common response is "I have nothing to hide" and they therefore don't seem to be all that bothered. Edit: replying to fotbr below Voting for Obama did matter because the other option was McCain/Palin. That would be different. Just like if Al Gore had been elected we would have had a different experience than we did with Bush. Not saying utopia, but if you don't think there's a difference then you are blinded by your cynicism.

nathan_long 13y ago
A move in the right direction would be to make and sell easy, strong, encrypted communication apps and services for those who may have something to hide: eg, journalists. Journalists have a clear need for freedom from government scrutiny in their communications. They know this and (I think) are already embracing encryption solutions. As technologists, we can build and sell great ones. Government efforts to outlaw or compromise those will be like kicking the media's beehive, and will only highlight the need for their existence in the minds of the public.
fotbr 13y ago
It was a snarky dismissal, yes, but I think it points out something quite valuable that a lot of people overlook -- Obama's election message was that voting matters, that it effects change, and that he was different, etc. He has utterly and completely failed to live up to that message. Which is fine, he was a politician trying to get elected and that's the way the system works -- anyone who honestly believes ANYTHING a politician says during a campaign (or any other time, for that matter) needs their head examined. Technical means can be a solution, but it falls back to the way encrypted communications have traditionally been done: I encrypt it locally, send only the encrypted copy (ideally destroying the "plain-text" copy), and use a key (or set of keys, depending on the encryption scheme chosen) that only the recipient has possession of. This involves work; exchanging keys, etc. Any steps or solutions to make things easier necessarily involve trusting third parties, which increases the possibility of that trust, and therefore your message security, being betrayed. As for the hearts and minds issue - I don't believe the trite saying: "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". I am, however, extremely cynical and pessimistic. So while I don't think the current trend towards a surveillance state is good at all, I do think the system is too far gone to successfully change it. The saying "power corrupts" has more truth to it than anyone really wants to admit. Bureaucracies do not like to reduce their size, or their power. Making that happen is, sadly, more likely than not going to require force and bloodshed - a path I'd rather not have this country go down. I realize this type of thinking doesn't really help, as it offers no solutions for actual change, but that's the reason why I'm not "all that bothered" by any of the recent revelations - it's less a matter of being "bothered" and more a matter of being resigned to the reality that the average person; or even a majority of them, cannot make real change happen in a peaceful way anymore - the best we can hope for is to put a new coat of paint on while the structure keeps rotting.