5 ms·

I was recently reminded in a conversation with my in-laws how far we have to go. Not only do they not really understand what the NSA is doing or why it matters,

I was recently reminded in a conversation with my in-laws how far we have to go. Not only do they not really understand what the NSA is doing or why it matters, but they still see both Manning and Snowden as "traitors." Coming out in support of whistle-blowers may seem non-controversial on HN and similar sites, but we do have a long way to go before swaying public opinion. We can help a little by discussing it with friends and family, and by letting our politicians know we're not OK with it. I'm not sure what else to do or whether it's even helping. I wonder what kind of response we will get to the White House petition to pardon Snowden, but I expect it to be one-sided nonsense.

rhizome 13y ago
It may be helpful to sidestep the whole whistleblower/traitor binary by referring to them as witnesses to crimes.
- soganess 13y ago
  I feel if you added the modifier "government" or "government sanctioned", it would get the point across more.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    I intentionally left it out in order to avoid political quibbling.
    - soganess 13y ago
      I figured, but I feel as if sidestepping the politics here defeats the point. That said, I'd love to be proven wrong. I think when it comes to this particular topic my background brands me bias and hence unable to contribute objectively.
      - rhizome 13y ago
        The point is the legality.
thex86 13y ago
> but we do have a long way to go before swaying public opinion At least in the case of Snowden, public opinion is against him and he is labelled as a "traitor" because people think it is perfectly fine for the government to spy on them, because unless they are doing something wrong, they have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. This dangerous argument is the reason that most people do not seem to care enough on why your government spying on you is a very bad thing and the ramifications of it, even if you are not doing something wrong. Throw in the "extreme" threat of terrorism on top of this, and most people are totally OK with the NSA programs: "I have nothing to hide and this helps prevent terrorism and therefore Snowden is a traitor for putting Americans at risk."
- betterunix 13y ago
  "public opinion is against him and he is labelled as a "traitor" because people think it is perfectly fine for the government to spy on them" I think it is more that the majority of people do not believe that the government is spying on them. Most people do not understand that it does not take a team of government agents to spy on a person. The issue is not merely that people think they have nothing to hide, but that they do not even understand that they are being watched.
skwirl 13y ago
It's possible that the public does understand the issue and disagrees with you. I'm reminded a little of the rabid followers of Ron Paul... they couldn't understand why the general public ignored their candidate when they were so beyond certain that he was not only the best choice, but self-evidently the only choice for the continuation of the American experiment. Their supporters called on each other to pester their friends and family and hijack every poll and discussion on the Internet, which is very similar to what I'm seeing called on in many threads here and on reddit. It could also be that a small majority do agree with you, but simply don't care. I'm sure you can think of some policies of the federal government you don't like, but you just don't spend any time trying to fight, other than the occasional Internet comment (you have gone beyond the occasional Internet comment on this issue, right?) When the public doesn't agree with you, or just doesn't care that much about your issue, it doesn't mean they are lazy uninformed idiots. That is a sophomoric way of looking at the world, it's not true, and it's not useful to think that way.
- gambler 13y ago
  It's possible that the public does understand the issue and disagrees with you. Disagrees based on what? Labeling someone as traitor doesn't constitute a rational counter-argument to concerns regarding privacy and government checks and balances in this case. Such argument should start with something like "I feel these programs are necessary because" and end with something that doesn't involve ultra-generic buzzwords.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "It's possible that the public does understand the issue and disagrees with you" It is possible but almost certainly not the case. Most people do not know enough about computers to understand what the NSA programs even entail. It is pretty hard for the general public to make informed decisions about computer or Internet policies, laws, or government involvement.
- ignostic 13y ago
  >"When the public doesn't agree with you, or just doesn't care that much about your issue, it doesn't mean they are lazy uninformed idiots. That is a sophomoric way of looking at the world, it's not true, and it's not useful to think that way." Would you like to point out where I made such an idiotic claim? I didn't mean or intent to imply that the only reason people don't agree with me is because they don't know. My point was simply that a lot of people are ignorant. What's not useful is this sort of straw-man pedantry. As for those who agree but don't care: it's hard to blame them. I signed petitions, I sent letters to my elected representatives. I tried to attend a protest, but it was so pathetic that I left. I try, but there's a sense of futility to it all. I'm very open to suggestions on how we can have a greater impact.
mynameishere 13y ago
Well, first, they aren't whistle-blowers: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/18/19024443-analysis.. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/18/19024443-analysis.... That's fairly straightforward and it's getting tiresome hearing the term "whistle-blower", which is intended more for dog-food factory workers reporting the use of rotten horse meat, rather than people releasing gigantic, undifferentiated masses of state secrets. Second, releasing data securely is so trivial that both of these guys must have had a specific reason for not doing so. I mean, a humanitarian impulse would have led them to use the dark net and other channels, but neither of these guys did so. In Manning's case it could have been a simple matter of a personality disorder, which he clearly had: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/28/bradley-manning.. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/28/bradley-manning.... ...in Snowden's case, being a sane, smart guy, he either thought he could get away with high crimes through a clever escape, or he was an agent for China, Russia, or even the NSA itself. There's no serious defense for either. And as has been said before, nothing that has been released is the least surprising to anyone paying attention.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Maybe there needs to be a new word for a person who releases information outside of the established channels, which have been crippled by those who would be affected by the disclosure, yet still benefits the citizenry? That is, a revelation that is good despite legality?
rz2k 13y ago
I think this is a common experience for anyone who interacts with the rest of the world. And, since there always seems to be Texas sharpshooter response as to why anything you describe is somehow perfectly reasonable, perhaps the best aproach is to ask, "what wouldn't you want the government to collect, or how wouldn't you like it to be used?" If there's nothing, then you can dismiss them as not a serious person. If they have an answer you have a beginning point for a conversation that may not be a waste of time for both of you.

rhizome 13y ago

It may be helpful to sidestep the whole whistleblower/traitor binary by referring to them as witnesses to crimes.

soganess 13y ago
I feel if you added the modifier "government" or "government sanctioned", it would get the point across more.
- rhizome 13y ago
  I intentionally left it out in order to avoid political quibbling.
  - soganess 13y ago
    I figured, but I feel as if sidestepping the politics here defeats the point. That said, I'd love to be proven wrong. I think when it comes to this particular topic my background brands me bias and hence unable to contribute objectively.
    - rhizome 13y ago
      The point is the legality.

thex86 13y ago

> but we do have a long way to go before swaying public opinion At least in the case of Snowden, public opinion is against him and he is labelled as a "traitor" because people think it is perfectly fine for the government to spy on them, because unless they are doing something wrong, they have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. This dangerous argument is the reason that most people do not seem to care enough on why your government spying on you is a very bad thing and the ramifications of it, even if you are not doing something wrong. Throw in the "extreme" threat of terrorism on top of this, and most people are totally OK with the NSA programs: "I have nothing to hide and this helps prevent terrorism and therefore Snowden is a traitor for putting Americans at risk."

betterunix 13y ago
"public opinion is against him and he is labelled as a "traitor" because people think it is perfectly fine for the government to spy on them" I think it is more that the majority of people do not believe that the government is spying on them. Most people do not understand that it does not take a team of government agents to spy on a person. The issue is not merely that people think they have nothing to hide, but that they do not even understand that they are being watched.

skwirl 13y ago

It's possible that the public does understand the issue and disagrees with you. I'm reminded a little of the rabid followers of Ron Paul... they couldn't understand why the general public ignored their candidate when they were so beyond certain that he was not only the best choice, but self-evidently the only choice for the continuation of the American experiment. Their supporters called on each other to pester their friends and family and hijack every poll and discussion on the Internet, which is very similar to what I'm seeing called on in many threads here and on reddit. It could also be that a small majority do agree with you, but simply don't care. I'm sure you can think of some policies of the federal government you don't like, but you just don't spend any time trying to fight, other than the occasional Internet comment (you have gone beyond the occasional Internet comment on this issue, right?) When the public doesn't agree with you, or just doesn't care that much about your issue, it doesn't mean they are lazy uninformed idiots. That is a sophomoric way of looking at the world, it's not true, and it's not useful to think that way.

gambler 13y ago
It's possible that the public does understand the issue and disagrees with you. Disagrees based on what? Labeling someone as traitor doesn't constitute a rational counter-argument to concerns regarding privacy and government checks and balances in this case. Such argument should start with something like "I feel these programs are necessary because" and end with something that doesn't involve ultra-generic buzzwords.
betterunix 13y ago
"It's possible that the public does understand the issue and disagrees with you" It is possible but almost certainly not the case. Most people do not know enough about computers to understand what the NSA programs even entail. It is pretty hard for the general public to make informed decisions about computer or Internet policies, laws, or government involvement.
ignostic 13y ago
>"When the public doesn't agree with you, or just doesn't care that much about your issue, it doesn't mean they are lazy uninformed idiots. That is a sophomoric way of looking at the world, it's not true, and it's not useful to think that way." Would you like to point out where I made such an idiotic claim? I didn't mean or intent to imply that the only reason people don't agree with me is because they don't know. My point was simply that a lot of people are ignorant. What's not useful is this sort of straw-man pedantry. As for those who agree but don't care: it's hard to blame them. I signed petitions, I sent letters to my elected representatives. I tried to attend a protest, but it was so pathetic that I left. I try, but there's a sense of futility to it all. I'm very open to suggestions on how we can have a greater impact.

mynameishere 13y ago

Well, first, they aren't whistle-blowers: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/18/19024443-analysis.. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/18/19024443-analysis.... That's fairly straightforward and it's getting tiresome hearing the term "whistle-blower", which is intended more for dog-food factory workers reporting the use of rotten horse meat, rather than people releasing gigantic, undifferentiated masses of state secrets. Second, releasing data securely is so trivial that both of these guys must have had a specific reason for not doing so. I mean, a humanitarian impulse would have led them to use the dark net and other channels, but neither of these guys did so. In Manning's case it could have been a simple matter of a personality disorder, which he clearly had: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/28/bradley-manning.. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/28/bradley-manning.... ...in Snowden's case, being a sane, smart guy, he either thought he could get away with high crimes through a clever escape, or he was an agent for China, Russia, or even the NSA itself. There's no serious defense for either. And as has been said before, nothing that has been released is the least surprising to anyone paying attention.

rhizome 13y ago
Maybe there needs to be a new word for a person who releases information outside of the established channels, which have been crippled by those who would be affected by the disclosure, yet still benefits the citizenry? That is, a revelation that is good despite legality?

rz2k 13y ago

I think this is a common experience for anyone who interacts with the rest of the world. And, since there always seems to be Texas sharpshooter response as to why anything you describe is somehow perfectly reasonable, perhaps the best aproach is to ask, "what wouldn't you want the government to collect, or how wouldn't you like it to be used?" If there's nothing, then you can dismiss them as not a serious person. If they have an answer you have a beginning point for a conversation that may not be a waste of time for both of you.