5 ms·

> Economic losses to US businesses due to lost sales and declining customer trust. Whenever I have a discussion with friends on this topic, this is what I focu

by diafygi 12y ago

> Economic losses to US businesses due to lost sales and declining customer trust. Whenever I have a discussion with friends on this topic, this is what I focus on. For many people, safety has a higher political priority than privacy. However, when you start saying that mass surveillance kills jobs, it gets much more attention because economic issues are usually on par or above safety concerns. This is why I don't understand Google's and Facebook's (and IBM's and Cisco's and RSA's, for that matter) response to this thing. If they really wanted to stop these programs, they would make a SuperPAC and run ads everywhere saying "NSA" and "job killers" in the same sentence as many times as possible.

opendais 12y ago
It is because the people with MBAs and the people on the Board don't really care that much. They'll protest and engage in a little bit of legal action but they don't want to go all out to fight it.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  Google and Facebook just posted record profits, why are the MBAs supposed to care?
  - opendais 12y ago
    I never said they were supposed to care. :P
vonmoltke 12y ago
> For many people, safety has a higher political priority than privacy. However, when you start saying that mass surveillance kills jobs, it gets much more attention because economic issues are usually on par or above safety concerns. Then there are people like my wife, who thinks disclosure hurt the US politically and economically, thus rationalizing that it is Snowden's fault for revealing all these surveillance programs, not the NSA's for having them in the first place. I think that attitude, combined with "safety > privacy" and "I have nothing to hide" are very common amongst more politically-aware people. I, unfortunately, can't come up with many good, non-tinfoil rebuttals.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  I, unfortunately, can't come up with many good, non-tinfoil rebuttals. It's an assertion that all crime is permissible, if the perpetrator is not caught.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
  So, if you, I dunno, cheated on her, and a friend who knew about it told her, then it would all be that friend's fault, right? People have weird ethics ...
  - Herring 12y ago
    I think it has something to do with shame vs guilt cultures.
- watwut 12y ago
  "I have nothing to hide" is in this context synonymous with "I am not associated with wikileaks or any other know activist group able to anger the powerful" and "I am not journalist about to make government angry" and "I am not developing tor or some encryption tool" and "I am not defense layer in important case" and "I am not involved with occupy wall street" and so on. The spying on commission investigating NSA was already revealed. "Nothing to hide" theory presumes NSA did it just for fun and had nothing to gain. I have nothing to hide too. However, that is because I am not politically significant. The privacy and protection against agencies are not that needed for random Joe, however random Joe still benefits from fair democratic process even if he chosen not to be active. They are needed for politically active people not currently in power. Or, imagine something like Petraeus scandal. Ability to see someones mails and ability whose browsing habits are about to become public knowledge is huge. Ability to see opposition or activists or defense lawyer plans can make huge difference even if they are not involved in anything illegal or unethical.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- HSO 12y ago
ptaffs 12y ago
I suggest the NSA work is a big job creation scheme, there are a lot of contractors and vendors providing services and facilities to this (big) branch of the government. A lot of tax dollars are spent on this. And the effectiveness is questionable, because it's secret. We know big federal government IT Contract outsourcing failed to deliver Health Care Gov, I suspect there are a myriad of failed systems we're just not getting to hear about. I talk about cost to the tax payer.
cryoshon 12y ago
Unfortunately every argument in our society right now must be focused around how the issue at hand relates to money. Also unfortunately, the "many people" you mention are shortsighted and prone to be scared by the fear-of-the-week. They're not reliable at picking the right things to care about, and are extremely susceptible to being riled up by the media. I tend to focus on the destruction of the free press that the NSA's surveillance implies. Sources can't be kept confidential, and so nobody will speak to journalists. Additionally, nothing is really "off the record" anymore because of surveillance. Unfortunately, this argument of mine neglects the moribund/state owned mainstream media, which really doesn't have any need for confidential sources or off the record conversations anyway.
cowbell 12y ago
>If they really wanted to stop these programs There's your answer, isn't it? They don't want to stop these programs. They benefit from the economic espionage. Actions speak louder than words.

by diafygi 12y ago

opendais 12y ago

It is because the people with MBAs and the people on the Board don't really care that much. They'll protest and engage in a little bit of legal action but they don't want to go all out to fight it.

happyscrappy 12y ago
Google and Facebook just posted record profits, why are the MBAs supposed to care?
- opendais 12y ago
  I never said they were supposed to care. :P

vonmoltke 12y ago

> For many people, safety has a higher political priority than privacy. However, when you start saying that mass surveillance kills jobs, it gets much more attention because economic issues are usually on par or above safety concerns. Then there are people like my wife, who thinks disclosure hurt the US politically and economically, thus rationalizing that it is Snowden's fault for revealing all these surveillance programs, not the NSA's for having them in the first place. I think that attitude, combined with "safety > privacy" and "I have nothing to hide" are very common amongst more politically-aware people. I, unfortunately, can't come up with many good, non-tinfoil rebuttals.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
I, unfortunately, can't come up with many good, non-tinfoil rebuttals. It's an assertion that all crime is permissible, if the perpetrator is not caught.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
So, if you, I dunno, cheated on her, and a friend who knew about it told her, then it would all be that friend's fault, right? People have weird ethics ...
- Herring 12y ago
  I think it has something to do with shame vs guilt cultures.
watwut 12y ago
"I have nothing to hide" is in this context synonymous with "I am not associated with wikileaks or any other know activist group able to anger the powerful" and "I am not journalist about to make government angry" and "I am not developing tor or some encryption tool" and "I am not defense layer in important case" and "I am not involved with occupy wall street" and so on. The spying on commission investigating NSA was already revealed. "Nothing to hide" theory presumes NSA did it just for fun and had nothing to gain. I have nothing to hide too. However, that is because I am not politically significant. The privacy and protection against agencies are not that needed for random Joe, however random Joe still benefits from fair democratic process even if he chosen not to be active. They are needed for politically active people not currently in power. Or, imagine something like Petraeus scandal. Ability to see someones mails and ability whose browsing habits are about to become public knowledge is huge. Ability to see opposition or activists or defense lawyer plans can make huge difference even if they are not involved in anything illegal or unethical.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
HSO 12y ago

ptaffs 12y ago

I suggest the NSA work is a big job creation scheme, there are a lot of contractors and vendors providing services and facilities to this (big) branch of the government. A lot of tax dollars are spent on this. And the effectiveness is questionable, because it's secret. We know big federal government IT Contract outsourcing failed to deliver Health Care Gov, I suspect there are a myriad of failed systems we're just not getting to hear about. I talk about cost to the tax payer.

cryoshon 12y ago

Unfortunately every argument in our society right now must be focused around how the issue at hand relates to money. Also unfortunately, the "many people" you mention are shortsighted and prone to be scared by the fear-of-the-week. They're not reliable at picking the right things to care about, and are extremely susceptible to being riled up by the media. I tend to focus on the destruction of the free press that the NSA's surveillance implies. Sources can't be kept confidential, and so nobody will speak to journalists. Additionally, nothing is really "off the record" anymore because of surveillance. Unfortunately, this argument of mine neglects the moribund/state owned mainstream media, which really doesn't have any need for confidential sources or off the record conversations anyway.

cowbell 12y ago

>If they really wanted to stop these programs There's your answer, isn't it? They don't want to stop these programs. They benefit from the economic espionage. Actions speak louder than words.