4 ms·
A lot of people will inevitably comment on the flimsiness of this bill - that it can be easily circumvented. This might be true, but its a step forward because
by zallarak 12y ago
A lot of people will inevitably comment on the flimsiness of this bill - that it can be easily circumvented. This might be true, but its a step forward because it acknowledges that government backdoors are a bad thing.
I wish I could remember where I read about this, but its similar to how activists changed the classification of LGBT literature to a non-stigmatizing category in libraries. This was the start of a lot of progress for LGBT rights. It was a minor victory among lots of major defeats at the time it happened.
Instead of complaining about the weaknesses in the bill, we should view this as a facet of a multi-pronged effort to maintain privacy.
- waterlesscloud 12y agoOf course that's the point of it, and in that sense it is indeed useful. It's a bill intended to send a message and establish values, and it does that nicely. You can tell it's intended to send a message because, well, that's what the Senator says in the press release. “This bill sends a message to leaders of those agencies to stop recklessly pushing for new ways to vacuum up Americans’ private information, and instead put that effort into rebuilding public trust.”
- tptacek 12y agoSo, what you're saying is, it's cosmetic.
- waterlesscloud 12y agoNo, that's not what I'm saying.
- tptacek 12y agoI didn't expect you to agree, but rather hoped you'd spell out why.
- graeme 12y agoYou're being downvoted above because the second comment in the thread said "Of course that's the point of it,", referring to the comment above, which said: "it can be easily circumvented. This might be true, but its a step forward because it acknowledges that government backdoors are a bad thing. I wish I could remember where I read about this, but its similar to how activists changed the classification of LGBT literature to a non-stigmatizing category in libraries. This was the start of a lot of progress for LGBT rights. It was a minor victory among lots of major defeats at the time it happened. Instead of complaining about the weaknesses in the bill, we should view this as a facet of a multi-pronged effort to maintain privacy." That's the answer to your question of why they claim it's not merely cosmetic. They think it is cosmetic, but may also play a role in shifting language and expectations, which will have a more than cosmetic effect down the line. Edit: Rather than continue the thread – you might be right. I'll let waterlesscloud answer is I've misinterpreted their opinion.
- tptacek 12y agoI don't mind the downvotes! I don't think you and 'waterlesscloud agree. I said "so it's cosmetic", and my interpretation of his response is "it's more than cosmetic". If so: how? "Playing a role in shifting language"?
- coldtea 12y agoYeah, opening an Overton window: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window Shifting language is not cosmetic. Has actual consequences beyond the realm of language.
- walshemj 12y agoPious is the normal term for his sort of motion.
- graeme 12y ago>I wish I could remember where I read about this, but its similar to how activists changed the classification of LGBT literature to a non-stigmatizing category in libraries. I think it was in the Tipping Point by Gladwell. I'm not certain, but I read that recently and that's the only book I've read recently that has that sort of anecdote.
- tedunangst 12y agoSo security theater is ok when we're the ones doing it?