5 ms·

I really want to believe this could become reality. But the past surrounding this issue, as well as seemingly widespread apathy about our loss of civil libertie

I really want to believe this could become reality. But the past surrounding this issue, as well as seemingly widespread apathy about our loss of civil liberties, leaves me cynical. Nearly every time I fly, I hear someone in the security line (which to me resembles a cattle chute) remarking that they're in fact glad for the inconvenience, as they somehow feel safer. Nearly every family member or friend with whom I discuss Edward Snowden's revelations and the vast injustice of what the NSA is doing couldn't care less. I really don't have much hope for this bill. But I really wish I could believe in it as much as my younger self would have.

Lawtonfogle 12y ago
People value 'feeling safer' far more than 'being safer' or 'having rights'. This is the classical problem of not appreciating what you have until it's gone.
- mc32 12y ago
  Is that surprising in any way? Not saying it's right kr desirable but we've understood this phenomenon to exist in many contexts. We buy expensive wines over better cheaper ones for the sake of feeling better. It's a life of interpreted experience not cold logic. Life would be too complicated to think of the actuality of everything. It's got commonality with say a concept like pervasive direct democracy. Imagine having to make a decision a d vote on every single government act., even if only local. Most people would become exhausted of the process of this indefinite mobilization mindset. So feeling more secure is easier than actually being statistically more secure. Peace of mind is important. Look at insurance. You could probably run numbers and find other ways to minimize loss in the event of something catastrophic, but most of us just buy into external public insurance policies.
- jmccree 12y ago
  For an example of this, in GA last year a bill was passed that allowed people with weapons carry licenses (who have to be fingerprinted, background checked, etc.) to carry weapons into unsecured government buildings. Immediately local governments began complaining about now having to install metal detectors and have police officers to screen people for weapons before entering their buildings. Local government officials said they didn't "feel safe" with the new law, even though by virtue of being an unsecured building, nothing prevented a person with illegal intentions from entering with a weapon before or after the law. The law just exposed the faulty thinking that a "no guns" sticker on the front door would keep bad guys out.
twoodfin 12y ago
Nearly every family member or friend with whom I discuss Edward Snowden's revelations and the vast injustice of what the NSA is doing couldn't care less. It's possible they don't believe the Snowden revelations represent a loss of civil liberties. I actually find this to be a pretty rational belief: There's much talk about NSA data harvesting efforts as a "machinery of totalitarianism", but precious little (any?) evidence it's actually been employed that way. Real harm, not just the potential for harm, is what will motivate American citizens and their political leaders. After all, we have an election every four years giving one of us the potential power to kill millions and end civilization as we know it; that he or she also has the power to authorize computer systems that trawl through domestic phone records looking for connections to foreign bad guys doesn't seem that alarming in comparison.
- jgroszko 12y ago
  It's weird public discourse has gone from "Na, the NSA couldn't possibly be that widespread and invasive" to "Na, they're not doing anything bad with it..." It's like some collective denial of what the next step could be, apparently we have a lot more faith in government than a lot of people let on...
  - twoodfin 12y ago
    I don't remember that Pollyanna public discourse. What would you consider the most shocking Snowden disclosure? None that I'm aware of were that surprising. It was an open secret at the phone companies that TLA folk of one sort or another have been (only sometimes with direct cooperation) plugging mysterious gear into the network for decades. Really astounding that their methods are now targeted at Gmail and Facebook?
    - jgroszko 12y ago
      The firmware exploits that were being talked about a few weeks ago are probably the most surprising to me. But IIRC a lot of the stuff that Snowden revealed was previously considered the realm of tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
    - 12y ago
jdp23 12y ago
> I really don't have much hope for this bill. It's hard to know. Of course the cards are stacked against any chance to the surveillance state, especially in the Senate, but then again this is happening within the context of several clauses of the Patriot Act (including section 215) sunsetting unless Congress extends it by June. And this bill has been crafted with an eye to getting transpartisan support; it's huge that there's a Republican co-sponsor, and how many other things do Freedom Works and Demand Progress work together on? Also, portions of this bill were actually passed as an amendment to the Defense Authorization last June, with a surprisingly large majority. So, we shall see.
timepiece 12y ago
I hear someone in the security line (which to me resembles a cattle chute) remarking that they're in fact glad for the inconvenience They could be govt stooges (field agents) implanted to distort public opinion and create a false narrative that the general public is happy with these draconian procedures and that they're very popular (peer pressure) to advance their agenda and support the status-quo.
- bhayden 12y ago
  This would have to be pretty massive in scale, and the people standing around doing this all day are probably not well qualified or paid. If this was happening there would be people talking about it.
  - timepiece 12y ago
    It doesn't need to be on a massive scale or not pro-bono. It's enough to some people in the govt to volunteer and go on a disinformation field trip.

Lawtonfogle 12y ago

People value 'feeling safer' far more than 'being safer' or 'having rights'. This is the classical problem of not appreciating what you have until it's gone.

mc32 12y ago
Is that surprising in any way? Not saying it's right kr desirable but we've understood this phenomenon to exist in many contexts. We buy expensive wines over better cheaper ones for the sake of feeling better. It's a life of interpreted experience not cold logic. Life would be too complicated to think of the actuality of everything. It's got commonality with say a concept like pervasive direct democracy. Imagine having to make a decision a d vote on every single government act., even if only local. Most people would become exhausted of the process of this indefinite mobilization mindset. So feeling more secure is easier than actually being statistically more secure. Peace of mind is important. Look at insurance. You could probably run numbers and find other ways to minimize loss in the event of something catastrophic, but most of us just buy into external public insurance policies.
jmccree 12y ago
For an example of this, in GA last year a bill was passed that allowed people with weapons carry licenses (who have to be fingerprinted, background checked, etc.) to carry weapons into unsecured government buildings. Immediately local governments began complaining about now having to install metal detectors and have police officers to screen people for weapons before entering their buildings. Local government officials said they didn't "feel safe" with the new law, even though by virtue of being an unsecured building, nothing prevented a person with illegal intentions from entering with a weapon before or after the law. The law just exposed the faulty thinking that a "no guns" sticker on the front door would keep bad guys out.

twoodfin 12y ago

Nearly every family member or friend with whom I discuss Edward Snowden's revelations and the vast injustice of what the NSA is doing couldn't care less. It's possible they don't believe the Snowden revelations represent a loss of civil liberties. I actually find this to be a pretty rational belief: There's much talk about NSA data harvesting efforts as a "machinery of totalitarianism", but precious little (any?) evidence it's actually been employed that way. Real harm, not just the potential for harm, is what will motivate American citizens and their political leaders. After all, we have an election every four years giving one of us the potential power to kill millions and end civilization as we know it; that he or she also has the power to authorize computer systems that trawl through domestic phone records looking for connections to foreign bad guys doesn't seem that alarming in comparison.

jgroszko 12y ago
It's weird public discourse has gone from "Na, the NSA couldn't possibly be that widespread and invasive" to "Na, they're not doing anything bad with it..." It's like some collective denial of what the next step could be, apparently we have a lot more faith in government than a lot of people let on...
- twoodfin 12y ago
  I don't remember that Pollyanna public discourse. What would you consider the most shocking Snowden disclosure? None that I'm aware of were that surprising. It was an open secret at the phone companies that TLA folk of one sort or another have been (only sometimes with direct cooperation) plugging mysterious gear into the network for decades. Really astounding that their methods are now targeted at Gmail and Facebook?
  - jgroszko 12y ago
    The firmware exploits that were being talked about a few weeks ago are probably the most surprising to me. But IIRC a lot of the stuff that Snowden revealed was previously considered the realm of tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
  - 12y ago

jdp23 12y ago

> I really don't have much hope for this bill. It's hard to know. Of course the cards are stacked against any chance to the surveillance state, especially in the Senate, but then again this is happening within the context of several clauses of the Patriot Act (including section 215) sunsetting unless Congress extends it by June. And this bill has been crafted with an eye to getting transpartisan support; it's huge that there's a Republican co-sponsor, and how many other things do Freedom Works and Demand Progress work together on? Also, portions of this bill were actually passed as an amendment to the Defense Authorization last June, with a surprisingly large majority. So, we shall see.

timepiece 12y ago

I hear someone in the security line (which to me resembles a cattle chute) remarking that they're in fact glad for the inconvenience They could be govt stooges (field agents) implanted to distort public opinion and create a false narrative that the general public is happy with these draconian procedures and that they're very popular (peer pressure) to advance their agenda and support the status-quo.

bhayden 12y ago
This would have to be pretty massive in scale, and the people standing around doing this all day are probably not well qualified or paid. If this was happening there would be people talking about it.
- timepiece 12y ago
  It doesn't need to be on a massive scale or not pro-bono. It's enough to some people in the govt to volunteer and go on a disinformation field trip.