Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

backchannel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 131 posts

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#21

Post by rayiner »

treehau5 wrote: post #17
rayiner wrote: post #13

Between the inauguration and living in DC, all anyone can talk about lately is politics. So I've had the opportunity to probe a bunch of mainstream Democrats on this issue. The overwhelming response has been not caring (though many are more worried now that Trump is in the charge of the surveillance apparatus rather than Obama). Even to the extent people care, nobody cares enough to want to spend limited political ca…

> and sees government mostly as a positive force for enforcing civil rights and increasing social equality will embrace the expansion of the surveillance state. This isn't unique to the generation you talk about.

Millenials aren't unique in having those views, but are unique in that they'll be the ones running the country for the next 20-30 years.

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#22

Post by wybiral »

mozumder wrote: post #14
wybiral wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scope of that surveillance should be kept in check though. Search warrants seem reasonable to me (assuming the process of obtaining a warrant is somewhat restrictive) but broad unchecked surveillance isn't reasonable to me. Giving a government too much access and control seems bad for both the government and the people.

I get that but a lot of people are questioning any surveillance.

That's fair. But regarding this statement:

> Until you are your own king, you will always have to live under the permission of government.

My complaint is that a government should exist to facilitate the well being of its people. They should have to operate under the permission of us, not the other way around.

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#23

Post by stordoff »

I agree with the main point of the article, but feel like it undermines itself in a couple of ways. Firstly (and by far most importantly), the alleged quote from the NSA[1] comes from a parody site which explicitly states "[t]his parody website has no connection whatsoever to the National Security Agency"[2]. If a reader isn't already convinced of the potential harms of mass surveillance, (accidentally, presumably) using such quotes makes the arguments easier to discard.

Secondly, and this is more of a pet peeve of mine, is the "top highlight" that appears mid-way through the article. I know they aren't really comparable, but "mass surveillance is bad, but, by the way, we are totally tracking every interaction you make with this article" doesn't feel like a particularly consistent position to hold.

[1] > The standard operating procedure for the Domestic Surveillance Directorate is to 'collect all available information from all available sources all the time, every time, always.', per https://nsa.gov1.info/data/

[2] https://nsa.gov1.info/about/about.html

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#24

Post by Semiapies »

devoply wrote: post #19
rayiner wrote: post #13

Between the inauguration and living in DC, all anyone can talk about lately is politics. So I've had the opportunity to probe a bunch of mainstream Democrats on this issue. The overwhelming response has been not caring (though many are more worried now that Trump is in the charge of the surveillance apparatus rather than Obama). Even to the extent people care, nobody cares enough to want to spend limited political ca…

In the managerial culture no one really cares about the rules, because they don't think the rules apply to them because they are not doing anything wrong and they are privileged. They understand that some people in the country are not privileged and those rules are for "them", not for "us". The only way to make them change their minds is if a lot of them become targets of the control apparatus and in liberal democrac…

Trump will make them worry about the power of the government...right up until a Democrat is in the White House again.

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#25

Post by rhizome »

wildmusings wrote: post #2

Putting the debate over actual necessity aside, it's not a great political move to be the one to actually abolish any of these programs. God forbid a future attack is shown to have been planned through a medium that you or your party ended surveillance of. Realistically, I don't expect to see these programs change much until terrorism ceases to be a force in the world.

Your conclusion adopts the myth that an ideology can be extinguished. By what standard will terrorism be judged to have ceased, and is that standard subject to change? If the line can be moved, then it will.[1]

Pretty much anything can be reasoned in hindsight, and we have to have tools to undo the ratcheting effect that crisis responses have historically had on public policy. It's only through the devaluing of the public interest -- some might say freedom itself has been defined down over the years -- that there is no counterbalance to it being seen as "not a great political move." We have to invent a politics that can justify the tradeoff, and that it's not in existence yet (much), is something that authoritarians know. Heck, I guess we all know it, but there still has to be a way back, because what's the alternative?

Maybe we're about to find out.

1. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_institutions

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#26

Post by wildmusings »

carbocation wrote: post #3
wildmusings wrote: post #2

Putting the debate over actual necessity aside, it's not a great political move to be the one to actually abolish any of these programs. God forbid a future attack is shown to have been planned through a medium that you or your party ended surveillance of. Realistically, I don't expect to see these programs change much until terrorism ceases to be a force in the world.

> until terrorism ceases to be a force in the world I think you're basically implying this, but I think it's worth elaborating: there is no particular reason for terrorism to cease being a force in the world if things stay grossly similar to the way they are today. Unlike, say, war, which requires state actors to maintain aggression, terrorism requires just one individual with an idea. Even addressing root causes won…

>Unless people cease to be afraid (perhaps due to improved numeracy / statistical thinking)

I disagree with that approach to framing terrorism because attacks are not just random violence, they are responses to the specific actions or perceived actions of individuals and governments. Charlie Hebdo and the various cartoonists that have drawn political comics of Mohammed, have (to my knowledge) all found themselves at the receiving end of terrorist attacks, or at least credible threats that require them to change their way of life. Thus there are now broad topics where we don't actually have the freedom of speech that technically exists on paper.

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#27

Post by dangero »

rayiner wrote: post #13

Between the inauguration and living in DC, all anyone can talk about lately is politics. So I've had the opportunity to probe a bunch of mainstream Democrats on this issue. The overwhelming response has been not caring (though many are more worried now that Trump is in the charge of the surveillance apparatus rather than Obama). Even to the extent people care, nobody cares enough to want to spend limited political ca…

Isn't the entire Democratic viewpoint about augmenting the role of government in a number of places via government programs and regulation? I'm sure Democrats will pop up to tell me I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you cannot wish for the expansion of government control and power unless you believe the government is mostly good. It's an interesting line you've drawn to mass surveillance because, yes, if the government has our best interests in mind then surveillance is not a problem at all.

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#28

Post by rayiner »

devoply wrote: post #19
rayiner wrote: post #13

Between the inauguration and living in DC, all anyone can talk about lately is politics. So I've had the opportunity to probe a bunch of mainstream Democrats on this issue. The overwhelming response has been not caring (though many are more worried now that Trump is in the charge of the surveillance apparatus rather than Obama). Even to the extent people care, nobody cares enough to want to spend limited political ca…

In the managerial culture no one really cares about the rules, because they don't think the rules apply to them because they are not doing anything wrong and they are privileged. They understand that some people in the country are not privileged and those rules are for "them", not for "us". The only way to make them change their minds is if a lot of them become targets of the control apparatus and in liberal democrac…

I know a lot of people who care deeply about the rule of law that don't care about surveillance. The Constitution doesn't categorically prohibit surveillance. The fact of the matter is that when the Framers were writing the fourth amendment, they were really thinking in terms of property rights, not information. But there are many modes of surveillance that can be accomplished without infringing property rights.

Now, you can apply things like mosaic theory to conjure up rights against surveillance into existence. And maybe that would be the right thing to do. But that's not the only reasonable construction of the fourth amendment, and I'd argue not even the most reasonable one (doctrinally).

But, it's certainly something we could do. The "right to privacy" that covers contraception and abortion was conjured into existence literally from "penumbras." Even most "living Constitution" types would concede that those aren't the most doctrinally strict concepts. But it took an enormous amount of political capital to make those stick (and even today it is tenuous.) The question is, are people willing to spend that kind of political capital on electronic privacy?

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#29

Post by hedora »

rayiner wrote: post #13

Between the inauguration and living in DC, all anyone can talk about lately is politics. So I've had the opportunity to probe a bunch of mainstream Democrats on this issue. The overwhelming response has been not caring (though many are more worried now that Trump is in the charge of the surveillance apparatus rather than Obama). Even to the extent people care, nobody cares enough to want to spend limited political ca…

Wow. That has not been my experience at all. People on most sides of me are afraid of being rounded up, or are afraid someone they know will be rounded up.

(They are not worried about it happening this year, but are extrapolating 5 years.)

This is amongst mid-westerners and west coast types. East coast liberals I talked to years ago were part of the DC or military machine, and think 100% surveillance is just a natural tool for vetting politicians: "You have to live inside DC norms since birth or will be blacklisted, even if it is just a joint in high school... Otherwise, how will the ruling class keep running things?"

This was pre-Snowden, but after the at&t leaks, and they didn't believe NSA universal surveillance was possible inside the US. Maybe their tunes have changed. Anyway, maybe that demographic is the type of 'mainstream democrats' you are talking about. Is it some other group?

(I'm talking about my social circles, not trying to stereotype entire states, regions, though the above reads that way no matter how I word it)

edit: I see you live in DC. Called it, I guess. :-(

Re: The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset

#30

Post by carbocation »

wildmusings wrote: post #26
carbocation wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> until terrorism ceases to be a force in the world I think you're basically implying this, but I think it's worth elaborating: there is no particular reason for terrorism to cease being a force in the world if things stay grossly similar to the way they are today. Unlike, say, war, which requires state actors to maintain aggression, terrorism requires just one individual with an idea. Even addressing root causes won…

> Unless people cease to be afraid (perhaps due to improved numeracy / statistical thinking) I disagree with that approach to framing terrorism because attacks are not just random violence, they are responses to the specific actions or perceived actions of individuals and governments. Charlie Hebdo and the various cartoonists that have drawn political comics of Mohammed, have (to my knowledge) all found themselves at…

I was careful not to call the attacks random. Rather, for any individual, it is unlikely that they will be involved in a terrorist attack.

The Charlie Hebdo attacks are much more targeted (like an assassination), and seem qualitatively different from what people typically think of when terrorism comes to mind.

Post reply on HN