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

31–40 of 131 posts

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

#31

Post by DrScump »

rayiner wrote: post #28
devoply wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

  when the Framers were writing the fourth amendment, they were really thinking in terms of property rights, not information
When they specifically enumerated privacy rights encompassing one's "papers and effects", I expect that they meant the information on said papers, not the raw value of paper stock itself.

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

#32

Post by woofyman »

hedora wrote: post #29
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 natura…

>People on most sides of me are afraid of being rounded up

Rounded up for what? No one I know has that fear.

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

#33

Post by cmurf »

rayiner wrote: post #21
treehau5 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think you mean in the next 20-30 years rather than for the next 20-30 years. At a federal level it is mainly baby boomers in charge. In state legislatures, gen X vs baby boom, varies a lot by state.

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

#35

Post by rayiner »

DrScump wrote: post #31
rayiner wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

when the Framers were writing the fourth amendment, they were really thinking in terms of property rights, not information When they specifically enumerated privacy rights encompassing one's "papers and effects", I expect that they meant the information on said papers, not the raw value of paper stock itself.

Sure, the framers meant to protect the information, not the paper stock. But they gave a right against a particular way of accessing that information. They prohibited warrentless searching or seizing--i.e. infringing your property rights in--the paper, not a blanket right against the government collecting that information by any means.

If the framers had intended to protect the information regardless of source, whether or not it was contained in your papers and effects, they would have done so. The framers did not have Facebook, but they would have understood the importance of sensitive information held by third parties. They were merchants, bankers, wealthy farmers, and lawyers. They would have been able to conceive of, for example, the government collecting manifests from a shipper to prosecute a merchant for evading taxes. Or subpoenaing books from an accountant. The fundamental legal question underlying a big chunk of the surveillance issue--can the government force Facebook to give it information Facebook has about a user--has been teed up ever since subpoenas and accountants existed (both a couple of hundred years prior to the founding).

What the framers did not contemplate is that one day the government would not have to infringe your property rights to get all your personal information.

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

#36

Post by ocdtrekkie »

tomkin wrote: post #20

When Obama says that Snowden created serious security implications, do you think that's from a point of privilege, or simply placing ideology over practicality? Based on everything I know, both Obama and Snowden appear to be fairly authentic characters. It seems weird that they would have opposing view points. If we're to assume the best ideals are forged though intelligent reasoning and debate, shouldn't they have b…

Fairly authentic characters regularly have drastically diverse viewpoints. For instance, Republicans and Democrats. Parties on both sides have fairly authentic views[1] on various moral points, that end in very, very different opinions. And no amount of intelligent reasoning or debate will bring either party closer to the other.

[1]Both parties ALSO have fairly unauthentic views, on how they will in fact, happily sell us out to a corporation for a side gig when they leave office. But they tell us they won't and that's shameful to even suggest that's what they're doing.

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

#37

Post by ra1n85 »

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…

Seeing this as well. The most ironic of my observations was that the most liberal of my friends would support the release of Chelsea Manning, but insisted on prosecuting Snowden.

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

#38

Post by cmurf »

woofyman wrote: post #32
hedora wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 natura…

>People on most sides of me are afraid of being rounded up Rounded up for what? No one I know has that fear.

DACA: whether ther 1/4 million approved or the 2 million eligble, it is unknown whether they will be targeted for deportation. Undocumented workers: past Republican administrations have engaged in work place raids as an enforcement action on workers themselves, rather than on employers engaging in illegal hiring. Muslims? It's not unreasonable for them to debate in their own mind whether the president is sincere, and if sincere then they have every reason to consider being rounded up. If he was insincere that results in its own trust issue.

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

#39

Post by pitaj »

tomludus wrote: post #6

One reason that leaders as diametrically opposed as Obama and Trump can be aligned on surveillance is simple: The majority of Americans don’t care. The reason why this keeps getting worse and worse.

Just for future reference, please don't quote using the four-spaces code block. It can make it difficult to read on mobile, and often requires scrolling from side to side on desktop.

Please, instead, use the `>` (meme arrow). While it does not add markup, it does make it significantly more readable. Thanks.

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

#40

Post by lern_too_spel »

tomkin wrote: post #20

When Obama says that Snowden created serious security implications, do you think that's from a point of privilege, or simply placing ideology over practicality? Based on everything I know, both Obama and Snowden appear to be fairly authentic characters. It seems weird that they would have opposing view points. If we're to assume the best ideals are forged though intelligent reasoning and debate, shouldn't they have b…

How about the South China Morning Post, whom Snowden also provided with classified information? Does that also merely call into question merely whom he went to, not what he did?
Post reply on HN