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

61–70 of 131 posts

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

#61

Post by BinaryWaves »

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…

Speak for yourself plenty of east coast liberals equally sick of shit here and can't stand the military. Here in VA military is shoved down your throat and any mention of not liking it is almost herecy

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

#62

Post by dirkg »

These articles are just wishful fantasy. Our history has shown that people are perfectly willing and happy to tolerate any form of govt abuse as long as they get their dose of reality tv and 'justifications' from mass media, all you need to do is mention the T word and 'keep America great' and you can do whatever you want.

Even if people cared, which they don't, the govt has zero incentive to actually do anything, because increased surveillance gives them more power and more power to abuse the system.

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

#63

Post by jayjay71 »

woofyman wrote: post #42
cmurf wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

DACA and the undocumented: that's a legitimate fear. Muslin Americans and Muslins here legally: that's legitimate but I'm confident our institutions are strong enough to prevent something that blatantly unconstitutional from happening.

> I'm confident our institutions are strong enough to prevent something that blatantly unconstitutional from happening

I say this in all seriousness: why?

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

#64

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rayiner wrote: post #35
DrScump wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 , whe…

Is it maybe an analogy problem?

At the time of the framing, your accountant had your information, but he was also authorized to know it. Nobody at Google is authorized to read my email or even I expect look at who I'm corresponding with. It's all done by machine.

And the whole concept of "property" as inside a machine is unusual. Is an email on a server like a letter on an accountant's desk, or is it like a letter on my desk in my apartment which I lease from someone else?

Was the government in 1780 allowed to subpoena the Post Office for your mail?

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

#65

Post by cryoshon »

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…

>all anyone can talk about lately is politics

if your house is burning down, would you be surprised if all anyone can talk about is fire? the US' situation is similar.

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

#66

Post by cryoshon »

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.

>Rounded up for what?

differentness, dissent, journalism.

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

#67

Post by rayiner »

nine_k wrote: post #56
roastbeef wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about Republicans? Libertarians? Why do you assume that Democrats are the majority or that their opinion has any more weight than anyone else? As the darling President of the Democrats, Obama has increased the surveillance state more than anyone before him.

Many Republicans don't mind big government. I wish more Libertarians were in Congress or otherwise existed %) Democrats are not only the main,opposition to the president; they are the force that kept adding surveillance.

Republicans don't purport to oppose "government" (they're not anarcho-libertarians). They use "small government" to mean keeping government within its legitimate functions, which includes defense and maintaining moral order. When you say to a Republican that expanding the defense department necessarily means expanding "government," you're not pointing out some inconsistency they thought of. You're simply playing games with the words and talking past them.

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

#68

Post by hedora »

BinaryWaves wrote: post #61
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…

Speak for yourself plenty of east coast liberals equally sick of shit here and can't stand the military. Here in VA military is shoved down your throat and any mention of not liking it is almost herecy

I totally get that, and even put in a disclaimer to that effect! (Limited space in comments, etc).

Keep fighting the good fight.

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

#69

Post by many_bells_down »

cryoshon wrote: post #66
woofyman wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>Rounded up for what? differentness, dissent, journalism.

Is this even grounded in reality?

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

#70

Post by ra1n85 »

jdavis703 wrote: post #41
ra1n85 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is this ironic? I could see why this might be labeled a double standard. Not trying to be pedantic here, just trying to understand your point of view.

Good question, and you're correct - it's a double standard. However, I have no clue as to why Chelsea Manning is perceived to deserve clemency more than Snowden.
Post reply on HN