The US’s Stance on Surveillance Needs a Hard Reset • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by hedora » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 2:47 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #59

hedora wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being from china, eastern europe, south/central america, the middle east or being black. There's also persecution for being a single mom or lgbtq, but that doesn't fall under "rounded up". I haven't talked to any climate scientists recently, but I suppose living in antarctica for a year gets you on the "maybe losing your job" list. The "america first" chant on Friday didn't help. Neither did the "for americans" rheto…

Thinking that only the "Trump voters" are safe is a kind of thinking that borders on hysteria and is hard to take seriously. Undocumented immigrants are the only people who should have a reasonable concern of being deported. It's not like other countries don't deport undocumented immigrants either whether leftist or rightist so I don't see how when the US does it it's especially denouceable. [keep in mind, that Obama…

One of those groups (east europe/russia) is being defended by trump. Others have escalating troubles that predate him.

There's plenty of blame to cover both parties.

People seem more concerned that the system elected him than anything else. How bad (in this discussion, xenophobic) will the next president be?

I have noticed a profound, bipartisan disappointment with both parties.

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

#72

Post by Fricken » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 2:48 AM UTC

dirkg wrote: post #62

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, be…

America already has all the power to abuse the system. They have a standing military. The reason the government is the government is because they maintain a monopoly on violence. Freaking out about surveillance is like freaking out about the compass in Rambo's survival knife when he's got a rocket launcher aimed down your throat. The compass is new I suppose. The rocket launcher has been there so long we don't even notice it any more. Whether or not the government abuses it's powers is strictly a matter of whether or not it feels like abusing it's powers. With or without trendy new surveillance capabilities, the logic of that doesn't change. Why this isn't obvious is beyond me.

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

#73

Post by battlebot » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 2:48 AM UTC

This is a thinly-veiled "Bash Trump" article. It is purely speculative what the Trump administration will do at this point. Obama was shitty on civil liberties, Bush was the one who caused us so much harm to begin with. But if we want privacy then we have to fight to get it back the same way Americans are fighting to get back their full 2nd Amendment rights. It can be done, but this stupid, petty, left vs. right false dichotomy has to end--there are only statists and individualists, that's all there is. You have those want to coerce and those who want to be free.

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

#74

Post by battlebot » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 2:50 AM UTC

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…

That is pure idiocy. Who is going to round you up?

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

#75

Post by woofyman » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 2:50 AM UTC

jayjay71 wrote: post #63

woofyman wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The long history of the Republic. Our Institutions have failed us whether it's slavery or the Japanese internment, Jim Crow, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, the hysteria after 911. But in each case we eventually recognized our mistakes and made corrections.

Edit: also the treatment of First Nation peoples

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

#76

Post by battlebot » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 2:51 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #59

hedora wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being from china, eastern europe, south/central america, the middle east or being black. There's also persecution for being a single mom or lgbtq, but that doesn't fall under "rounded up". I haven't talked to any climate scientists recently, but I suppose living in antarctica for a year gets you on the "maybe losing your job" list. The "america first" chant on Friday didn't help. Neither did the "for americans" rheto…

Thinking that only the "Trump voters" are safe is a kind of thinking that borders on hysteria and is hard to take seriously. Undocumented immigrants are the only people who should have a reasonable concern of being deported. It's not like other countries don't deport undocumented immigrants either whether leftist or rightist so I don't see how when the US does it it's especially denouceable. [keep in mind, that Obama…

Exactly--enforcing the laws that should be enforced is not the same thing as running cattle cars into extermination camps! The hysteria must stop.

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

#77

Post by mc32 » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 2:54 AM UTC

hedora wrote: post #71

mc32 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking that only the "Trump voters" are safe is a kind of thinking that borders on hysteria and is hard to take seriously. Undocumented immigrants are the only people who should have a reasonable concern of being deported. It's not like other countries don't deport undocumented immigrants either whether leftist or rightist so I don't see how when the US does it it's especially denouceable. [keep in mind, that Obama…

One of those groups (east europe/russia) is being defended by trump. Others have escalating troubles that predate him. There's plenty of blame to cover both parties. People seem more concerned that the system elected him than anything else. How bad (in this discussion, xenophobic) will the next president be? I have noticed a profound, bipartisan disappointment with both parties.

Many people in the press conflate border control with xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment. I didn't vote for the guy but my take is he isn't looking to kerb legal immigration (with the exception of people form "terrorist hotbeds") so much as require all immigrants to get the proper visa as well as get expelled if they overstay a visa --normal operating procedure for most mature governments.

I can understand the preoccupation that he might especially kerb people from the ME. However I see this constant conflation seemingly to scare all immigrants into thinking that the new administration is "anti-immigrant" whereas I see it as anti-illegal/undocumented immigration.

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

#78

Post by hedora » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 2:55 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #59

hedora wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being from china, eastern europe, south/central america, the middle east or being black. There's also persecution for being a single mom or lgbtq, but that doesn't fall under "rounded up". I haven't talked to any climate scientists recently, but I suppose living in antarctica for a year gets you on the "maybe losing your job" list. The "america first" chant on Friday didn't help. Neither did the "for americans" rheto…

Thinking that only the "Trump voters" are safe is a kind of thinking that borders on hysteria and is hard to take seriously. Undocumented immigrants are the only people who should have a reasonable concern of being deported. It's not like other countries don't deport undocumented immigrants either whether leftist or rightist so I don't see how when the US does it it's especially denouceable. [keep in mind, that Obama…

Also, rayiner and I seem to be similarly calibrated w.r.t. concern over this stuff. It is striking that I end up on the 'calm down' side of in-person conversations, given rayiner's opposite experience with democrats.

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

#79

Post by battlebot » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 2:57 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #55

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…

The irony in all this passivity towards surveillance is the leaking of Hillary's and the DNC's emails and the damage that did to her campaign.

Oh lordy. Did we not want to know the truth about a public figure? It was a service to all voters to have a full understanding of the person and the party and shenanigans and unlawful misdeeds. That kind of sunshine is always welcome and I would go as far as saying that people in government have no expectation of privacy and that secrecy at those levels is highly dangerous to liberty because 99% of the time it is used to cover up misdeeds or incompetence. Whether that extends to Mr. Podesta, I'm less sure, but after what they did to Bernie Sanders, I'm not shedding any tears for those people. They're scum. And it is the utmost good that Clinton lost the election--we can't survive that kind of corruption or we end up as a dictatorship.

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

#80

Post by mc32 » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 2:57 AM UTC

battlebot wrote: post #76

mc32 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking that only the "Trump voters" are safe is a kind of thinking that borders on hysteria and is hard to take seriously. Undocumented immigrants are the only people who should have a reasonable concern of being deported. It's not like other countries don't deport undocumented immigrants either whether leftist or rightist so I don't see how when the US does it it's especially denouceable. [keep in mind, that Obama…

Exactly--enforcing the laws that should be enforced is not the same thing as running cattle cars into extermination camps! The hysteria must stop.

Do you really honestly think that's where things are heading? I mean, in your heart of hearts, do you truly think that?

When I cross a street, a simple second can separate me from getting plastered by a car or a cyclist. But it's not the same as actually being plastered by a car or a cyclist.