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

81–90 of 131 posts

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

#81

Post by anigbrowl »

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…

What else can people do absent somethin glike a constitutional privacy amendment? Americans have just never cared much for privacy in the aggregate; the news is (and has long been) dominated by stories that appeal to the most prurient of interests, and furthermore Americans generally don't care what other people think of them that much (or so it seems to this European).

True, many of them may not appreciate the degree to which their lack of privacy is exploited for commercial purposes , but make too much of a fuss about that and people think you're a proto-communist or something. I'm very privacy-oriented by temperament but I've gotten used to being out of step with almost everyone I know over this.

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

#82

Post by mirimir »

battlebot wrote: post #73

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 fals…

So Mike Pompeo won't be CIA Director?

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

#83

Post by ajmurmann »

lisper wrote: post #57
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.

Many Germans said that in 1933. I know because I interviewed my grandparents before they died, and they told me so. They fled to Palestine, but many of their friends stayed behind saying, "It can't possibly get that bad." None of their friends survived.

I find it terrifying this gets down voted. We should always keep in mind what the parent said no matter who is running this or any other country. Things like that have happened several times before in history in different scales and we need to remain vigilant to prevent something like it from happening again.

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

#85

Post by QuarterReptile »

nitrogen wrote: post #45
dangero wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 governm…

As is often mentioned in these discussions, the government cannot be treated as a monolithic entity. So when someone suggests a basic income might solve welfare problems, they aren't suggesting the intelligence agencies should be the ones running it. On that note, while government has been tearing down walls between agencies, in some cases we should be raising walls.

With Mexico, you mean?

But in all seriousness, you're correct, though I temper my enthusiasm with the thought that having the walls tends to make people complacent and underestimate risks.

For example, spying on other countries is as old as governments. So maybe that's pretty reasonable, as long as we put up a wall so that those things can't be used domestically. Now that we've settled that issue, let's build some really good tools so we know what our adversaries are doing and we can always find them. Unfortunately, then the hubris of it all catches up with us when some outgoing attorney general approves massive data sharing from tools that were always understood to be permissible only because they were aimed away from us.

Until we can find some way to make our politicians respect constitutional rights, walls are frighteningly temporary.

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

#86

Post by Inconel »

hedora wrote: post #52
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.

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…

I don't want to be dismissive of the concerns you've highlighted, they are certainly valid, and I'm no fan of Trump, and even less a fan of some of the people in his cabinet, but as someone who falls into some of the demographics you've listed (non-white, poor immigrant working on becoming middle class) I have more pressing concerns.

Don't get me wrong, mass surveillance, the continued and most likely expanded drug war, climate change skepticism, and a long list of other existential threats, all worry me, but they don't really worry me as much as housing costs, employment, not being killed by the Mexican gangs in my neighborhood, not being mugged while riding the metro, or being killed by the police because of mistaken identity and itchy trigger fingers.

Also, to clarify so there is no misunderstanding, when I mentioned Mexican gangs, I'm not using Mexican as an uniformed euphemism for Hispanic/Latino, I'm specifically talking about Mexican gangs who are active in targeting non-Mexicans, and in particular blacks, with violence to try and force us out of entire neighborhoods.

Again, this isn't to dismiss the valid concerns you've raised, just giving an example of things that concern me more immediately.

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

#87

Post by jayjay71 »

woofyman wrote: post #75
jayjay71 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

You readily acknowledge "Our Institutions have failed us" multiple times, but you're arguing they can't fail us again because of "The long history" - I think you're arguing against yourself. And while this is digging further into the past, you left out The Trail of Tears from your list - an iconic example of the president ignoring the law because he can. That man is now on our $20 bill, so it seems he's been rewarded by history.

Saying injustices happen and are eventually rectified is one thing (which seems to be your argument), saying injustices can never happen again is something completely different.

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

#89

Post by hedora »

many_bells_down wrote: post #69
cryoshon wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is this even grounded in reality?

Obama went after whistleblowers more aggressively than any prior president, so that grounds the 'journalist' part

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

#90

Post by many_bells_down »

mc32 wrote: post #77
hedora wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

This conflation creates division. The same occurs with a myriad of other issues. Someone could have supported Trump at the inauguration on Friday, marched in support of women's rights on Saturday, and been entirely consistent in the views they were espousing. However, a common viewpoint is that these are somehow mutually exclusive when in fact they are far from it.
Post reply on HN