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

The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 96 posts

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#21

Post by gjsman-1000 »

kiba wrote: post #12
throwawaysea wrote: post #6

> Congress must ensure that the next generation of Americans is able to speak and associate freely This is a bit ironic considering that the ACLU has abandoned many of its principled civil liberties stances of the past, including defense of free speech, and mostly turned into a progressive political organization. Some articles covering this change at the ACLU: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.ht…

On the topic of privacy, it is strange to see the ACLU speak against mass surveillance when they recently flip flopped on vaccine mandates, which are fundamentally about bodily autonomy and health privacy: I don't know why people argued for bodily autonomy when viruses don't care about bodily autonomy or who they infect. It would be one thing if a disease isn't infectious, but that's not how covid-19 works.

COVID-19 is not as bad as Smallpox or Ebola. The lack of acceptance of vaccines (partially) shows people aren't afraid of this disease and view this as an overreaction. If people were terrified because people were visibly dying in the streets and vomiting blood or walking around the grocery store disfigured for life - they'd get the vaccine like past mandates.

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#22

Post by Ekaros »

kiba wrote: post #12
throwawaysea wrote: post #6

> Congress must ensure that the next generation of Americans is able to speak and associate freely This is a bit ironic considering that the ACLU has abandoned many of its principled civil liberties stances of the past, including defense of free speech, and mostly turned into a progressive political organization. Some articles covering this change at the ACLU: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.ht…

On the topic of privacy, it is strange to see the ACLU speak against mass surveillance when they recently flip flopped on vaccine mandates, which are fundamentally about bodily autonomy and health privacy: I don't know why people argued for bodily autonomy when viruses don't care about bodily autonomy or who they infect. It would be one thing if a disease isn't infectious, but that's not how covid-19 works.

You have every right to protect yourself. I don't think police will stop you from wearing gas mask and bio hazard suite. As such you have every right and capability to protect yourself. Or just don't leave your own home. Simple. No need to force others to do something against their rights.

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#23

Post by lavabiopsy »

throwawaysea wrote: post #8
hzzg000 wrote: post #7

This is from the ACLU nagware banner: "Efforts to erase voting rights, trans rights, and abortion rights for millions of people are escalating across the country. We’re responding on all fronts — from courts to legislatures in all 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico — but we need your help to win." Has the mission statement changed? Why are trans people, who are on every front page daily as needing more rights, being dr…

The ACLU has definitely been taken over by partisans who are more interested in defending political positions rather than sticking to basic civil liberties principles. This article, titled “The Disintegration of the ACLU”, covers the changes in leadership and culture: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte...

I found that article to be thoroughly unconvincing, and the article itself also seems to fall for the same trap of defending political positions rather than sticking to basic civil liberties principles.

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#24

Post by [deleted] »

maxfurman wrote: post #15
fallingknife wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What rights do trans people not have?

Being trans is not a protected class, so discrimination against trans people is legal in many states. On top of that, states keep passing unconstitutional anti-trans bills like NC's famous "bathroom bill," which someone has to fight in court

[deleted]

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#25

Post by Beldin »

AntwaneB wrote: post #10

After reading the post, I fail to see any connection between 9/11 and the fact that mass surveillance is not the way forward. The article is also empty of any reason WHY mass surveillance would not be the way forward, or even why it should not be. This is a particularly useless article.

I've encountered this statement before. Without reading the article, here's the argumentation I heard:

Basically, the perpetrators were already known - there basically was already (close to) enough information to foresee serious problems (in hindsight * ), just no one connecting the dots. Adding mass surveillance to this doesn't make things easier: signals were already swamped under, that's not going to improve just by getting more data. Rather the opposite.

I don't know how this argumentation squares with the facts. But if the intelligence problem was "failure to connect dots", getting more "dots" is not a solution.

* also, hindsight is 20/20.

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#26

Post by Wowfunhappy »

throwawaysea wrote: post #6

> Congress must ensure that the next generation of Americans is able to speak and associate freely This is a bit ironic considering that the ACLU has abandoned many of its principled civil liberties stances of the past, including defense of free speech, and mostly turned into a progressive political organization. Some articles covering this change at the ACLU: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.ht…

> ACLU officials similarly reject the implication that their support of COVID-vaccine mandates is inconsistent with the organization’s opposition to past immunization requirements. They argue that COVID-19 is a more infectious and deadlier virus than H1N1, and that the vaccines are better. “What is the risk to public health? How effective is the vaccine? What are the alternatives?” asked Allie Bohm, a policy counsel for the New York Civil Liberties Union, summarizing the questions she considered. “The facts of H1N1 are different, and they lead to different conclusions. I don’t think that is inconsistent, because it is the same test being applied.”

That seems perfectly reasonable to me. A virus that has killed more people than WWII is very clearly over the line, even if I couldn't tell you exactly where the line is. (The same mushiness exists for free speech, unless you think it should be legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.)

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#27

Post by lavabiopsy »

fallingknife wrote: post #13
alexatalktome wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because trans people deserve basic civil liberties? And who better to fight for them than the American Civil Liberties Union

What rights do trans people not have?

At least in the US, there has been a flurry of anti-trans legislation passed in the last year: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/politics/anti-transgender-leg...

And violence against trans people has also increased this year: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/14/us-trans-trans...

Two years ago, many trans people were banned from serving in the US military. The ban was reversed earlier this year, but that's kind of the point: there are ongoing attacks against trans rights that are still happening right now and need attention. So that is why it gets the focus.

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#29

Post by Ekaros »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #26
throwawaysea wrote: post #6

> Congress must ensure that the next generation of Americans is able to speak and associate freely This is a bit ironic considering that the ACLU has abandoned many of its principled civil liberties stances of the past, including defense of free speech, and mostly turned into a progressive political organization. Some articles covering this change at the ACLU: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.ht…

> ACLU officials similarly reject the implication that their support of COVID-vaccine mandates is inconsistent with the organization’s opposition to past immunization requirements. They argue that COVID-19 is a more infectious and deadlier virus than H1N1, and that the vaccines are better. “What is the risk to public health? How effective is the vaccine? What are the alternatives?” asked Allie Bohm, a policy counsel…

So I suppose we should bring back prohibition as alcohol has killed more and is clear drag on public health. Maybe we should also extend this to everything, like drownings, stopping pedestrian traffic and so on...

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#30

Post by haberman »

hzzg000 wrote: post #7

This is from the ACLU nagware banner: "Efforts to erase voting rights, trans rights, and abortion rights for millions of people are escalating across the country. We’re responding on all fronts — from courts to legislatures in all 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico — but we need your help to win." Has the mission statement changed? Why are trans people, who are on every front page daily as needing more rights, being dr…

The statement about voting rights is particularly rich, given that the ACLU just won a lawsuit in Seattle to remove Charter Amendment 29 from the ballot for this fall's election. https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/transit-riders-union-seattlekin...

Charter Amendment 29 is (was?) a popular measure concerning homelessness that polls at around 60% in Seattle, with only 20% opposed. The ACLU sued to remove it from the ballot on legal technicalities: they say that it conflicts with state law. The core thrust of their legal arguments had no civil liberties basis to them. But in their filing they stated their core opposition to the bill in this way:

> While Plaintiffs agree with some of CA 29’s purported goals, these goals cannot be advanced by the local initiative process. Electioneering and soundbites are neither an appropriate nor a legal method for addressing a complex and evolving regional crisis. Moreover, allowing homelessness policy to be established by local initiative would open a floodgate to local initiative and referenda on homelessness, which could be used to further criminalize homelessness or derail action to address affordable housing and homelessness. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21040873-20210811-1-...)

The ACLU sued to prevent the people from voting on a popular initiative to address the homeless crisis, because in their opinion the people might fall prey to "electioneering and soundbites" and vote for the wrong thing.

The lead council for the ACLU on this lawsuit, Knoll Lowney, uses local initiatives extensively in his own progressive advocacy. "Knoll has extensive experience in initiative law, and has authored dozens of statewide and local initiatives for the progressive community." https://www.smithandlowney.com/our-team

In a previous lawsuit where Lowney was in the opposite position -- defending a local initiative to keep it on the ballot -- he argued that "All doubts should be resolved in favor of letting the people vote”, and “any challenges the [opponent] wants to raise will be fully preserved for post-election review”. (Those quotes are found in this filing): https://sccinsight.com/2021/08/31/compassion-seattle-changes...

But that principle flipped this time, when he argued that the citizens of Seattle cannot be allowed to vote on a measure to address one of the region's most urgent crises.

So I don't find it particularly convincing when the ACLU claims they will stand up for voting rights. They will fight against your right to vote on measures they do not agree with.

Post reply on HN