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

81–90 of 96 posts

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

#81

Post by Retric »

TeeMassive wrote: post #80
Retric wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACLU is a finite organization that needs to chose which battles to fight. Suggesting their not doing enough because they don’t prioritize your issues generally means you should be funding some other organization. https://www.eff.org/ for example may better fit your personal beliefs.

The ACLU chose its case mostly in terms of the impact they will have. This is why the ACLU used to defend the KKK's 1st amendment rights even as recently as 2012. Now many of its members, even high profile ones, are arguing for the suppression of speech; justified by the Marxist ideological thinking that it mostly benefits "those in power" ( https://archive.is/tL7Rj )

All the way back in “the 1930s, the ACLU started to engage in work combating police misconduct and supporting Native American rights.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union So it’s been about far more than free speech for the vast majority of it’s history. And it still defends such causes, one example is even in the article:

“In August 2017, officials in Charlottesville, Va., rescinded a permit for far-right groups to rally downtown in support of a statue to the Confederate general Robert E. Lee. Officials instead relocated the demonstration to outside the city’s core. The A.C.L.U. of Virginia argued that this violated the free speech rights of the far-right groups and won, preserving the right for the group to parade downtown.“

So while it’s scope has increased over time which has created increased internal tension, that’s always been the case. “The A.C.L.U. has in fact often gloried in its internal contentions. It split over decisions to represent the Nazis in the 1930s, the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s, and the Nazis in the 1970s.”

Frankly the organization has never been filled 100% with defenders of free speech the Twitter age combined with a wider scope has brought this internal tension to the general public. The important work they do is generally in the courtroom which is far more focused.

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

#82

Post by mindslight »

Retric wrote: post #66
mindslight wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are ways to address that conflict. I'm not trying to join the trope of criticizing the contemporary ACLU, but rather pointing out that rights aren't purely relative constructions. Negative liberty (prohibitions on government infringing rights) and tradition (eg property rights) are two ways of non-relatively reasoning about rights. And of course when rights are in balanced tension on a topic, it's possible to s…

Many things don’t have a neutral middle ground. What can governments or other employers require of their employees? Can cops lie to suspects is another tricky one. At one end is a flat no, at the other is misrepresent themselves as the defendants lawyer or pretend to offer immunity in exchange for turning on other suspects.

My point about employment is that if employees had a good amount of bargaining power to say no (and not just yes to a different employer that will tend to move in lock step), then arbitrary requirements by any given employer wouldn't much matter. It's only the fact that people need a continual income to pay their financial rents that is the source of their needing to work and accept poor conditions. If we want to increase liberty in the general sense, then we need to concentrate on making it so people aren't mashed together in such zero sum engagements.

For cops lying to suspects, I have a hard time seeing how that is an exercise in liberty. They're working as agents of the state, and thus need to perform the specified job - if they wish to lie, then they can quit their job. For sure there is a tradeoff involving their effectiveness versus the liberty of individuals, but that isn't a tradeoff of liberty versus liberty. For this topic, the ACLU should be in the "flat no" camp regardless of where we might want the practical boundary.

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

#83

Post by pope_meat »

Retric wrote: post #65
hitekker wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to read this article and the HN comments around it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414920 . The GP is not arguing against your political positions, but pointing out that an organization which use to focus & care about one position no longer seems to.

It’s clear the ACLU is internally conflicted, but that’s completely normal. “It split over decisions to represent the Nazis in the 1930s, the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s, and the Nazis in the 1970s.” The real change has been mostly how individuals say things that the organization may disagree with. Still, I am concerned US politics has become so divisive that the right wing is viewed how the Nazis where back in the 70’…

A protest that inconveniences no one is a protest that's easily ignored. You have to bring attention to the issue, otherwise everyone else will just go on with their day.

Civil disobedience is not a bad thing.

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

#85

Post by oliv__ »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #76
slibhb wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm confused. At the top of the second paragraph, it explicitly mentions the erosion of privacy rights. Isn't that a valid principle upon which to oppose mass surveillance without cause? "We should oppose surveillance because we have privacy rights". Sounds like a tautology. It raises the question: why should we have privacy rights? The long passage you quoted enumerates negative consequences of surveillance. We sh…

Well, you've got a problem, then. You don't get rights just for being born. You only get rights within the context of a society that has agreed to respect those rights. Consider this: if you have rights simply because you are human, then there must be something different about humans that gives them those rights, which chimps and bonobos don't have. What is that?

> Consider this: if you have rights simply because you are human, then there must be something different about humans that gives them those rights, which chimps and bonobos don't have. What is that?

Uhm consciousness?

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

#86

Post by oliv__ »

frashelaw wrote: post #84

The US was always the most advanced police state. All the "freedom" indoctrination just thinly covers up the fact that the rich pull the strings, own the politicians, start the forever wars, and neglect the needs of the common person.

Why should the rich cater to the needs of the common person?

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

#87

Post by raven108 »

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.

Bud, seems you did npt get tne memo. Taliban and JIhadist are our new friends "businesslike & professional". "Domestic Extermist" are the new priority as per Bush; Aussie New World Order and super aggressive Aussie lock down police units.

Most of these folks are already cancelled, lack real social media accounts(Gettr & Gab) don't count.

So mass survelliance becomes pointless. The new targets nostly live in trailer parks, nature reserves and can be easily tackled by neighbourhood watch & police.

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

#88

Post by lenkite »

slibhb wrote: post #73
actually_a_dog wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. At the top of the second paragraph, it explicitly mentions the erosion of privacy rights. Isn't that a valid principle upon which to oppose mass surveillance without cause? Then there's this entire paragraph: > The human toll of government surveillance is undeniable. It can have far-reaching consequences for people’s lives — particularly for communities of color, who are wrongly and disproportionately s…

> I'm confused. At the top of the second paragraph, it explicitly mentions the erosion of privacy rights. Isn't that a valid principle upon which to oppose mass surveillance without cause? "We should oppose surveillance because we have privacy rights". Sounds like a tautology. It raises the question: why should we have privacy rights? The long passage you quoted enumerates negative consequences of surveillance. We sh…

Without the right to privacy, the other rights frankly don't matter much.

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

#89

Post by Retric »

pope_meat wrote: post #83
Retric wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s clear the ACLU is internally conflicted, but that’s completely normal. “It split over decisions to represent the Nazis in the 1930s, the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s, and the Nazis in the 1970s.” The real change has been mostly how individuals say things that the organization may disagree with. Still, I am concerned US politics has become so divisive that the right wing is viewed how the Nazis where back in the 70’…

A protest that inconveniences no one is a protest that's easily ignored. You have to bring attention to the issue, otherwise everyone else will just go on with their day. Civil disobedience is not a bad thing.

Peaceful protests don’t inconvenience 99.9% of the US population and are largely ignored by the media. Civil disobedience isn’t signing up ahead of time and standing in free speech zones, it’s marching anyway and getting arrested.

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

#90

Post by specialist »

owl_troupe wrote: post #51
specialist wrote: post #43

Scanned this article. I remain ambivalent about ACLU's efforts to defend privacy rights. What is privacy? What would ACLU's future perfect privacy protecting world look like? How, specifically, does our world differ from that world? Is the ACLU just rearranging the deck chairs, as The Titanic sinks? This is a complicated topic. Firstly, I don't trust that the ACLU understands our current surveillance economy. One imp…

> Secondly, I'm not convinced that mass surveillance is entirely ineffective. Wholly I agree that it's illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, overwrought, wicked expensive, and overreaching. But in our reform efforts, I want an account of how our intelligence services performed. I simply cannot believe that there haven't been many more attempted terrorist attacks. When the US government takes away its citizens' rights (…

You using my talking points to argue against me is, um, well I honestly can't say. Clearly I'm not explaining myself very well. As someone who's actually done the work, tried to make privacy protecting systems, I can't help but feel that most people have very naive notions about the whole situation. Like virgins dispensing sex advice with grave authority.

It's fine to flap your lips and wiggle your hips about privacy. Advocacy as performance art. I might be more convinced by implementations, systems, code, legislation.

Might I suggest starting with Translucent Databases, or explaining how states might conduct intel on foreign threats without impinging rights of citizens, or sketching financial systems based on zero knowledge proofs, or show how medical research and clinical studies might be done effectively with differential privacy.

Whenever I think about these potential solutions, it breaks my brain. But I'm sure the non-tech people (ACLU, Greenwald, etc) are much smarter than me and will lead the way.

Or we can all demand the impossible -- because Something Must Be Done -- forfeit on practicalities, declare victory, and move on to next outrage.

Post reply on HN