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

Reauthorizing mass surveillance shouldn't be tied to funding the government

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: Reauthorizing mass surveillance shouldn't be tied to funding the government

#31

Post by alphanullmeric »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #23
alphanullmeric wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s how it works for people that lack consistency. If you don’t want absolute privacy then you are also free to support an absolute lack of it. “I want privacy except when it stops me from getting at other people’s money” is not an acceptable option.

No, they're consistent on what matters. Privacy isn't the be-all and end-all of utility. It's merely one component. Being able to take back money stolen by a crook is something that most people value, and they are happy to pay the privacy cost to get it. A foolish consistency (insisting on absolute consistency for the wrong concept) is the hobgoblin of little minds.

You are free to sacrifice your own privacy. This discussion is about whether you have the right to forcefully sacrifice mine. You’re only consistent in doing what benefits you, even if that means your support for a policy depends on who is involved and not what it does.

Re: Reauthorizing mass surveillance shouldn't be tied to funding the government

#32

Post by fallingknife »

agentgumshoe wrote: post #10

These are the kinds of things that annoy me in relation to celebrities. For instance, Taylor Swift/Kanye could raise this issue and probably single-handedly cause enough upset to have this changed/removed. I wish they worked positive (and sure, sometimes they'll probably get it wrong) policy change rather than quiet charities and token signalling. In terms of the government using it for ransom, well, the other side s…

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,”

- Senator Chuck Schumer

Re: Reauthorizing mass surveillance shouldn't be tied to funding the government

#33

Post by mc32 »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #29
mc32 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d rather not have celebrities use their cultish followings to push for any cause, good or bad because they tend to be ignorant on the issues and only superficially attach themselves to some aspect.

Mental exercise: what if we then voted on the celebs, voting for and against the causes celebs put up? In my view, you're gripe is that this system would be super shallow. Kind of agreed! What could give it more depth & substance, what could better direct this available energy? Sure, "don't" is a valid answer! But also, what might we try?

Maybe a different take is you vote your tax contributions on the issues voted up for consideration.

So by pop vote people vote their favorite causes (schools, roads, homeless shelters, prisons, climate, pensions, etc.) and as a taxpayer you can vote your dollars/currency into any number of causes you can spread your tax contribution among.

Re: Reauthorizing mass surveillance shouldn't be tied to funding the government

#34

Post by kornhole »

agentgumshoe wrote: post #10

These are the kinds of things that annoy me in relation to celebrities. For instance, Taylor Swift/Kanye could raise this issue and probably single-handedly cause enough upset to have this changed/removed. I wish they worked positive (and sure, sometimes they'll probably get it wrong) policy change rather than quiet charities and token signalling. In terms of the government using it for ransom, well, the other side s…

Celebrities might present themselves as of the common people and they probably once were. Don't let them fool you. Other than a few exceptions, they are in the upper class and partying with the rest of the owner/donor class. Their interests are aligned to ensure that the common folks never get enough power/privacy.

Re: Reauthorizing mass surveillance shouldn't be tied to funding the government

#35

Post by panarky »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #29
mc32 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d rather not have celebrities use their cultish followings to push for any cause, good or bad because they tend to be ignorant on the issues and only superficially attach themselves to some aspect.

Mental exercise: what if we then voted on the celebs, voting for and against the causes celebs put up? In my view, you're gripe is that this system would be super shallow. Kind of agreed! What could give it more depth & substance, what could better direct this available energy? Sure, "don't" is a valid answer! But also, what might we try?

> voting for and against the causes celebs put up

Thereby turning every issue into a cause célèbre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_c%C3%A9l%C3%A8bre

Re: Reauthorizing mass surveillance shouldn't be tied to funding the government

#36

Post by sangnoir »

mrangle wrote: post #30
hipadev23 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imma let you finish, but Kanye is a poor example to make your point. He has one ineffective charity in Chicago and otherwise all public action has revolved around showcasing his own struggles while simultaneously presenting himself as the solution to the world’s problems. Swift has been fairly vocal and ignited action around LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, sexual assault topics, and drastically improved voter turnout a…

Re: Swift None of those advocacies being effectively controversial / MSM disfavored. Essentially, they read as an almost required checklist for establishment darlings. Advocating for them isn't bravery, today. It's common business sense. The point being that these advocacies aren't a substitute, in any sense, for one that might draw her negative press. If the measurement is bravery, or unusual effort or some such.

Do you consider the network with the highest viewership and ratings numbers to be mainstream, or are you using "MSM" as coded language? Taylor Swift's advocacy was disfavored on Fox

Re: Reauthorizing mass surveillance shouldn't be tied to funding the government

#37

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

mrangle wrote: post #30
hipadev23 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imma let you finish, but Kanye is a poor example to make your point. He has one ineffective charity in Chicago and otherwise all public action has revolved around showcasing his own struggles while simultaneously presenting himself as the solution to the world’s problems. Swift has been fairly vocal and ignited action around LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, sexual assault topics, and drastically improved voter turnout a…

Re: Swift None of those advocacies being effectively controversial / MSM disfavored. Essentially, they read as an almost required checklist for establishment darlings. Advocating for them isn't bravery, today. It's common business sense. The point being that these advocacies aren't a substitute, in any sense, for one that might draw her negative press. If the measurement is bravery, or unusual effort or some such.

But there's a definitional problem here. Do celebrities avoid talking about anything controversial, or does anything that lots of celebrities talk about become perceived as non-controversial? You talk about the "MSM" and the "establishment", but quite a lot of news outlets and politicians in the US don't agree with what Taylor Swift has to say about LGBT rights.

Re: Reauthorizing mass surveillance shouldn't be tied to funding the government

#38

Post by panarky »

motohagiography wrote: post #6

While I've believed that developing privacy and encryption tech was ignoring the deeper problem, and it was a poor substitute for using that effort to actually engage with and reform the institutions we use privacy tech to protect ourselves from, when you are up against anonymous cynicism like earmarking continuity of government bills, the only thing left to do is shrug and become a cypherpunk maximalist. Life is too…

> cypherpunk maximalist

Way past time to get assassination markets back in the popular imagination so that a new generation can re-litigate the usenet flame wars of olde, amplified by a factor of ten thousand.

Re: Reauthorizing mass surveillance shouldn't be tied to funding the government

#39

Post by terminous »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #29
mc32 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d rather not have celebrities use their cultish followings to push for any cause, good or bad because they tend to be ignorant on the issues and only superficially attach themselves to some aspect.

Mental exercise: what if we then voted on the celebs, voting for and against the causes celebs put up? In my view, you're gripe is that this system would be super shallow. Kind of agreed! What could give it more depth & substance, what could better direct this available energy? Sure, "don't" is a valid answer! But also, what might we try?

How about this: We have celebrities share their political views on a range of topics. The media will cover which celebrities say what positions, perhaps moderate a debate among them. The people then vote on their favorite celebrities, and those who are the most popular get to collectively vote on political decisions. If they make unpopular decisions or go back on what they promised, then the people can vote for someone else during the next regularly scheduled election.

/s (in case you're missing it, politicians are already effectively celebrities)

Re: Reauthorizing mass surveillance shouldn't be tied to funding the government

#40

Post by wmf »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #26

https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographi... > Section 702 is a key provision of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 that permits the government to conduct targeted surveillance of foreign persons located outside the United States, with the compelled assistance of electronic communication service providers, to acquire foreign intelligence information. As a US citizen, why wouldn't I want this reauthori…

If you believe that's what it actually does, go for it. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/fisa...
Post reply on HN