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

41–50 of 71 posts

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

#41

Post by trust_bt_verify »

sangnoir wrote: post #36
mrangle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You are being downvoted but this cognitive dissonance plays out quite often in discussions about media and coverage of issues all the time.

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

#42

Post by TriangleEdge »

hartator wrote: post #7
TriangleEdge wrote: post #4

I'm curious what the `upvoteCount/commentCount` will be for this post. I'd also be curious to see a chart where x is time and y is a score for something along the lines of "I am free to critique the US government without any form retaliation".

[flagged]

How is saying "I think people are scared to speak" make me a fed?

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

#43

Post by TriangleEdge »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #19
TriangleEdge wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since I'm being downvoted,... what I'm suggesting is that it's going in a downwards trend. Edit: The chart is going in a downwards trend.

Yes, we understood your implication that the government is punishing critique by down voting hacker news posts. I think you got down voted because people disagree, not because they didn't understand.

That's not what I said.

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

#44

Post by hipadev23 »

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.

Swift was advocating for topics she felt passionate about and had some level of firsthand exposure. I’m glad she doesn’t opine on how government surveillance is funded.

Also her reach is far larger than all MSM combined, she doesn’t have to follow what they do, they follow her.

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

#45

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

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…

In ancient Rome actors were so low status they were subject to infamia, which meant that they couldn't defend themselves in court and could even be beaten or killed without legal repercussions.

It was considered to be a worthless profession (actors were seen as professional liars) akin to prostitution.

Not all celebrities are actors, but my point is that Romans were around for almost 2000 years and that should tell you something.

You expect too much out of the profession.

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

#46

Post by Shawnj2 »

hipadev23 wrote: post #20
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…

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…

I really like a lot of what John and Hank green have done with their fame recently, funding healthcare for low income companies and publicly calling out drug companies when they screw extremely poor people over

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

#47

Post by jauntywundrkind »

panarky wrote: post #35
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I feel like you have it backwards. You're saying that democratic involvement would make these issues cause celebres. But celebrities in many cases already have the power to make a cause a cause celebre. That's part of what being a celebrity and using your name & fame is. We already live in the world you describe.

I'm proposing here a thought experiment where, rather than letting the public arena and media suss out how to play the story, let the cause go on indefinitely, the public gets a direct vote.

My actual hope was the opposite of what you say: rather than leaving the media cycle around celebrities rumble on indefinitely, there'd be some discrete feedback events, checkin points where we can decide whether this de-facto cause celebre is - to borrow from a magazine - wired tired or expired. My hope was democracy might take power back from the 4th estate & celebrities.

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

#48

Post by lern_too_spel »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #31
lern_too_spel wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, I am free to sacrifice yours. That's how laws work. Try to proclaim yourself a sovereign citizen and tell a judge that warrants don't apply to you if you don't believe me. If you don't like laws, there are lawless places like Somalia for you to call home.

I support policies based on what they do. That includes weighing everything they do, not just their effect on privacy.

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

#49

Post by [deleted] »

wmf wrote: post #40
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...

[deleted]

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

#50

Post by SenAnder »

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…

> developing privacy and encryption tech was ignoring the deeper problem

It was not. Even with privacy-respecting government and laws (and corporations), it is important that mass surveillance isn't easy, or it's virtually guaranteed to happen.

Stealing is illegal, yet you don't leave your cash savings on the windowsill.

Post reply on HN