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

51–60 of 71 posts

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

#51

Post by alphanullmeric »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #48
alphanullmeric wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does “it’s the law” apply to all laws?

Does “if you don’t like it then leave” apply to all people?

Are you sure I can’t find a counterexample? You have yet to present a single consistent idea and I doubt either of these will be any different.

You will support privacy for one person but not another solely depending on how much money you think you could nab. We’ve already established that.

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

#52

Post by godelski »

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

I think they were getting at the concept that there's more refinement between left vs right so placing MSM as a position representing that side of the isle not making a distinction that there aren't those on another side completely that will always be upset. I mean AOC, Bernie, and Biden are fairly distinct politically but all "left."

I do think it is a reasonable complaint that you're not using your platform to be a bit more specific and place a foot down rather than maintaining the air of ambiguity and generalizes. It is reasonable to interpret the latter as a political move rather than one of personal convictions, though they may be honest. But similarly one can see someone like her as having a lot to lose as well as seeing her have nothing to lose. Former because she can lose her yearly profits but latter because she's a billionaire and so fucking rich that it's pretty difficult for her to lose a billionaire lifestyle and it's not like she's going to lose all her fans no matter what she does. Of course she could be sued by her employers... But either way it does say how much she values her own convictions compared to the other things. Messy, but I don't think unreasonable to call her out.

FWIW I don't know anything about Swift but I at least can say I haven't heard of this controversy. That's at least some signal. Not a strong signal. Definite not one that says one of you are right or wrong, but it is _a_ signal ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (I'm definitely not making a claim on knowing what her actual convictions and beliefs are. Woefully unqualified and honestly don't care too much. Just trying to provide a bridge because I see reasonable miscommunication and I think there's probably ground for a good conversation between both of you)

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

#53

Post by lern_too_spel »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #51
lern_too_spel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does “it’s the law” apply to all laws? Does “if you don’t like it then leave” apply to all people? Are you sure I can’t find a counterexample? You have yet to present a single consistent idea and I doubt either of these will be any different. You will support privacy for one person but not another solely depending on how much money you think you could nab. We’ve already established that.

I presented a consistent idea. Net benefit. It's a consistency that actually makes sense instead of ending up with crooks taking money from everyone and people being unable to stop it because they couldn't understand the concept of laws.

> You will support privacy for one person but not another solely depending on how much money you think you could nab.

Yes, I support less privacy for people being investigated for crimes. Are you really unfamiliar with the concept of a warrant? Everything I've said is really basic stuff, and it's truly mind-boggling that I have to explain it at all.

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

#54

Post by rockskon »

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…

Because the intelligence community has interpreted it to allow them to collect enormous amounts of U.S. persons communications and have analysts parse it and read it to make a determination on its foreign intelligence relevance.

Or if you're hot, some teenage intelligence analyst will make a copy of that nude you sent to your spouse to save for his personal spank bank.

It's all for national security you see. All without a warrant. Because intentionally collecting information they know will be predominantly on U.S. persons is a-okay as long as one or two drops in that ocean of U.S. persons communication is of foreign nationals communicating.

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

#55

Post by southerntofu »

godelski wrote: post #52
sangnoir wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think they were getting at the concept that there's more refinement between left vs right so placing MSM as a position representing that side of the isle not making a distinction that there aren't those on another side completely that will always be upset. I mean AOC, Bernie, and Biden are fairly distinct politically but all "left." I do think it is a reasonable complaint that you're not using your platform to be a…

> I mean AOC, Bernie, and Biden are fairly distinct politically but all "left."

That's very debatable. I'm not from the US, but from what i gather AOC/Bernie would be considered centrists. Center-left would be the green party pushing actual (moderate) reform. And on the left you would have stuff like the communisty party, IWW and such.

I mean, advocating for moderate social justice and redistribution of wealth is not "left-wing". It's a principal component of social democrats even on the right. Even hardcore fascist rightwingers like De Gaulle or Hitler had to have some sort of social agenda and nobody ever thought to call them left-wing...

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

#56

Post by [deleted] »

southerntofu wrote: post #55
godelski wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they were getting at the concept that there's more refinement between left vs right so placing MSM as a position representing that side of the isle not making a distinction that there aren't those on another side completely that will always be upset. I mean AOC, Bernie, and Biden are fairly distinct politically but all "left." I do think it is a reasonable complaint that you're not using your platform to be a…

> I mean AOC, Bernie, and Biden are fairly distinct politically but all "left." That's very debatable. I'm not from the US, but from what i gather AOC/Bernie would be considered centrists. Center-left would be the green party pushing actual (moderate) reform. And on the left you would have stuff like the communisty party, IWW and such. I mean, advocating for moderate social justice and redistribution of wealth is not…

[deleted]

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

#57

Post by alphanullmeric »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #53
alphanullmeric wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does “it’s the law” apply to all laws? Does “if you don’t like it then leave” apply to all people? Are you sure I can’t find a counterexample? You have yet to present a single consistent idea and I doubt either of these will be any different. You will support privacy for one person but not another solely depending on how much money you think you could nab. We’ve already established that.

I presented a consistent idea. Net benefit. It's a consistency that actually makes sense instead of ending up with crooks taking money from everyone and people being unable to stop it because they couldn't understand the concept of laws. > You will support privacy for one person but not another solely depending on how much money you think you could nab. Yes, I support less privacy for people being investigated for cr…

So no, “it’s the law” doesn’t apply to you. Answer the question or I’ll answer it for you. Thanks for playing.

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

#58

Post by agentgumshoe »

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…

That's exactly why I mentioned Kanye. All the influence with none of the outcomes.

Perhaps Swift should postpone a concert until one such disagreeable law is changed...

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

#59

Post by agentgumshoe »

hipadev23 wrote: post #44
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.

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.

She doesn't even have to opine, she could just state how important the policy decision could be and make sure people are aware of it.

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

#60

Post by agentgumshoe »

mc32 wrote: post #27
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…

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.

So just like politicians (cough, Lindsay Graham, cough)...
Post reply on HN