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

61–70 of 71 posts

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

#61

Post by agentgumshoe »

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?

Well that's what Ukraine are doing in voting for Zelenskyy's views... I think we often overestimate the qualifications behind our politicians, they're not much different to the celebrity love-ins or corporate nepotisms running rampant as-is (the obvious ones being Trump and Biden).

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

#62

Post by southerntofu »

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…

Replying to a now-deleted comment

> I see from your post history you are operating with a definition of "fascism" that counts any highly capitalist state as fascist

A definition of fascism is the merger of State and corporate interests (according to Mussolini himself). De Gaulle was very much in that vein, via the Jacques Foccart State mafia (Françafrique) or the nuclear military-industrial complex among others.

From a less economic perspective, De Gaulle was actively involved in heavy repression in the colonies including genocidal policies in Algeria (see for example Frantz Fanon on the topic, or history books about Setif and other massacres), and deadly repression of social movements on the mainland via the police and military, and actual fascist militias such as the Service d'Action Civique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_d%27Action_Civique

Short anecdote of the day, De Gaulle and his government (eg. Maurice Papon, former nazi collaborator and prefect of Paris under De Gaulle) personally orchestrated the killing of hundreds of algerians in Paris on October 17 1961. A few years before in 1958, they went as far as to round up and deport thousands of algerians, in the very same spot the Vichy administration used to round up jews: the vélodrome d'hiver.

I am certainly anticapitalist but i would not equal capitalism with fascism. Adam Smith and other capitalist thinkers certainly envisioned a free-market along with free individuals, which was based on the absence of monopolies/oligarchies and the separation of State and market. The State defending and supporting the industry while letting the people suffer is certainly not capitalist in a traditional liberal sense. For an example of that, see the bank bailouts in USA or Greece where the government saved the banks for billions of dollars while taking from the people, instead of doing exactly the opposite.

I agree fascism is a nebulous concept and subject to debate. I would recommend reading the Wikipedia page on the topic. It may appear that western States usually depicted as "liberal democracies" have in fact more than a few fascistic tendencies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

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

#63

Post by Kevin09210 »

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…

> 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.

Unless of course they are handled by the state apparatus itself:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Kanye/comments/ylhm5g/this_text_kan...

>I'm going to help you one of a couple ways.…. First, you and I sit down and have an loving and open conversation, but you don't use cuss words, and everything that is discussed is based in fact, and not some crazy stuff that dumb friend of yours told you, or you saw in a tweet.

>Second option, I have you institutionalized again where they medicate the crap out of you, and you go back to Zombieland forever. Play date with the kids just won't be the same.

> Harley Pasternak to Kanye via a text.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1588556212102082560.html#...

> His Wikipedia page states that "During his time at U of T, Pasternak served as a nutrition and exercise scientist at Department of National Defence's Defence and Civil Institute for Environmental Medicine."

> [...]

> What sort of stuff is researched at DRDC?

> "Human systems integration."

> "Social and psychological factors that affect the resolution of conflict."

> "Psychology of malicious intent."

> "Social and cultural factors influencing behavior."

> Literal psyops.

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

#64

Post by t-3 »

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

"All coverage is good coverage". Being disfavored means you don't get mentioned, not that you're the center of conversation.

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

#67

Post by lern_too_spel »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #57
lern_too_spel wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your question is nonsensical. A law makes sense if it is beneficial. If it isn't, it should be changed. While it is in force, it applies to everyone. This is something that first graders learn at around the same time they're introduced to the idea of democracy. Given the comment votes, it appears you're the only person who still doesn't understand.

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

#68

Post by godelski »

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…

I mean parties in the US are more akin to coalitions as you'd see in many European countries. I'm just saying that American parties have high variance within them. Sure, for your country Bernie/AOC may be centrists but in America they aren't. These are always relative terms that are context dependent. Sure, you can call the Democrats right wing but it's just not going to make much of a conversation because these are nationally agreed upon terms. (fwiw, I'm pretty sure I'm fair in assuming American context given the people I'm discussing)

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

#70

Post by boredpeter »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #5

Funny to see this make headlines here, where many people would gladly support using mass surveillance to fund the government. The same ones that support financial privacy restrictions are quick to play victim when the same violations are applied in ways that don’t benefit them.

Yes the ultra wealthy shouldn’t be able to conceal wealth that gives them immense power to control a so called democratic and free society.

Regular people without that same wealth and power should have some amount of privacy from their government.

It’s not impossible to hold those two beliefs without being a hypocrite.

Post reply on HN