Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008) • Hacker News Board

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#281

Post by shmerl » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 7:04 PM UTC

genwin wrote: post #268

shmerl wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Making "best choice" you endorse the wrong one. If you didn't like it, you could vote for alternative candidates which you preferred, even though the logic dictates that they had low chances to win.

Without instant run-offs, voting for an alternative candidate is tantamount to voting for your worst of the two viable choices. In 2000, Gore would have won the US presidential election if not for Nader voters whose second choice was Gore.

Yes, the current voting system makes alternative candidates practically irrelevant. But I still think it's better to make a point and to vote for whom you prefer - it's your public statement. Voting for the "least of two evils" since "evil" is expected to win either way, sounds bad to me.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#282

Post by jbigelow76 » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 7:04 PM UTC

arjie wrote: post #272

jbigelow76 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is totally backwards and you have to do some mental gymnastics to believe it. I think he was pretty much dead on on this one. Swap Republican/Democrat politics for another any other choice and the "you have no right to complain" point makes less sense. Take a fictional encounter with a Doctor... Dr: You're going to get testicular cancer. Would you prefer it in the left testicle or the right? Me: I don't want ca…

In George Carlin's fantasy world: Me: I don't want cancer in either testicle. Dr: Congratulations. You are no longer at risk of cancer. Seriously, if this were a real conversation and given that I'm going to get cancer (per first line), I'd pick one testicle and then have them remove it. Meanwhile, you'd 'choose' not to get cancer and get it anyway, but without any control whatsoever.

But not picking one doesn't preclude you from having it removed, so we both still have the same amount of control.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#283

Post by bmelton » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 7:05 PM UTC

just2n wrote: post #236

bmelton wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then beat them. Let them spend all the money they spend trying to get you to vote, then use that vote to cast a ballot for a third party candidate that best reflects your beliefs. Being able to get a substantial number of votes is a HUGELY BIG DEAL for third parties, as at some point (I can't remember the number exactly, I think it's 4%) they start getting federal funds to aid in future elections. A viable third part…

The problem is that FPTP mathematically guarantees a 2 party system in a steady state. So long as you own the 2 parties, you effectively own the government. What's worse is that it also actively works against additional parties. We also have a rampant issue of uninformed voting. I'd bet there are close to 50M people who just "vote with the party" and follow their biased news network rather than learning about the can…

Mindcrime has already said much of what I would have, but ignoring FPTP has advantages as well, mainly, that it allows people actually vote their conscience, for better or worse.

I can't argue that it isn't 'throwing away' your vote, in the short term, but over the very long term, there needs to be some people throwing away their vote in order to encourage more to do so such that eventually the landscape changes.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#284

Post by sehutson » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 7:06 PM UTC

betterunix wrote: post #238

Nursie wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your vote is your mandate. If you so choose not to give your mandate to anyone, that is up to you. It is the only political power I have, and even though the statement is ignored or interpreted as apathy, the statement that you don't believe in any of those arseholes is just as valid as the statement that you do. I, personally, cannot stand the "then vote for the least worst because at least the other guy won't get i…

Your vote is not the only political power you have. You can organize people, even if it is only at the local level. Once you do that, you have begun to gain political power, and that is how political careers are started. We do not have titles of nobility here; nobody is more entitled to be politically engaged than anyone else. In practice, it is hard to take power from the established parties. It is hard to get past…

Organizing people isn't the only power you have beyond your vote, either. Issues are complex, and I feel like I couldn't reasonably vote FOR something I want without also voting against many things I want. I could spend countless hours tracking down the candidates who, on average, best served my personal interests and preferences, all so I could cast my one little vote...but that wouldn't make much sense for me. There are better ways to spend the time.

If you care about animal rights, you can spend that time volunteering or making more money to donate to DIRECTLY support the causes you care about. You can pay closer attention to the dollar votes you're casting (which can't be discounted as a means of political influence).

If you're bothered by GMOs and factory farming, you can help set up local gardens to reduce reliance on conventional produce. You can educate people around you so they understand why it's important to maintain the integrity of our food supply.

If you don't appreciate companies turning over your information to the government, you can (try to) find one that doesn't, and let the company you're leaving know why. You can donate to the EFF and similar organizations.

As much as people like to get emotional about voting, it's not terribly effective as a means of bringing about change - especially once you take into account that politicians often mislead people about their intentions or change them completely once they have more power.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#285

Post by jetti » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 7:14 PM UTC

admax88q wrote: post #265

jetti wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But just voting to vote is useless. People seem to have the mentality that you pick the lesser of two evils, which is BS. I'm not going to vote for somebody if I don't feel like they are completely up for the job. I'm not going to vote for a 3rd party just so they can get funding because guess what, this years candidate may be great but the funding would be for the next round and who knows who they will have then.

If you're left with the choice between the lesser or two evils on how to run the country. It is very _very_ important that you get the _lesser_ of those two evils.

Why? Either way you're left with evil running the country.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#286

Post by hnal943 » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 7:16 PM UTC

bjustin wrote: post #105

freyr wrote: post #6

"My job this morning is to be so persuasive...that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack," In other words, say whatever needs to be said to get elected. Worry about the details later. Or not.

In his defense, President Obama knows lot more non-public information than ('08) candidate Obama did. That said, dragnet surveillance of US citizens is still heinous.

Then he was irresponsible to criticize the policy. If he ran against surveillance and then continued to escalate it, he's wrong. Whether he was foolish or a liar is I suppose up for debate.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#287

Post by hnal943 » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 7:32 PM UTC

mpyne wrote: post #234

nathan_long wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both are troubling, but governments can imprison and/or kill you. Corporations usually can't or won't. The "actual useful reasons" you mention may exist alongside personal or political reasons of individual government employees.

It's not as if the average individual government employee has the ability to spawn black helicopters or deploy police assets just to settle a neighborhood rivalry. If anything they have less actual power than a corporate drone nowadays (just ask the bankers). Teenagers have killed themselves over stuff posted to Facebook so I wish people would quit acting like the government is really that much more directly importan…

If you believe Obama, regular IRS employees can harass organizations and individuals they don't like.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#288

Post by rayiner » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 7:54 PM UTC

nknighthb wrote: post #273

rayiner wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Electronic communications were clearly not considered by the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights But they did have communications and publications, yet they didn't put anything in the Constitution suggesting you have a right to privacy with regards to those things. And it's not like bank records, insurance records, etc, didn't exist back then. In the founder's day, the police could have asked a barke…

> the police could have asked a barkeep for his records Asked. Asked . And he could have said "come back with a warrant". You continue to ignore the distinctions between: * A party voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement. * A party being coerced to cooperate with law enforcement by court order. * A party being coerced to cooperate with law enforcement because law enforcement officers say so. You keep insisting t…

> Asked. Asked. And he could have said "come back with a warrant".

But if he said "here they are" or they came back with a warrant or a subpoena, there is nothing you could've done about it.

With regards to the NSA accessing call records, there is a warrant from the FISA court (which itself dates to 1978). In case of PRISM, there is voluntary cooperation by the companies involved. There is no indication that third parties are being coerced to cooperate just "because law enforcement officers say so."

The government accessing the information without the consent of the third party would be a 4th amendment violation, not of your rights, but of the third party's rights. But that's not happening here.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#289

Post by natmaster » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 8:01 PM UTC

edw519 wrote: post #36

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up,…

You have NO right to complain if you didn't vote. Not voting causes cronies like Obama to get in office. It was obvious from the start that Obama was going to multiple all of the evil Bush policies. By not voting you consented to that happening.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#290

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 8:09 PM UTC

daughart wrote: post #47

swombat wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Quite simply, the freedom of hundreds of millions is worth a few terrorist attacks that kill a few dozens. If not, then you should definitely ban cars, as they kill a whopping 33k people a year. In other words, the balance is: let people die free rather than live unfree.

I honestly fail to see how monitoring telecommunication metadata is an infringement of rights. The government has not stopped you from taking any action. I agree that it COULD be used for evil, but that's not a very convincing argument. Many technologies we enjoy and rely on enable evil acts.

[deleted]