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

Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 83 posts

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#51

Post by wavesounds »

dnautics wrote: post #19
salimmadjd wrote: post #2

As a progressive, I have conflicts with some of Rand Paul (and his father Ron) policies and positions. However, you have to admit they're beginning to sound like profits. Like it or not, they adhere to a fairly strict view of the constitution and that's admirable in the current poll-based world of politics. That said, Paul (and father) were never good communicators. Both vocally and even prosaically. I'm surprised he…

Actually I liked this: "We fought a revolution over issues like generalized warrants, where soldiers would go from house to house, searching anything they liked." The traditional narrative that youngsters in the US are taught is that the revolution was fought over taxes, but if you closely read the declaration of independence, that's not really the bulk of the argument. Historically speaking, it was violations of per…

this is one of the reason why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are making us less safe. We barge into peoples houses and search through their stuff all the time. People seem to forget how important Respect is to people, people will fight revolutions for it. We did, the arab spring is doing it, a persons personal space and thoughts and communications are their most sacred human rights.

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#52

Post by jeffdavis »

rayiner wrote: post #32
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #3

"No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this. What is objectionable is a system in which government has unlimited and privileged access to the details of our private affairs, and citizens are simply supposed to trust that there won't be any abuse of power. This is an absurd expectation." I think one of…

> "No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this. What we've always done is get warrants for searches. No warrants were required to monitor someone (say, to have a cop follow them around). That is still the case. The FISA warrants allow monitoring. An Article III warrant is still necessary for a real sea…

People don't "broadcast" their information. They send it using point-to-point protocols to companies or people. The government is using special, secret authority to compel intermediaries or stewards of the information to turn it over en masse.

If the government was just browsing Facebook or doing Google searches, nobody would complain. But they are using government powers to get the information, which means that it is a search.

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#53

Post by dnautics »

habitue wrote: post #39
DamnYuppie wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine it being quite wonderful. Imagine further if a bill could only contain 1 law in it and it had a built in shelf life of only 10-15 years and had to be renewed by a super majority vote in excess of 75%.

> ...had to be renewed by a super majority vote in excess of 75% While I'm sure some small government fans would say this is a good thing, the answer is that very little would get done. Symbolic gestures and the like would pass, but very little of real substance. It's commonly the case that most everyone agrees that something needs to be done, but often they disagree on what exactly needs to happen. You can see what…

and if the government did less, we would feel empowered and obligated to do more ourselves, especially those things that don't necessarily need the barrel of a gun to get done. And if the government did less, then there would be little incentive for profiteers to try to capture government to profit at the end of a gun. I don't see what's so bad about this?

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#54

Post by nsxwolf »

zecho wrote: post #40
a-priori wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't blame people for downvoting michaelwww because their comment is an ad hominem attack on Rand Paul. Paul's attitude on abortion has no bearing on the PRISM lawsuit.

Yes it does. It calls into question his motivations when it comes to civil liberties. He could build a much stronger coalition among civil libertarians if he were more consistent in his beliefs about the extent to which the government can monitor and control the people who give it power.

If you honestly believe life begins at conception and should be protected, you believe the civil rights issue at hand is the right to life of the unborn, which may, in your moral estimation, supersede a woman's reproductive rights.

A person acting against that belief in order to satisfy your own personal beliefs would be a hypocrite, no?

My overall point is there is no conflict in accepting his good faith position that you agree with while rejecting his other good faith position you don't agree with.

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#55

Post by jevinskie »

jeffdavis wrote: post #52
rayiner wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this. What we've always done is get warrants for searches. No warrants were required to monitor someone (say, to have a cop follow them around). That is still the case. The FISA warrants allow monitoring. An Article III warrant is still necessary for a real sea…

People don't "broadcast" their information. They send it using point-to-point protocols to companies or people. The government is using special, secret authority to compel intermediaries or stewards of the information to turn it over en masse. If the government was just browsing Facebook or doing Google searches, nobody would complain. But they are using government powers to get the information, which means that it i…

Precisely. Can rayiner obtain my call metadata? They cannot. I did not broadcast this information, the NSA obtained it by using state powers to secure a secret, unrestricted (in the most literal sense) warrant.

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#56

Post by icelancer »

zecho wrote: post #26
mindcrime wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, ya never know, once you take the plunge, you might find that you like it here on the dark-side. :-) Libertarians are mostly pretty nice once you get to know them. Some of us are downright friendly at times.

I have no problems with Libertarian individuals (or Republican or Democrats). I have serious issues with a national party that, when I watched their 2004 convention, a man in a Thomas Jefferson costume gave a speech about pot and guns. I thought it was a joke, but it wasn't. It was CSPAN. Unless I myself run for office, I don't think I'll ever find a political party that closely aligns with my beliefs and also takes…

The Libertarian Party is largely a joke, I agree. Speaking as a small-l libertarian, mind you.

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#57

Post by ericd »

rayiner wrote: post #49
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the central question here is whether a democracy can endure a constant state of war where every part of our lives is catalogued and cross-indexed by the government. The rest of it is just a legal discussion around property rights and Rand Paul's strategy, both of which are not really germane. It doesn't work. It's not that it's illegal, it's not that Rand Paul has to take this position to glorify himself or w…

> I think the central question here is whether a democracy can endure a constant state of war where every part of our lives is catalogued and cross-indexed by the government. With regards to the latter point, I think it's both inevitable and not likely to be the downfall of democracy. There is no future scenario in which the government does not have the kind of insight into our lives that Google, Facebook, etc, have.…

Google doesn't have anywhere near the power the government does, and people realize this well enough to not make a false equivalence between the two.

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#58

Post by dnautics »

justin66 wrote: post #47
nhangen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he believes that abortion is a state's rights issue, and furthermore, that at some point, the rights of the uterus should be superseded by the rights of the living. It's not really that hard to grasp is it? Regardless, that has nothing to do with this issue.

> Regardless, that has nothing to do with this issue. It kind of does, since a few posts above started with the Libertarian plug. One typical response to that plug is to point out that libertarians often care only about liberty as it pertains to them personally. This is a fourteen-year-old's view of the world and it's one of the things that marginalizes libertarians as it is depressingly common among them.

What is truly marginalizing is to infantilize an entire philosophical position without actually putting in some effort to try and understand it.

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#59

Post by ericd »

zecho wrote: post #27
mcnees287 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you support the violent overthrow of the government? Many people would die.

Since when is listening to one's positions, however awful they may be, indicative of support?

Also, we're pretty protective of our right to espouse even very unpopular and radical beliefs...
Post reply on HN