Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy
nytimes.com
Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy
1–10 of 74 posts
Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy
#2Glad the NYT Editorial board has stepped up and been so blunt.
"But Americans should not be fooled by political leaders putting forward a false choice. The issue is not whether the government should vigorously pursue terrorists. The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by less-intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights. Far too little has been said on this question by the White House or Congress in their defense of the N.S.A.’s dragnet. "
Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy
#3It would be nice if people realized that the United States was built upon the premise that the individual is sovereign, not the states. Your rights come from God, not government. Many think they have all the freedom they need, since they can drive (most places) with no papers and download whatever apps they want on their phones.
The government is heading down a very dangerous path and has been for a long time. Members of both major parties are too blame, for they have allowed government to grow to a scale that is far too large to leave room for the individual to be truly free.
Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy
#4No, surveillance is not a threat to democracy, people not caring about democracy is what threatens democracy.
Democracy has never been a right, it's always been a privilege that people demanded, and guess what, when people stop demanding it, power will naturally collude.
Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy
#5Glad the NYT Editorial board has stepped up and been so blunt. "But Americans should not be fooled by political leaders putting forward a false choice. The issue is not whether the government should vigorously pursue terrorists. The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by less-intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights. Far too little has been said on this…
> "The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by less-intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights. "
No, NYT, the question is how which security goals can be achieved without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights.
There is no security goal that justifies destroying freedom, as freedom is the motivation for our security goals.
Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy
#6If surveilance threathens your choice, then it's a threat to the democracy, but then US has never been a real democracy, but a representative one. As such it's congresmen and senators that might be threatened by it since the do our real voting for us.
Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy
#7It would be nice if people realized that the United States was built upon the premise that the individual is sovereign, not the states. Your rights come from God, not government. Many think they have all the freedom they need, since they can drive (most places) with no papers and download whatever apps they want on their phones. The government is heading down a very dangerous path and has been for a long time. Member…
I'm an atheist, there is no God for me.
Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy
#8Glad the NYT Editorial board has stepped up and been so blunt. "But Americans should not be fooled by political leaders putting forward a false choice. The issue is not whether the government should vigorously pursue terrorists. The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by less-intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights. Far too little has been said on this…
[deleted]
Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy
#9>The issue is not whether the government should vigorously pursue terrorists. The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by less-intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights...
There is another issue that hasn't been discussed enough, and this quote from the article simultaneously refers to the need to discuss "balance" between security and freedom, while also unquestioningly keeping alive the idea that there is a grave threat and hence need for outsized security.
So, the question is also, what is the true scale and number of these so-called "terrorism threats"? And, how do you measure the required balance without a true assessment of the actual threat (vs. assuming it)?
After 9/11 we went into this permanent "War on Terror" war-footing, wherein this notion of an overwhelming threat of terrorism was simply assumed (ex. by this article).
But, when, if ever, do we question whether that posture still makes sense (or ever did, for that matter)?
Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy
#10If surveilance threathens your choice, then it's a threat to the democracy, but then US has never been a real democracy, but a representative one. As such it's congresmen and senators that might be threatened by it since the do our real voting for us.
Uh, thanks, but intelligent, educated people who are attentive to civic life (e.g. a significant portion of the HN readership) don't need to have the difference between a pure democracy and a representative one spelled out in detail each and every time the word "democracy" comes up in conversation.