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

Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 74 posts

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#21

Post by mpyne »

jivatmanx wrote: post #16
clarkmoody wrote: post #3

It 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…

When people use the "Nothing to hide", or "The government does not care about your cat videos, this is the equivalent of: I'm not using my liberty, so I don't care about it. The government may not be interested in you specifically, but they are interested in the more influential figures who share those same opinions. The HBGary leak revealed the targeting of Glenn Greenwald, and surely you're aware of MLK. What if he…

MLK did have "minor personal failings", IIRC.

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#22

Post by gnaritas »

malkia wrote: post #6

If 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.

> but then US has never been a real democracy, but a representative one.

A representative democracy is a real democracy; it's just not a direct democracy. Please stop this nonsense of thinking that only direct democracies count as democracies.

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#23

Post by mpyne »

Udo wrote: post #14
unclebucknasty wrote: post #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 als…

On that note, if the US had a 9/11 event every month, that would still be less dead people than we lose to suicides, which was at 1.6% the number 10 cause of all deaths in 2010. Of course, every death is one too many, but imagine we put the same amount of money into mental health research and treatment that we are currently pumping into the by-definition-unwinnable "war on terror". Less people die by terror than by a…

If people honestly cared about the overall risk to them every nation would be powered by nuclear with perhaps a smattering of renewable generation in areas where it clearly made sense.

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#24

Post by mpyne »

gohrt wrote: post #5
ccarter84 wrote: post #2

Glad 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.

Go ask the villagers in the unadministered lands of Afghanistan and Pakistan how their freedom from government is working out for them.

It's easy to say that security is completely unimportant when it's not your daughter being beaten and raped for being seen outside without a veil.

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#25

Post by jiggy2011 »

malkia wrote: post #7
clarkmoody wrote: post #3

It 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.

I think he meant more of a metaphorical god in the "We hold these truths to be self-evident" sense.

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#26

Post by betterunix »

gnaritas wrote: post #19
clarkmoody wrote: post #3

It 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…

> Your rights come from God, not government. No, my rights come what the people are willing to fight for and establish with government. Absent government, there are no rights, there is only what I'm willing to claim my rights are and what I can defend. There is no God and nature doesn't create rights.

You have rights regardless of the government. Absent government, you have the right to do whatever you want, as does everyone else. The proper purpose of the government is to protect your rights from other people; this is done by carefully and judiciously placing restrictions on everyone's rights via the law. Legal codes should be as minimalist as possible, to ensure people can exercise their rights as broadly as possible.

Of course, the question of whether rights exist in the absence of government or if rights are created by the law is as old as the hills, so we may have to just disagree on this one.

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#27

Post by betterunix »

malkia wrote: post #7
clarkmoody wrote: post #3

It 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.

It is just a figure of speech, don't be pedantic about this.

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#28

Post by clarkmoody »

gnaritas wrote: post #19
clarkmoody wrote: post #3

It 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…

> Your rights come from God, not government. No, my rights come what the people are willing to fight for and establish with government. Absent government, there are no rights, there is only what I'm willing to claim my rights are and what I can defend. There is no God and nature doesn't create rights.

From the point of the premise of America, they do :-)

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#29

Post by clarkmoody »

malkia wrote: post #7
clarkmoody wrote: post #3

It 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.

So you agree with all of the other words of my comment? :-)

Re: Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy

#30

Post by gnaritas »

betterunix wrote: post #26
gnaritas wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your rights come from God, not government. No, my rights come what the people are willing to fight for and establish with government. Absent government, there are no rights, there is only what I'm willing to claim my rights are and what I can defend. There is no God and nature doesn't create rights.

You have rights regardless of the government. Absent government, you have the right to do whatever you want, as does everyone else. The proper purpose of the government is to protect your rights from other people; this is done by carefully and judiciously placing restrictions on everyone's rights via the law. Legal codes should be as minimalist as possible, to ensure people can exercise their rights as broadly as pos…

We'll just have to disagree, because pretty much everything you just said is IMHO nonsense.
Post reply on HN