We need an NRA for privacy • Hacker News Board

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#91

Post by chalst » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:00 PM UTC

damoncali wrote: post #39

chalst wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed] Something you can reconcile with the NRA's $1/4 billion annual turnover would be great.

As far as their money goes. 4 million members at ~$25 per year = $100 million in annual revenue from dues alone. That doesn't count donations. The industry does of course contribute, but the mistake gun control activists make over and over again is that they assume the NRA is about money. They think they can outspend the NRA and win. They can't because the NRA is not about money. It's about people who are well organi…

I have the impression that the following are true of the NRA (with comparison to the National Association for Gun Rights)

1. They don't file audited accounts (the NAGR are as bad)

2. 4 million members is widely seen as a large overestimate (the NAGR figures don't attract as much noise)

3. The NRA board aren't really accountable to their membership (the NAGR says they are)

4. It's unusual for a grassroots organisation to have most of its money come from sources other than membership fees and merchandising. The NRA seems to be around 40%, the NAGR claims that most of its money comes from subscriptions. It is common for corporate supporters to make donations on behalf of lobbyists, rather than to the lobbying outfit, and pay the lobbying outfit "consultancy fees".

> About a week before each election every NRA member gets a bright orange postcard in the mail with a list of the candidates, local and national, that are up for election and exactly what the NRA thinks of their stance on guns. Those members pay attention and vote. That is what makes the NRA powerful.

That's a good argument. I'm not sure what I think, to be honest, but the EFF seems to be grassroots to me in a way that the NRA isn't.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#92

Post by rdl » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:00 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #58

What has made "the NRA"---really, gunowners, the NRA has but a fraction of them as members---so powerful? Well, first of course there's a lot of us. Even having only a fraction, the NRA now has 5 million members. The EFF? I would be surprised to learn they had more than 50,000 (couldn't find a number in a quick search). 2nd, we vote, and many of us vote first and foremost on this issue. Especially since it's a good g…

I think part of the NRA's effectiveness is that "gun people" spend serious money on guns all the time, and there are active ways to use the guns (going shooting, hunting, etc.) which are concrete, and both could be taken away. Privacy is much more abstract, loss of privacy doesn't have direct physical or financial cost to individuals (voters) as it happens, etc.

I'd also be wary of pushing this NRA analogy too far, for fear of deterring anti-gun pro-privacy people (who do exist, and can be quite principled) from the pro-privacy cause. While most pro-gun people are pro their own personal privacy, and pro gun owner privacy (anti-registry), there's absolutely a large contingent who are fine with the government keeping watchful eyes on "those other people", within and without the US, so it's not as if NRA members are inherently anti-NSA/pro-privacy either.

I ultimately care about the tech/crypto/privacy issue a lot more than guns (which I also care about, along with low taxes, non-intrusive regulation, drug decriminalization, open immigration, etc). To the extent that being ardently pro gun turns people off from supporting privacy, I'd personally be more than willing to tone down/cut back on the pro gun message.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#93

Post by IvyMike » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:01 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #58

What has made "the NRA"---really, gunowners, the NRA has but a fraction of them as members---so powerful? Well, first of course there's a lot of us. Even having only a fraction, the NRA now has 5 million members. The EFF? I would be surprised to learn they had more than 50,000 (couldn't find a number in a quick search). 2nd, we vote, and many of us vote first and foremost on this issue. Especially since it's a good g…

> I would be surprised to learn they had more than 50,000

The membership drive page says around 20K: https://supporters.eff.org/donate/membership-drive

To me, this is shamefully low...it means that only tiny fraction of people who claim to have a strong interest in online freedom actually have joined.

The sad reality is that in modern politics, money talks, and the tech culture tends to strongly reject that ("the better idea should win"), and thus we don't participate in the political money game, and it's why we keep losing political battles.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#94

Post by rdl » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:02 PM UTC

damoncali wrote: post #65

hga wrote: post #58

What has made "the NRA"---really, gunowners, the NRA has but a fraction of them as members---so powerful? Well, first of course there's a lot of us. Even having only a fraction, the NRA now has 5 million members. The EFF? I would be surprised to learn they had more than 50,000 (couldn't find a number in a quick search). 2nd, we vote, and many of us vote first and foremost on this issue. Especially since it's a good g…

The threat is certainly more direct and concrete. A lot of people don't know that the recent assault weapons ban that was proposed would make millions of people felons and punishable by 10 years in prison if they did not register their rifles under the NFA (which is currently used for machine gun collectors - it's a painful bureaucratic process that takes months, but allows the ownership of machine guns, suppressors,…

As an aside, gun trusts are a decent way around the CLEO signature requirement for NFA items, at least in states which don't ban them outright (sigh, California). (acutely noticed since I've seen the fare.)

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#95

Post by robg » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:05 PM UTC

Privacy isn't explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution. So the Court has tended to side with the Government on matters of National Security vs. Privacy. In fact, the Constitution guarantees searches for the Government, so long as they are reasonable. On matters of national security versus a database, national security readily wins. The Court finds those searches reasonable.

So, in the case of Privacy, you aren't fighting your Representatives who can be bought to change laws. You are fighting the Court. That fight is much more of a long game. And that long game would seem to be better won through broader Civil Rights which are already under attack. Read the First Amendment and think of Snowden and the media. Read the 4th and consider the broadness of "unreasonable" and where it extends to property seizure laws. Heck read the 8th and consider how broadly solitary confinement is used as punishment in our prisons. Or how anti-drug and anti-marriage laws restrict personal choice. To me, protection of our broad Rights against the Leviathan is the issue of our time.

That said, the 2nd Amendment is also an ally in this fight. In contrast to Privacy, the right of gun ownership is explicitly guaranteed and the NRA is a partner in questions of privacy. We just need to help them realize that the national security apparatus could easily be expanded inwards to target gun owners. We need to help them realize that the technology to do so is already trivial for the Big Bad Government.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#96

Post by bmelton » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:11 PM UTC

ihsw wrote: post #84

bmelton wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of calling lysol out for spouting non-factual rhetoric, I'll address this point as well. I'm a Constitutionalist. I'm (very slowly) studying for the bar (without college or a law degree) so that I can understand the Constitution better. The Constitution is a living, breathing document. It lives and breathes through ratification, and through amendments. The problems we're facing in our day is that people are v…

You are correct and my remark was a bit crass. I agree with you completely: instead of sidestepping the Constitution and fending off claims of Constitutional violations with secrecy, we should be amending it.

I think I understood your intent as noble enough -- it isn't living and breathing in the sense that it is just there, waiting to be reinterpreted by whomever is in charge.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#97

Post by hga » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:13 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #69

rayiner wrote: post #48

Privacy advocates need to get their act together and form a single-issue organization. I need to be seeing teenagers coming to my house peddling privacy the way they do for churches and baby seals. The tech industry needs to sack up and realize that their business interests are at stake, and put some serious money in PACs behind the whole effort. It needs to have a focused mission, no getting distracted in related is…

> Privacy advocates need to get their act together and form a single-issue organization. I need to be seeing teenagers coming to my house peddling privacy the way they do for churches and baby seals. The tech industry needs to sack up and realize that their business interests are at stake, and put some serious money in PACs behind the whole effort. But privacy advocates are frequently at odds with tech companies over…

Until we have specific, actual, real privacy atrocities I can't see this effort getting the traction of any of the groups you've specified. Labor had company towns and less but still specifically abusive employers, with plenty of specific people maimed or killed in unsafe workplaces or labor actions. Environmentalists had deformed children from Japanese industrial mercury dumping, and, oh, the Cuyahoga River catching on fire. Gun grabbers have killed, maimed, or otherwise grossly abused thousands of people and that continues to this day.

What specific incidents, with victims most will empathize with, can the privacy effort point to?

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#98

Post by damoncali » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:14 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #90

hga wrote: post #58

What has made "the NRA"---really, gunowners, the NRA has but a fraction of them as members---so powerful? Well, first of course there's a lot of us. Even having only a fraction, the NRA now has 5 million members. The EFF? I would be surprised to learn they had more than 50,000 (couldn't find a number in a quick search). 2nd, we vote, and many of us vote first and foremost on this issue. Especially since it's a good g…

> every post-Reagan defeated Presidential candidate was, or appeared to be bad on gun ownership Curiously, Reagan himself was quite successful as a Presidential candidate, despite pushing through one of the first strong gun-control laws during his term as Governor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act ). I wonder when the GOP tide shifted on that; mid-'80s?

Despite a long history, the NRA was just getting started in politics when Reagan was elected, and was a lot softer back then. The transformation that began with Cox and Carter in 1977 and was later carried on by Lapierre took time to gain strength. Even in the mid 90's I'd say the NRA was not as strong as it is today.

The 1994 assault weapons ban was a wakeup call, and probably contributed to the rapid sales growth of that type of rifle (it's the fastest growing segment in the industry today), which increases support for the NRA - you see how it goes. The more they try to ban the stronger the gun rights folks get. In 1994, AR15's were a niche product that even some gun owners scoffed at as useless. Today they are very much mainstream.

There also seems to be a rise in Libertarian-like thought across all parties these days that probably contributes to the NRA's cause.

But it is a mistake to paint the NRA as a Republican organization. It is far from it. That Republicans tend to support the NRA is a fact, but the NRA is non-partizan. If you look at successful lobbying groups, you'll see that they are for the most part non-partizan. The big unions are an exception, but I would argue they limit themselves by aligning with Democrats.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#99

Post by hga » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:18 PM UTC

chalst wrote: post #91

damoncali wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as their money goes. 4 million members at ~$25 per year = $100 million in annual revenue from dues alone. That doesn't count donations. The industry does of course contribute, but the mistake gun control activists make over and over again is that they assume the NRA is about money. They think they can outspend the NRA and win. They can't because the NRA is not about money. It's about people who are well organi…

I have the impression that the following are true of the NRA (with comparison to the National Association for Gun Rights) 1. They don't file audited accounts (the NAGR are as bad) 2. 4 million members is widely seen as a large overestimate (the NAGR figures don't attract as much noise) 3. The NRA board aren't really accountable to their membership (the NAGR says they are) 4. It's unusual for a grassroots organisation…

The NRA has had the freaking IRS audit it; I know during the Clinton Administration, I'd be surprised if that was the only time. And I'm pretty sure it has an independent auditor, it's huge, the NAGR is completely obscure and very close to being a lifestyle company/scam.

The NRA has serious credibility and no serious person doubts their 5 million cited membership number. You do realize that's only a fraction of the country's gun owning population?

OK, today the NRA is not accountable to its membership, I'll grant you that hands down. But it was during the critical period of the '70s.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#100

Post by hga » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:21 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #90

hga wrote: post #58

What has made "the NRA"---really, gunowners, the NRA has but a fraction of them as members---so powerful? Well, first of course there's a lot of us. Even having only a fraction, the NRA now has 5 million members. The EFF? I would be surprised to learn they had more than 50,000 (couldn't find a number in a quick search). 2nd, we vote, and many of us vote first and foremost on this issue. Especially since it's a good g…

> every post-Reagan defeated Presidential candidate was, or appeared to be bad on gun ownership Curiously, Reagan himself was quite successful as a Presidential candidate, despite pushing through one of the first strong gun-control laws during his term as Governor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act ). I wonder when the GOP tide shifted on that; mid-'80s?

Compared to Carter and Mondale he was OK; neither of them would have signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which stopped the BATF from extinguishing the nation's gun culture.

Echoing damoncali, a lot of Republican politicians who were sent home to spend more time with their families have discovered to their dismay that the NRA doesn't give a damn about the party they belong to.