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

Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 143 posts

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#81

Post by dragonwriter »

anigbrowl wrote: post #77
dragonwriter wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see how FPTP prevent the election of Congressional candidates from outside the two major parties. It doesn't prevent it, it just makes it extremely rare. The reason is, essentially, Tragedy of the Commons: for each individual voter, the most strongest result from voting for a minor party candidate rather than the least-opposed major party candidate is to make it more likely that their most-opposed major par…

I appreciate that - I'm familiar with Condorcet's and Arrow's theorems. I'm not a fan of FPTP myself (as I come from a country with proportional representation, and quite like that it's how local elections are run where I live); I just don't think it's deliberately engineered to effectively prevent the formation of other parties, although I certainly agree that it's frequently gamed to that end.

> I just don't think it's deliberately engineered to effectively prevent the formation of other parties

Whether it is "deliberately engineered" to do that or not, it has a fairly well-demonstrated effect of doing that compared to systems which provide more proportional results. Intent is pretty much irrelevant.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#82

Post by dragonwriter »

a3n wrote: post #78
bitwize wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Barring a constitutional amendment that implements a multiparty, proportional-representation parliament, your choices in Murka are either Kang or Kodos.

If what you're doing isn't working, do anything else. Voting 3rd party is anything else. I vote 3rd party, which to me is invoking "none of the above."

> what you're doing isn't working, do anything else.

That's a fairly silly proposition that could justify any arbitrary change of action no matter how unlikely it was to produce better results (indeed, even if it was certain to provide worse results) than your current course of action.

> I vote 3rd party

Is it working? If not, shouldn't you, by your own standards, be doing anything else?

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#83

Post by dragonwriter »

jseliger wrote: post #40
mark_l_watson wrote: post #29

I donated money to Obama's 2008 campaign and voted for him twice. I am very disappointed with him. Now, my honest opinion is that at worst he sometimes flat out lies, or at least cleverly tries to confuse people. He says that he had an orderly plan for reviewing privacy issues, all the while, I think that his administration has consistently been trying to keep things hushed up.

I wrote this a couple days ago in response to another HN comment but it's relevant here too; the first paragraph is the one I responded to: >The question is then; in a two party system where both offer the blue pill, who the hell do you vote for? Greens or libertarians, which I have been doing for a long time. Real change starts at the ballot box.

> Real change starts at the ballot box.

No, real change starts with working to build a mass constituency that believes that real change is necessary, and agrees on the general direction of change.

If you want it to work, change through the ballot box is fairly late in that process.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#84

Post by mpyne »

anigbrowl wrote: post #77
dragonwriter wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see how FPTP prevent the election of Congressional candidates from outside the two major parties. It doesn't prevent it, it just makes it extremely rare. The reason is, essentially, Tragedy of the Commons: for each individual voter, the most strongest result from voting for a minor party candidate rather than the least-opposed major party candidate is to make it more likely that their most-opposed major par…

I appreciate that - I'm familiar with Condorcet's and Arrow's theorems. I'm not a fan of FPTP myself (as I come from a country with proportional representation, and quite like that it's how local elections are run where I live); I just don't think it's deliberately engineered to effectively prevent the formation of other parties, although I certainly agree that it's frequently gamed to that end.

FPTP itself is not deliberately engineered to lead to two parties and I doubt that was the intent of the framers anyways. For a time at the beginning of U.S. government the whole notion of strong political parties was considered bad for governance anyways; people were supposed to represent their constituents or their state.

However nowadays the two major parties certainly do cooperate in ensuring that there remain only two major parties, rather aggressively going even further than FPTP would otherwise lead to in keeping additional political parties weak. It's easier to get elected without a party affiliation at all than to be elected as a party other than D or R.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#85

Post by glesica »

dylangs1030 wrote: post #76
windexh8er wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how anyone can has enough reasonable information to make a case that FISA doesn't rubber stamp cases. It seems to me it works that of the way large organizations navigate political nuances internally; people who don't run the technology and platforms make the decisions as it pertains to influence that, is often, good for self-preservation and fiscal motivation - the operators implement the systems as the…

"I'm not sure how anyone can has enough reasonable information to make a case that FISA doesn't rubber stamp cases." The burden of proof is on the positive, not the negative.

I agree. The government has never proven to us that FISA works, therefore it should be shut down until such proof is forthcoming. Remember that FISA was designed to solve a problem: rogue intelligence agency actions. If it has solved that problem, then we need proof, otherwise we must assume that the problem still exists.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#86

Post by andy_ppp »

peterjancelis wrote: post #60
bitwize wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What saddens me is that while in the 2012 elections it seems most Obama voters were effectively choosing the lesser of two evils, in 2008 they were voting for Obama. They believed in what he was supposed to represent. They wanted to believe . Even then Obama gave off considerable whiffs of being a relative political neophyte who felt entitled -- or even destined -- to power, and was given an easy path into the White…

I think most people, even those who follow politics, buy into the emotional experience rather than the actual politics. It makes people feel good to listen to a great speech on paying back birth control pills, who cares that it's a really small issue compared to foreign policy or economic policy. The number of real 'political engineers' is really small anyway. I don't even blame those people. For example I am a car e…

Wow, market based direct democracy, the media would wet themselves; here is an example headline:

"Vote for higher welfare for lazy people? Get real?!? Vote down the poor food tax and WIN two year supply of McDonalds today![1]"

[1] Terms and conditions apply.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#87

Post by AnthonyMouse »

anigbrowl wrote: post #79
dylangs1030 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm not sure how anyone can has enough reasonable information to make a case that FISA doesn't rubber stamp cases." The burden of proof is on the positive, not the negative.

In fairness that runs in both directions - we would certainly be better off with some proof of FISA courts' effectiveness, even if were historical (eg declassification of past decisions from >10 years ago, or the establishment of objective criteria for declassification).

It would also help significantly if the default for their opinions not be that they are automatically classified and put the burden of proof on the government in each individual case to justify why the public shouldn't know what the law is.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#88

Post by AnthonyMouse »

anigbrowl wrote: post #80
impendia wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that this argument involves a fallacy. The following statements are not equivalent: 1. It seems like at that point it should deny every single request going forward until the illegal activities have stopped. 2. Every request going forward is illegitimate. (2) is false, but I believe that (1) is plausible, especially if there are any difficulties for FISA to determine whether any particular NSA request is l…

I think that they are; if you're sufficiently convinced of 1), then 2) follows as a matter of logic.

Not necessarily. The court can do (1) in order to punish the government for not complying, similar to excluding improperly obtained evidence that would otherwise be relevant.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#89

Post by saraid216 »

dictum wrote: post #39
mark_l_watson wrote: post #29

I donated money to Obama's 2008 campaign and voted for him twice. I am very disappointed with him. Now, my honest opinion is that at worst he sometimes flat out lies, or at least cleverly tries to confuse people. He says that he had an orderly plan for reviewing privacy issues, all the while, I think that his administration has consistently been trying to keep things hushed up.

What saddens me is that while in the 2012 elections it seems most Obama voters were effectively choosing the lesser of two evils, in 2008 they were voting for Obama. They believed in what he was supposed to represent. In retrospect, maybe they were voting against Bush . In the next election maybe a majority will vote against Obama , and the game will keep going.

McCain wasn't exactly putting up a fight in 2008. The main reason, as far as I could tell, that Obama might lose was because he looked black.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#90

Post by peterjancelis »

andy_ppp wrote: post #86
peterjancelis wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people, even those who follow politics, buy into the emotional experience rather than the actual politics. It makes people feel good to listen to a great speech on paying back birth control pills, who cares that it's a really small issue compared to foreign policy or economic policy. The number of real 'political engineers' is really small anyway. I don't even blame those people. For example I am a car e…

Wow, market based direct democracy, the media would wet themselves; here is an example headline: "Vote for higher welfare for lazy people? Get real?!? Vote down the poor food tax and WIN two year supply of McDonalds today![1]" [1] Terms and conditions apply.

I am not talking about democracy, I am talking about polycentric law.
Post reply on HN