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

US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#21

Post by summerdown2 »

mokus wrote: post #18
[deleted] wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

It is not clear from that article how one is to distinguish intentional non-voting from apathy. It seems to me that if one wishes to make a statement of their non-vote, they need to go to the poll and submit a blank ballot, not just stay home on election day. That may be the idea here, but the article doesn't actually seem to say so. EDIT: a bit more looking around turned up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_vote…

I particularly like the idea of having a "none of the above" box on a ballot. It has two functions:

a) "None of the above" is officially reported as part of the election statistics, distinguishing itself as a protest vote, compared to spoiled ballots which might be for other reasons.

b) If "none of the above" wins, they have to hold the election again, but all the current candidates are prohibited from standing.

What I think this will do is promote positive voting. At the moment a lot of voting is negative - to stop the worse candidate from getting in. If "none of the above" becomes an option, the candidates may all be deselected. Each one is therefore encouraged to explain to people why they are a positive choice and not just the least worst.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#22

Post by mokus »

summerdown2 wrote: post #21
mokus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not clear from that article how one is to distinguish intentional non-voting from apathy. It seems to me that if one wishes to make a statement of their non-vote, they need to go to the poll and submit a blank ballot, not just stay home on election day. That may be the idea here, but the article doesn't actually seem to say so. EDIT: a bit more looking around turned up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_vote…

I particularly like the idea of having a "none of the above" box on a ballot. It has two functions: a) "None of the above" is officially reported as part of the election statistics, distinguishing itself as a protest vote, compared to spoiled ballots which might be for other reasons. b) If "none of the above" wins, they have to hold the election again, but all the current candidates are prohibited from standing. What…

I wonder what would happen if "None of the above" were given a large number of write-ins in a US election. Would they be considered spoilt since there's no such person?

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#23

Post by nitrogen »

summerdown2 wrote: post #21
mokus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not clear from that article how one is to distinguish intentional non-voting from apathy. It seems to me that if one wishes to make a statement of their non-vote, they need to go to the poll and submit a blank ballot, not just stay home on election day. That may be the idea here, but the article doesn't actually seem to say so. EDIT: a bit more looking around turned up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_vote…

I particularly like the idea of having a "none of the above" box on a ballot. It has two functions: a) "None of the above" is officially reported as part of the election statistics, distinguishing itself as a protest vote, compared to spoiled ballots which might be for other reasons. b) If "none of the above" wins, they have to hold the election again, but all the current candidates are prohibited from standing. What…

While we're at it, let's switch to approval voting, too: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#24

Post by dragonwriter »

mokus wrote: post #22
summerdown2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I particularly like the idea of having a "none of the above" box on a ballot. It has two functions: a) "None of the above" is officially reported as part of the election statistics, distinguishing itself as a protest vote, compared to spoiled ballots which might be for other reasons. b) If "none of the above" wins, they have to hold the election again, but all the current candidates are prohibited from standing. What…

I wonder what would happen if "None of the above" were given a large number of write-ins in a US election. Would they be considered spoilt since there's no such person?

IIRC, in most US elections, "write ins" are only valid if they are not only for a real person, but a real person who meets the legal qualifications for the position and has officially filed as a write-in candidate. So, yeah, they'd be spoiled ballots.

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#25

Post by dragonwriter »

dantheta wrote: post #17
rwmj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicians do look at how people vote. This is why UKIP has such a disproportionate influence on the policy of the current government. "Alternatives" to democracy aside, you should vote every time, even if it's for a throwaway candidate that you believe in but think will never get in.

I have trouble finding any candidates I can believe in. The only benefit (for me) of the two main parties is that their stance on any issue is widely known regardless of who the individual candidate is, so I can avoid them. I like the idea of independent MPs, but it can be hard to tell ahead of time whether the candidate is a wingnut, even with fairly careful research. I might vote, but tend to spoil the paper when I…

> I have trouble finding any candidates I can believe in.

If the issue is important enough to enough people, why aren't any of them becoming candidates?

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#26

Post by denzquix »

brianbarker wrote: post #2

The new revelations on this NSA stuff aren't surprising; the theme has been set and now we're just thinking, "yeah, no surprise there."

Surprise is overrated. The truth has no responsibility to blow your mind every day.

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#27

Post by ekianjo »

rwmj wrote: post #10
summerdown2 wrote: post #8

At least in the Uk, there seems no democratic lever to adjust to change this. I don't know of a single national party that wants to roll back the surveillance. Following Russel Brand's interview about why there's no point in voting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell... ... all parts of the establishment rallied around, saying how people had fought for years for the right, and how important…

Politicians do look at how people vote. This is why UKIP has such a disproportionate influence on the policy of the current government. "Alternatives" to democracy aside, you should vote every time, even if it's for a throwaway candidate that you believe in but think will never get in.

> "Alternatives" to democracy aside, you should vote every time, even if it's for a throwaway candidate that you believe in but think will never get in.

Care to come up with an argument instead of saying you should ?

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#28

Post by smtddr »

chc wrote: post #20
smtddr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see. Okay, I didn't know that happened. I've only ran into one such checkpoint in my life and the policeman just asked me where I was coming from and where I was going, asked if I had anything to drink while pointing his flashlight into my car; I assume looking for an open can/bottle or anything suspicious. That last like 4 seconds, then I was on my way.

I'm going to guess you're white and probably look reasonably mainstream. Somebody more "suspicious"-looking will often end up with a less smooth experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUptDkpfLhY ... ;-)

This happened in San Jose, California near Club Wet(now closed), officer was white.

(Ironic I'm saying this, given some of my other past comments)

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#29

Post by joeshevland »

shn wrote: post #19

There's no democracy only a shadow of it. We are pushed and shoved and most of the time did it ourselves voluntarily after listening patriotic brainwashing. We are ruled by elites, by big money, period. Worse is some really think that they own the country. I remember in a movie (can't remember now) a guy asks Matt Damon, Italians has this, that owns this, what you own? And he answers "we own the country". Those NSA p…

Unfortunately I agree with you.

I think increasing public awareness and loosening the old media hegemony will change things. In time.

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#30

Post by emess »

summerdown2 wrote: post #12
rwmj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicians do look at how people vote. This is why UKIP has such a disproportionate influence on the policy of the current government. "Alternatives" to democracy aside, you should vote every time, even if it's for a throwaway candidate that you believe in but think will never get in.

Could you expand on why it's important to vote, because at the moment I can't see it. Arguably, lots of voting has got us to where we are now. The main problem I see is that the winning party uses voting numbers to claim a mandate.I'm currently reaching the conclusion that the only way to get meaningful change is for enough people to avoid voting that any idea of mandate becomes ludicrous and the disillusion has to b…

From the perspective of who wins, voting does seem pretty pointless if you disagree with all candidates who have a chance. People will often claim that to vote for a candidate who can't win is to throw away your vote. I disagree. Voting for any person that you don't want to see in office is throwing away your vote because no matter what happens, you'll be unhappy with the outcome. Not voting at all will mean politicians assume a mandate to do as they think best. They'll assume most people are content with the status-quo.

Elections are a platform for national debate and the candidate you support is your spokesperson. The winners do claim a mandate, but that mandate won't be so strong if 25% of the population votes for the candidate who runs on an anti-surveillance platform.

If your "throwaway" candidate is a good speaker and can convey their ideals effectively, supporting them is an opportunity to spread your message to people who haven't heard it in a way that they will connect with (if they've heard at all). Voting is good, but supporting the campaign financially or through volunteer work is even better. It also demonstrates to those who share your point of view that, although they may be in the minority, they aren't alone. I try not to focus on who wins the next election, instead focusing on the long term goal of sharing ideals thereby shifting public opinion.

It's most frustrating when there isn't even a decent third party candidate. I suppose at that point all you can do is run yourself or find someone more qualified and encourage them to run.

Post reply on HN