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

End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 176 posts

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#131

Post by malandrew »

onli wrote: post #25
spodek wrote: post #2

Senators have to go to the press to try to stop the government from doing what clearly breaks the law -- the Constitution, no less -- using up billions of taxpayer funds and undermines American business for no clear benefit. Conventional wisdom says the Cold War was between the doctrines of Capitalism and Communism and that the doctrine of Capitalism won. It doesn't look like that view was right. The doctrine of the…

No. Capitalism clearly won. But Capitalism is not Freedom, not democracy and is not the rule of the law. Capitalism is a way to conduct business by letting people posess the means of production, and the capital to produce as well. It was not only rhetoric that in the fight between USA and UDSSR, there was a fight between freedom and authority. But mainly, it was a fight between different ways to regulate the means of…

China is as far from a communist country in anything except in name. Apart from a few "state-run utilities" (which operate largely as capitalist entities), there are very few socialist programs and institutions.

Near as I can tell a purely capitalist system is likely to become a surveillance system, since it more effectively allows for the production of surveillance tools. Surveillance is the ultimate competitive advantage. Almost no one can win against you in the market if you have "total informational awareness", especially if you have no scruples with respect to how you use that information and people are largely unaware of how much that surveillance is costing them.

The person conducting the surveillance can see its benefits, but the victim can't fully grasp its harm. Surveillance is capitalism's way of boiling frogs for fun and profit.

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#132

Post by FedRegister »

amalag wrote: post #45
FedRegister wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Our first priority is to keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism." bzzt! , oh, sorry, that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is set out in the oath that all US Senators take upon being sworn into office[1] which reads: >"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and…

I can only hope their constituents will remind them of this!

Most constituents are too ignorant to know this. That's why I support repealing the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution[1].

The House of Representatives is apportioned by population, and its job is to represent the interests of the people. A more populous state has more representatives so that (theoretically) each representative represents an equal portion of the American population. This is also why spending bills must originate in the House as the money spent is derived from the people.

Each state receives an equal number of Senators. The Senate is responsible for representing the interests of the states. That is why Senators were originally appointed by the state legislature [2] instead of directly elected. A federal republic, such as the United States, is built upon each state have its interests represented equally, and that is why each state receives an equal number of Senators.

I believe that the direct election of Senators undermines the original intent of the Senate and that the 17th Amendment should be repealed.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvii [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section3

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#133

Post by rayiner »

anigbrowl wrote: post #127
opinali wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internet privacy becomes essential in the moment that people put their entire lives on the Internet. All mail is email, all financial transactions are electronic, medical records are in computers, credit scores are in data centers--- you name anything important to your privacy/freedom, and it's in the cloud these days. No tradeoff is possible anymore.

I keep saying it, the US Constitution needs amending to create an explicit right to privacy. government surveillance is a problem, but so is the unilateral exploitation of personal data for commercial purposes. I'm Irish and living in the States, I really miss the EU Data Protection Act.

I think a new FISA would be a good start. As flawed as the current state of affairs is, its a big improvement over what existed prior to FISA. That law was a constraint on the NSA, probably the most restrictive that was possible during the cold war.

Alternatively, the Supreme Court could invent a right,of privacy out of thin air. That might very well happen in time, but the tech community is undermining attempts to lay the groundwork for that. There must be a consensus that privacy is the rule online, rather than the exception. No such consensus will emerge if the tech community continues to condition people to accept invasions of their privacy in the name of advertising. Ordinary people do not have a particular distrust of government. To get to "its not okay for the government to read my email" you have to get rid of the notion that "its okay for Google to read my email."

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#134

Post by Lagged2Death »

gknoy wrote: post #112
Lagged2Death wrote: post #66

Our first priority is to keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism. It's like a feller can't even write a serious editorial in support of American liberty without kowtowing to irrational fear-mongering anymore. The battle to keep us jumping at shadows has been won so conclusively that no one even bothers to stand up and say anything like: You are safe. Your family is safe. You are safer now than you would have…

That was wonderfully said. May I share that with friends/family?

Thank you and please share with whomever you like!

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#135

Post by GVIrish »

rayiner wrote: post #85
adventured wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not very worried about Google arresting me at some point in the future with their jackboot thugs for something I did or said in the past (when X wasn't illegal). This applies to Facebook, Twitter, AT&T, Verizon, Samsung, Snapchat, and so on. When these guys start trying to acquire their own domestic armies, then I'll get really concerned. There seems to be a common gloss-over regarding the fact that it's the United S…

As a practical matter, I worry about corporations screwing me over more than I worry about "jackboot thugs." The government has very little incentive to mess with me. I'm much more worried about employers using my browsing habits to deny me jobs, companies using my spending habits to deny me a mortgage, etc. Not as bad as having "jackboot thugs" break down your door, but a heck of a lot more likely and potentially li…

The problem is that the more these assaults on freedom are allowed to persist, the more likely it is to come to your door step. Maybe now you're more likely to experience hardship at the hands of a corporation, but if we continue down this road that absolutely will change.

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#136

Post by seehafer »

rayiner wrote: post #133
anigbrowl wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep saying it, the US Constitution needs amending to create an explicit right to privacy. government surveillance is a problem, but so is the unilateral exploitation of personal data for commercial purposes. I'm Irish and living in the States, I really miss the EU Data Protection Act.

I think a new FISA would be a good start. As flawed as the current state of affairs is, its a big improvement over what existed prior to FISA. That law was a constraint on the NSA, probably the most restrictive that was possible during the cold war. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could invent a right,of privacy out of thin air. That might very well happen in time, but the tech community is undermining attempts to l…

"To get to "its not okay for the government to read my email" you have to get rid of the notion that "its okay for Google to read my email."

No, you don't. You opt-in to Google reading your mail by using their free service. You can't (easily) opt-out of the government reading everything you do.

You have a choice with Google and any other private firm.

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#137

Post by anigbrowl »

rayiner wrote: post #133
anigbrowl wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep saying it, the US Constitution needs amending to create an explicit right to privacy. government surveillance is a problem, but so is the unilateral exploitation of personal data for commercial purposes. I'm Irish and living in the States, I really miss the EU Data Protection Act.

I think a new FISA would be a good start. As flawed as the current state of affairs is, its a big improvement over what existed prior to FISA. That law was a constraint on the NSA, probably the most restrictive that was possible during the cold war. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could invent a right,of privacy out of thin air. That might very well happen in time, but the tech community is undermining attempts to l…

Alternatively, the Supreme Court could invent a right,of privacy out of thin air.

Between the originalists and the existing problems with rights that have been found in the penumbrae of other rights, I cant see that happening. But then a consittutional amendment likely isn't on the cards any time soon either.

(I'm tied up for the rest of the day and most of the week with family stuff, but have wanted to chat with you about this for a while, would you mind shooting me an email so we can pick it up later?)

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#138

Post by 001sky »

dllthomas wrote: post #128
001sky wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something about (consevative, Liberal) that itches akward, although you may be right in a narrow sense.

That itch is your problem, not hers. Everyone operating in the public sphere should be honestly trying to pursue the policies they think will lead to the best results (for everyone, for their constituencies, and to some degree for themselves). They should not be trying to live up to labels whose definitions are different at different times, which are useful only when speaking in pretty broad terms, and which largely…

Its more a problem for the people that she was elected to represent. The fact that once that power is accrued, the game is to keep it, is not a partisan one. But that creates more cognitive dissonance for some ideologies that it does for others.

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#139

Post by dllthomas »

001sky wrote: post #138
dllthomas wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That itch is your problem, not hers. Everyone operating in the public sphere should be honestly trying to pursue the policies they think will lead to the best results (for everyone, for their constituencies, and to some degree for themselves). They should not be trying to live up to labels whose definitions are different at different times, which are useful only when speaking in pretty broad terms, and which largely…

Its more a problem for the people that she was elected to represent. The fact that once that power is accrued, the game is to keep it, is not a partisan one. But that creates more cognitive dissonance for some ideologies that it does for others.

As you had phrased it it is not a problem for them. It's a problem if she's misrepresenting herself, but she has an awfully long voting record at this point, and when she talks what she says is not radically different than what she does.

Many of her particular positions I consider a problem, but that has nothing to do with any discrepancy implied by "(conservative, Liberal)".

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#140

Post by grej »

I think the quote from William Pitt is appropriate:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

Post reply on HN