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

Reform Government Surveillance

reformgovernmentsurveillance.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 223 posts

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#191

Post by cryoshon »

zymhan wrote: post #189
cryoshon wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts and executive branches are always (always, always, always) going to side with the power of the government itself-- this is clearly demonstrated throughout history in every totalitarian government. In our system of government, this situation is guaranteed by the appointment of the ranking members of the judiciary branch by the executive branch. This guarantees loyalty from the judiciary-- loyalty to party l…

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of why the judiciary is the US is setup the way it is. Judges are appointed by the Executive, but they are essentially immune from any political pressure after they're appointed, as they don't have to get re-elected or re-appointed. The courts do not always side with the power of government, as has been shown multiple times (e.g. recently barring the FBI from throwing GPS track…

If judges are in fact "immune to political pressure" then that's merely one less facet of the government that the public has any kind of oversight on. It's not really debatable that the current court is heavily pro-corporation/government power, though some blips against this trend can be observed, as you pointed out.

In terms of sources: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/elizabeth-warren-warn... ; the quoted remarks by Senator Warren indicate that judicial nominees are actually not easily confirmed, and are sometimes already "captured" by corporate interest. It's very feasible that lobbyists could lobby the legislature in order to promote confirmation of judicial candidates who fit their agenda.

Aside from lobbying the legislature to affect the judiciary's appointments, the judiciary can also be directly bought and sold: http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/02/its-all-about-the-judge... ; most relevantly: “According to a recent investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, “conservative foundations, multinational oil companies and a prescription drug maker were the most frequent sponsors of more than 100 expense-paid educational seminars attended by federal judges over a 4 1/2-year period.” About 185 federal judges participated in these “educational” events which were sponsored by multinational corporations such as ExxonMobil, Pfizer and BP."

I do not accept that the corruption that I outlined is a "conspiracy theory"-- it is a well-documented reality.

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#193

Post by cryoshon »

anoncowherd wrote: post #110
zymhan wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers? The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon), and the people's ability to riot in the streets until we get our way. We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder.

>> The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon) So basically you're saying the watchers watch themselves? But this is exactly the problem I was pointing out. It's just not going to work, ever, and the US is excellent proof of that. Started with a minimal government and a strong constitution, but then.. an Empire happened. >> We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder. Not t…

Unfortunately, the way that I have begun to see things is that voting and representative-writing are pressure release valves for the public's discontent.

I have had poor results with both methods, though I have gained the all-important sensation of "doing something" while truly accomplishing precisely nothing tangible. In my view, the sublime difficulty is that voting, forming PACs to finance/bribe campaigns, and writing representatives are the only fully-recognized "legitimate" outlets for political discontent. These methods are absolutely ineffective in the face of money and power structures.

Even the mildest in desire and most orderly in execution of protests aren't viewed as reputable by bystanders, typically aren't covered positively by media if at all, and thus aren't effective in creating change.

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#194

Post by x0x123 »

pg wrote: post #19

Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confine…

Agreed.

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#195

Post by sp332 »

billirvine wrote: post #192

It's a trap! WhoIS shows a private domain registration through GoDaddy, and the site now shows a Plesk default page. This was probably not the site for an official Silicon Valley Alliance.

The DNS has been changed to point to another server on the same network. The original is still running at http://97.74.205.113/ but the domain now points to http://97.74.205.82/ Strange https://www.whatsmydns.net/#A/reformgovernmentsurveillance.c...

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#198

Post by ozten »

ekianjo wrote: post #12

Any idea why Mozilla is not in that list ? Is it because it's all from for-profit organizations this time ?

My personal guess is that this is an initiative from companies that have provided significant streams of information to the NSA.

It's my understanding that Mozilla doesn't have significant "skin in the game" compared to the services these companies are providing.

Again my opinion, not speaking for Mozilla officially.

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#199

Post by anoncowherd »

cryoshon wrote: post #193
anoncowherd wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon) So basically you're saying the watchers watch themselves? But this is exactly the problem I was pointing out. It's just not going to work, ever, and the US is excellent proof of that. Started with a minimal government and a strong constitution, but then.. an Empire happened. >> We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder. Not t…

Unfortunately, the way that I have begun to see things is that voting and representative-writing are pressure release valves for the public's discontent. I have had poor results with both methods, though I have gained the all-important sensation of "doing something" while truly accomplishing precisely nothing tangible. In my view, the sublime difficulty is that voting, forming PACs to finance/bribe campaigns, and wri…

>> I have had poor results with both methods, though I have gained the all-important sensation of "doing something" while truly accomplishing precisely nothing tangible.

At least now you know it's a waste of time and effort.

>> In my view, the sublime difficulty is that voting, forming PACs to finance/bribe campaigns, and writing representatives are the only fully-recognized "legitimate" outlets for political discontent.

Yep, that's the way the system is designed.

>> These methods are absolutely ineffective in the face of money and power structures.

Indeed they are. By design.

>> Even the mildest in desire and most orderly in execution of protests aren't viewed as reputable by bystanders, typically aren't covered positively by media if at all, and thus aren't effective in creating change.

Well, who do you think the media serves? What group of people is it that decides whether some specific TV/radio-channel is allowed to operate, and for how long? What group of people would stand to gain the most from controlling the whole mainstream media?

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#200

Post by anoncowherd »

zymhan wrote: post #190
anoncowherd wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system is working fine, it's just not to our benefit.

But it _does_ work to our benefit. Sure, innocent people are mistakenly jailed (and even executed), which is a travesty beyond words. But overall the system works, and throwing your hands up in defeat instead of trying to influence the system is certainly unhelpful. You won't start a revolution by kvetching in online comments, maybe you should try writing some letters sometime. They really do read them, and respond t…

>> But it _does_ work to our benefit.

No it doesn't. It works to the benefit of the ruling class, which, coincidentally, is the group of people who set the system up in the first place, and still control it today. Sure, its members come and go, but the power structure stays in place.

>> Sure, innocent people are mistakenly jailed

Mistakenly? -Rarely, if ever. Most of the time they know exactly what they're doing.

>> But overall the system works, and throwing your hands up in defeat

What defeat? I thought you just said the system "works"? -Where's the defeat if it's working properly and thus, everything is fine?

>> instead of trying to influence the system is certainly unhelpful. You won't start a revolution by kvetching in online comments, maybe you should try writing some letters sometime. They really do read them, and respond to them

Wow, you're so naive. Check out the other reply to my comment above, where someone said he's figured that it doesn't work. When Obama or whoever gets elected through receiving and using millions/billions of dollars of campaign contributions (ie. "bribes"), who exactly do you think he represents?

Post reply on HN