Why we're suing the CIA • Hacker News Board

Re: Why we're suing the CIA

#71

Post by gdewilde » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 12:15 AM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #67

ZenPro wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sweden? The country trying to illegally force EU countries to extradite Julian Assange in clear violation of EU law?[1] That Sweden? [1] http://cjicl.org.uk/2012/06/20/assange-v-swedish-prosecution... I assume you are ignoring the corruption detailed in http://www.business-anti-corruption.com/media/3831417/TI-Sve...

I do not claim that those governments are not in any way corrupt. They are simply the least corrupt of an inherently corruptible tradition. The point is that we should be following our hopes rather than fleeing from our fears. Comparing yourself to the worst of your peers and patting yourself on the back because you are still somewhat better is blinding yourself to the absolutely unacceptable backsliding that has bee…

We could have made the participatory government 20 years ago.

I always explain it like this (try to):

Our ancestors did not have Internet, direct participation was not possible. We therefore cant expect those ancestors of ours to have seriously considered it - at any stage. Arguably, before the Internet, everyone did his best to participate as much as they could. The new ingredient our generation introduced is for voters not to have influence on par with the technical possibilities.

If we would be overly modest we could allow that single vote to be changed when the voter wants to change it. If the voter cant change his vote the election program is not legally binding. One can say whatever he likes to get elected and enjoy 4 whole years without any consequences.

Technically we should be participating in the debate about specific issues at hand. Our officials would have little to do beyond the organization of that information (a feat easily automated) If we can do social networks and we can do flash trading then we need very little beyond a tech team and a few symbolic figure heads to make a kick ass democracy.

We can do considerably more than vote 1 time, ideas from citizens are a type of resource, value waiting to be extracted. Extraction will help it grow faster. Clearly we are missing out on incalculable riches, just sitting there, expiring while waiting for exploitation.

Re: Why we're suing the CIA

#72

Post by wpietri » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 1:25 AM UTC

GHFigs wrote: post #58

wpietri wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Occupy was political. Individual police departments cracking down on political dissent is problematic. But when the federal government does it, federal powers make it much more significant. And when you see those folks all working with private security to suppress political dissent, it's deeply problematic. That's especially true given that the feds have a history of illegal surveillance of (and even inte…

"Cracking down" is a gross exaggeration of what the documents actually describe. Naomi Wolf's column is essentially blogspam of a press release by the "Partnership for Civil Justice Fund", which cherry-picks and sexes-up excerpts from the pretty dull documents they got through a FOIA request. It's nowhere near COINTELPRO. It's documentation of exactly the kind of mundane police work you would expect to be associated…

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are vital to successful democracy. I don't expect any police work to be associated with a nation-wide political protest movement.

I agree that it's not as bad as COINTELPRO. That doesn't make it right, though.

Re: Why we're suing the CIA

#73

Post by wpietri » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 1:30 AM UTC

mseebach wrote: post #62

wpietri wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Occupy was political. Individual police departments cracking down on political dissent is problematic. But when the federal government does it, federal powers make it much more significant. And when you see those folks all working with private security to suppress political dissent, it's deeply problematic. That's especially true given that the feds have a history of illegal surveillance of (and even inte…

> Not at all. Occupy was political. Individual police departments cracking down on political dissent is problematic. The fact that your motivation is political does not provide a license to break the law, and you must expect a response from law enforcement if you do so.

I agree that political protest doesn't provide a license to do absolutely anything. But when laws are selectively enforced against people with particular political views because of their views, that's a big deal to me regardless of the views.

Because of that, I believe that political activity should be given relatively wide latitude for anything that is basically related to freedom of speech or freedom of assembly. For example, here in San Francisco, a person blocking traffic for the hell of it might get ticketed for jaywalking. But if a group of protestors takes to the streets, the police will just direct traffic around it and keep an eye on it as long as it stays peaceful. And I think that's about right.

Re: Why we're suing the CIA

#74

Post by ZenPro » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 8:31 AM UTC

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #64

anExcitedBeast wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK does everything the US does and more, just without the pretense of a concern for freedom. France is a cesspool of corruption and systemic bigotry, particularly towards Islamic people. The Security Council are the most powerful countries in the most widely recognized international decision making body. I think it's a fair way to identify US "peers".

The permanent members of the UNSC are the countries that were the most powerful at the end of World War II, not the countries that are most significant in the present day.

...and? What does that have to do with the current discussion?

You are partially correct but by and large the UNSC members are the key levers globally.

Regardless, the UNSC comment was to indicate that Russia is very much considered a peer of the USA. If they are not to be compared/contrasted then the debate is meaningless.

Re: Why we're suing the CIA

#75

Post by logfromblammo » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 3:14 PM UTC

gdewilde wrote: post #71

logfromblammo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not claim that those governments are not in any way corrupt. They are simply the least corrupt of an inherently corruptible tradition. The point is that we should be following our hopes rather than fleeing from our fears. Comparing yourself to the worst of your peers and patting yourself on the back because you are still somewhat better is blinding yourself to the absolutely unacceptable backsliding that has bee…

We could have made the participatory government 20 years ago. I always explain it like this (try to): Our ancestors did not have Internet, direct participation was not possible. We therefore cant expect those ancestors of ours to have seriously considered it - at any stage. Arguably, before the Internet, everyone did his best to participate as much as they could. The new ingredient our generation introduced is for vo…

It would be more accurate to say that direct participation was not scalable past a certain population size.

But now, well... Nintendo even made a free Wii amusement called "Everybody Votes Channel". If people are willing to waste time voting on silly things just to see what other people in their tribe and around the world selected, they can certainly vote on things that actually matter to them, like taxes and laws.

The difficult problem nowadays is not the technical ability to get everyone participating, but how to avoid the pitfalls of democracy, such as an arbitrary majority tyrannizing an arbitrary minority, or a focused minority advancing a specific agenda over a relatively apathetic majority.

There would almost have to be a submission petition with a certain number of supporters, an initial 50% majority of those who care to vote to trigger spending development resources on the issue, then a funding round, where supporters have to supply the required budget directly, and finally a ratification round, where a supermajority, perhaps 67% of all possible voters, where non-voters automatically vote to reject, determines whether to proceed to implementation or not.

But that's all irrelevant detail when it is likely that those who currently hold power would use it to prevent a new system from taking it away from them. The status quo likes where it stands now. The system is ripe for disruption, but it is also quite good at retaliating against existential threats.

Re: Why we're suing the CIA

#76

Post by GHFigs » Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 3:40 PM UTC

tedks wrote: post #70

GHFigs wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Cracking down" is a gross exaggeration of what the documents actually describe. Naomi Wolf's column is essentially blogspam of a press release by the "Partnership for Civil Justice Fund", which cherry-picks and sexes-up excerpts from the pretty dull documents they got through a FOIA request. It's nowhere near COINTELPRO. It's documentation of exactly the kind of mundane police work you would expect to be associated…

...why would I expect police work to be associated with protests? That is something I would expect, as the grandparent indicates, in the USSR. I don't expect it in the United States.

That's bullshit, though. Mass gatherings of any kind are a public safety issue, and an organized nation-wide protest with anarchist overtones is hardly the least likely to result in violence and property damage. For police to not gather and share information on what to expect would be stupid.

You may get tons of warm fuzzies thinking about OWS, but it still involved thousands of angry people gathering in one place, which is not something any reasonable person expects the police to be wholly ignorant of.

Re: Why we're suing the CIA

#77

Post by GHFigs » Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 3:42 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #72

GHFigs wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Cracking down" is a gross exaggeration of what the documents actually describe. Naomi Wolf's column is essentially blogspam of a press release by the "Partnership for Civil Justice Fund", which cherry-picks and sexes-up excerpts from the pretty dull documents they got through a FOIA request. It's nowhere near COINTELPRO. It's documentation of exactly the kind of mundane police work you would expect to be associated…

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are vital to successful democracy. I don't expect any police work to be associated with a nation-wide political protest movement. I agree that it's not as bad as COINTELPRO. That doesn't make it right, though.

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly != freedom to be completely ignored until you do something wrong.

I'll inline my other comment: Mass gatherings of any kind are a public safety issue, and an organized nation-wide protest with anarchist overtones is hardly the least likely to result in violence and property damage. For police to not gather and share information on what to expect would be stupid.

You may get tons of warm fuzzies thinking about OWS, but it still involved thousands of angry people gathering in one place, which is not something any reasonable person expects the police to be wholly ignorant of.

Re: Why we're suing the CIA

#78

Post by wpietri » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 3:25 PM UTC

GHFigs wrote: post #77

wpietri wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are vital to successful democracy. I don't expect any police work to be associated with a nation-wide political protest movement. I agree that it's not as bad as COINTELPRO. That doesn't make it right, though.

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly != freedom to be completely ignored until you do something wrong. I'll inline my other comment: Mass gatherings of any kind are a public safety issue, and an organized nation-wide protest with anarchist overtones is hardly the least likely to result in violence and property damage. For police to not gather and share information on what to expect would be stupid. You may get t…

Ah, look at all the straw men. But since you made 'em, you can tidy 'em up. I'm too busy today.

Go watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ6mhRZ8LjM

Now we can see the police and FBI behavior toward the civil rights movement for what it was: the police helping people in power stay in power.

One of the defaults on Hacker News is a general skepticism toward increasing police power. It's amazing to me how quickly that can switch to justification when it's the "wrong" people getting policed. The reason Aaron Swartz got pursued so vigorously is exactly the reason that Occupy did: they were both (correctly) perceived as a political threat to people with power and wealth.

Re: Why we're suing the CIA

#79

Post by GHFigs » Mon, Jun 16, 2014, 7:47 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #78

GHFigs wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly != freedom to be completely ignored until you do something wrong. I'll inline my other comment: Mass gatherings of any kind are a public safety issue, and an organized nation-wide protest with anarchist overtones is hardly the least likely to result in violence and property damage. For police to not gather and share information on what to expect would be stupid. You may get t…

Ah, look at all the straw men. But since you made 'em, you can tidy 'em up. I'm too busy today. Go watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ6mhRZ8LjM Now we can see the police and FBI behavior toward the civil rights movement for what it was: the police helping people in power stay in power. One of the defaults on Hacker News is a general skepticism toward increasing police power. It's amazing to me how quickly…

What are you even talking about? "Wrong" people? Aaron Swartz?

I'm just saying the documents mentioned above[1] don't back up your claims, and that what they do describe is mundane, expected behavior. (I know this because I read them myself, rather than relying on the summary of someone with a clear agenda.) If you weren't speaking in the context of the thread, why post in it?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7881884

One of the defaults on Hacker News is a general skepticism toward increasing police power.

First of all, that's not a default of Hacker News, that's a default of individual users of Hacker News. If you want a community of uniform opinion, I suggest digging out your dog-eared copy of 1984 and re-reading the scene of the two-minutes' hate to see where that leads.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that I share that default, but with the additional (and seemingly rare) default of skepticism toward reporting about increasing police power.

Re: Why we're suing the CIA

#80

Post by tedks » Wed, Jun 18, 2014, 3:38 AM UTC

GHFigs wrote: post #76

tedks wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...why would I expect police work to be associated with protests? That is something I would expect, as the grandparent indicates, in the USSR. I don't expect it in the United States.

That's bullshit, though. Mass gatherings of any kind are a public safety issue, and an organized nation-wide protest with anarchist overtones is hardly the least likely to result in violence and property damage. For police to not gather and share information on what to expect would be stupid. You may get tons of warm fuzzies thinking about OWS, but it still involved thousands of angry people gathering in one place, w…

Similarily, Westboro Baptist Church protests are public safety issues, because they provoke large angry gatherings. How does the FBI handle that? Do they collaborate with corporations and local police departments to systematically discredit, propagandize against, and wage psychological warfare against the WBC?

Or do they do striaghtforward police work, provide a detail of officers at protests and counterprotests just in case anything gets out of hand, and generally behave reasonably?

There is a very far divide between "wholly ignorant" and "actively subverting." There is also a far divide between that and "sharing information on what to expect."

See also: undercover police excesses in the UK and US, including having children with activists to maintain cover.