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

Controversial Patriot Act power now overwhelmingly used in drug investigations

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: Controversial Patriot Act power now overwhelmingly used in drug investigations

#41

Post by jakeogh »

csallen wrote: post #11
hyperion2010 wrote: post #10

I really do not understand why some people argue that slippery slope arguments are fallacious. If there is no compelling force and no oversight that prevents an organization from doing something then by entropy alone you would expect that it will eventually be done, much less when there is a huge incentive to use it because it requires less work and red tape.

Slippery slope arguments aren't necessarily fallacious. Their quality depends on how strong of a case you can build for why/how will lead to rather than . EDIT: Don't know why I'm being downvoted. Wikipedia seems to back me up here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope ).

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like people are increasingly using phrases that put wikipedia in the 'source' category.

Re: Controversial Patriot Act power now overwhelmingly used in drug investigations

#42

Post by toyg »

Yardlink wrote: post #20

To those who don't like the use of this law, I think this is OK. Here's why: You live in a democracy where the popular opinion decides who's in power. You agree that's a good idea because you aren't moving to an authoritarian or libertarian country or voting to change the system. The popular opinion allowed this law, so you should accept that it's the right one according to the system. Of course there will always be…

> the popular opinion decides who's in power.

Nope: a bunch of marginal (and mostly rural) constituencies "decide" who's "in power" (which is not actual power but rather arbitrating positions between lobbies, anyway). Everybody else is just an extra.

Re: Controversial Patriot Act power now overwhelmingly used in drug investigations

#43

Post by olavk »

hyperion2010 wrote: post #10

I really do not understand why some people argue that slippery slope arguments are fallacious. If there is no compelling force and no oversight that prevents an organization from doing something then by entropy alone you would expect that it will eventually be done, much less when there is a huge incentive to use it because it requires less work and red tape.

Well, arguments of the form 'if we allow X then we must also allow Y' is a fallacy in the strict sense that it does not follow with logical necessity when X and Y are different things. While if you accept the premises that say X leads to Y and Y leads to Z, then it does follow logically that X leads to Z.

The word 'fallacy' is often used as synonym for 'wrong' but that is misleading.

Re: Controversial Patriot Act power now overwhelmingly used in drug investigations

#44

Post by pluma »

colordrops wrote: post #18
crazy1van wrote: post #16

Another example of why legislating in a fit of passion is generally a bad idea.

I'm going to be cynical here and suggest that there was no emotion involved for the legislators themselves - they knew the consequences from the beginning. They wait for constituents to become emotional and irrational to push through shitty legislation.

If you consider the account of what happened surrounding the passing of the post-9/11 legislation as given here[0] factual, it was very much transported on emotion.

Sure, the original concept wasn't new, but I'm fairly certain the emotional landscape at the time was intentionally used as a vehicle to pass these kinds of laws.

The saddest part is that many people who did pay attention at the time were fully aware of where this would go and were criticised or ridiculed at the time. My first thought upon learning of the PATRIOT Act was that it's a creepy name for a bill that permanently erodes civil rights and protections, but apparently most people thought it was okay because A) it has a name you can't possibly argue with (being considered un-patriotic in the aftermath of 9/11 would have been outrageous) and B) it's only for dealing with terrorism anyway.

Kinda reminds me of the Internet censorship bill our politicians in Germany tried to pass some years ago. It was only to be used to restrict access to child pornography, of course. Because if there's one thing that's easier to rally people against than terrorism, it's child abuse. And who can argue with combating child abuse?

[0]: http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/

Re: Controversial Patriot Act power now overwhelmingly used in drug investigations

#45

Post by pluma »

AlexandrB wrote: post #26
smtddr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't help either.... http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/prison-black-laws-...

Wow, if I'm reading this right, this seems like evidence of widespread (possibly sub-conscious) racism.

You sound as if that's a surprise to you.

As an outsider the ubiquitous racism in American culture seems obvious. It's just become political correct to not actually speak about it.

I mean, it's not like Americans are rounding up brown people in lynch mobs anymore (or at least not as frequently), but that most racists today don't outright try to kill the people they despise doesn't mean they're not racists anymore.

Re: Controversial Patriot Act power now overwhelmingly used in drug investigations

#46

Post by pluma »

ipsin wrote: post #29
judk wrote: post #22

Please capitalize PATRIOT. It's a tacky initialism, not the word "Patriot".

+1. The full acronym is USA PATRIOT, which, every time I read it, causes me to throw up in my mouth a little bit. So far from protecting the actual ideals the US claims to stand for.

As a German, every time I hear Americans openly embrace unquestioning patriotism (or equate patriotism with blind loyalty to the government -- and no, conservatives ragging about the "nanny state" and questioning Obama's nationality or religion don't count if you also sport "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers and pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth), I cringe a bit.

Over the years I've learned to pay less attention to it, but especially with Bush the rhetoric was exactly the kind that rang all the alarm bells. Every time I see a new president be elected into office my only thought is "Please don't become Hitler".

If there's anything scarier than the US, it's the US at war. And since 9/11, the US is de-facto perpetually at war.

Re: Controversial Patriot Act power now overwhelmingly used in drug investigations

#47

Post by pluma »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #31
Yardlink wrote: post #20

To those who don't like the use of this law, I think this is OK. Here's why: You live in a democracy where the popular opinion decides who's in power. You agree that's a good idea because you aren't moving to an authoritarian or libertarian country or voting to change the system. The popular opinion allowed this law, so you should accept that it's the right one according to the system. Of course there will always be…

> If it does become a bigger problem that affects the majority, they'll eventually decide to vote it out. Slight problem with that. Candidate Obama promised to repeal the Patriot Act. People voted for him. He was elected. It has not been repealed.

To be fair, there are a lot of other promises he didn't hold. It's unfair to focus on that one in particular.
Post reply on HN