We need an NRA for privacy • Hacker News Board

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#101

Post by damoncali » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:23 PM UTC

chalst wrote: post #91

damoncali wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as their money goes. 4 million members at ~$25 per year = $100 million in annual revenue from dues alone. That doesn't count donations. The industry does of course contribute, but the mistake gun control activists make over and over again is that they assume the NRA is about money. They think they can outspend the NRA and win. They can't because the NRA is not about money. It's about people who are well organi…

I have the impression that the following are true of the NRA (with comparison to the National Association for Gun Rights) 1. They don't file audited accounts (the NAGR are as bad) 2. 4 million members is widely seen as a large overestimate (the NAGR figures don't attract as much noise) 3. The NRA board aren't really accountable to their membership (the NAGR says they are) 4. It's unusual for a grassroots organisation…

Do you really think an organization of that size and under that much political scrutiny would get away with such a lie? Not to mention the defrauding of their advertisers that would have to take place.

Even the Washington Post's fact checker column couldn't find fault with their numbers. And that's as anti-gun a newspaper as exists.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#102

Post by the_watcher » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:28 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #79

the_watcher wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I see with the ACLU and EFF is exactly what you mention - you've got to get older people involved. Fairly or unfairly (generally unfairly, in my opinion), both of those organizations have pretty negative connotations with the church going grandmother you reference. The ACLU's sometimes mindless pursuit of "civil rights" (which I think they do a good job of generally, but it does grate when everything is c…

Note that you rarely see the NRA coming to the defense of hardened inner-city thugs getting railroaded with felon-in-possession type charges. It's careful to craft an image, and that image is centered on one set of people who use guns and not the other sets of people who use guns.

The NRA is also very careful to support people who don't actually violate gun laws (whether because they are just normal people with guns for hunting/protection or people exploiting loopholes that - regardless of your feelings towards them - are codified by law), or who are at least making some attempt at a credible argument (trying to phrase this as politically neutral as possible. I'm not here to debate their policy, just observe their actions) for the legitimate need for it. The way the NRA gets support is from people who want to make it easier to legally own guns. If we are being honest, "hardened inner city thugs" are not people who care whether the gun they have is legal or not, just whether or not it's easy to get. The NRA's explicit mission is more specific than make guns easy to get. It's make them easier to get legally. Again, this supports the need for a hyperspecific single issue organization that focuses on privacy. The NRA gets a lot of traction by focusing on freedom and the Constitution. A privacy organization would be wise to take note of what plays with the NRA - worries about government databases of guns should be very easy to relate to actual government databases of communications.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#103

Post by _delirium » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:29 PM UTC

damoncali wrote: post #98

_delirium wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> every post-Reagan defeated Presidential candidate was, or appeared to be bad on gun ownership Curiously, Reagan himself was quite successful as a Presidential candidate, despite pushing through one of the first strong gun-control laws during his term as Governor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act ). I wonder when the GOP tide shifted on that; mid-'80s?

Despite a long history, the NRA was just getting started in politics when Reagan was elected, and was a lot softer back then. The transformation that began with Cox and Carter in 1977 and was later carried on by Lapierre took time to gain strength. Even in the mid 90's I'd say the NRA was not as strong as it is today. The 1994 assault weapons ban was a wakeup call, and probably contributed to the rapid sales growth o…

I wonder if part of it also relates to a shift in which parts of the political spectrum people associate politically tinged, "potentially subversive" gun carrying with. In the '60s it was mainly associated with the militant left, especially groups like the Black Panthers. That may explain why conservatives of the time, like Reagan, supported gun control as part of a general strategy of supporting the police and law-and-order against armed subversives. Nowadays open carrying of guns by groups identifying as left-wing is rather rare, and instead the politics/gun association tends to be more associated with groups on the right, like the militia movement.

This is one issue on which my elderly conservative relatives almost entirely come down on the "liberal" side, though not enough to vote for Democrats. They tend to associate gun ownership with weird thugs and revolutionary communists and generally people who are up to no good. Admittedly, they are not from rural areas, where I assume views have always been quite different (the very conservative relatives I have live in suburban-conservative areas, e.g. some live in Orange County).

The move towards libertarian influence is a good point. I think of traditional conservative views being strongly pro-police (you don't find many liberals in friends-of-the-police type community organizations), but younger libertarians like Radley Balko tend to be very critical of police.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#104

Post by hga » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:29 PM UTC

rdl wrote: post #92

hga wrote: post #58

What has made "the NRA"---really, gunowners, the NRA has but a fraction of them as members---so powerful? Well, first of course there's a lot of us. Even having only a fraction, the NRA now has 5 million members. The EFF? I would be surprised to learn they had more than 50,000 (couldn't find a number in a quick search). 2nd, we vote, and many of us vote first and foremost on this issue. Especially since it's a good g…

I think part of the NRA's effectiveness is that "gun people" spend serious money on guns all the time, and there are active ways to use the guns (going shooting, hunting, etc.) which are concrete, and both could be taken away. Privacy is much more abstract, loss of privacy doesn't have direct physical or financial cost to individuals (voters) as it happens, etc. I'd also be wary of pushing this NRA analogy too far, f…

Actually, many, perhaps most gun owners don't constantly spend "serious money on guns all the time". There's a whole bunch who have one or two for self-defense in the home and almost never touch them. There are the "Fudds" who buy a few boxes of shotgun shells every year for hunting season, or a box of 20 rifle rounds every few. They're very ... there for concealed carry types, but we don't necessarily regularly spend money on them (most should, because for most skill decays rapidly, but real life gets in the way).

Plenty do, but every one of us feels threatened when we hear someone like DiFi say "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in" (even if that was technically only about "assault weapons", a politically defined category, we know what her end game is, guns for her but not for us).

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#105

Post by rdl » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:34 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #97

snowwrestler wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Privacy advocates need to get their act together and form a single-issue organization. I need to be seeing teenagers coming to my house peddling privacy the way they do for churches and baby seals. The tech industry needs to sack up and realize that their business interests are at stake, and put some serious money in PACs behind the whole effort. But privacy advocates are frequently at odds with tech companies over…

Until we have specific , actual, real privacy atrocities I can't see this effort getting the traction of any of the groups you've specified. Labor had company towns and less but still specifically abusive employers, with plenty of specific people maimed or killed in unsafe workplaces or labor actions. Environmentalists had deformed children from Japanese industrial mercury dumping, and, oh, the Cuyahoga River catchin…

Probably nothing, because the actual people at NSA have remained pretty focused on their mission even absent any real technical or legislative-oversight controls. I suspect that will be the case until the hired-in-2001 people leave the agency and are replaced mainly with people trained by those post-2001 people. In the most junior roles at NSA, that's probably already happened.

I wonder if "diffuse harm happening to everyone" can ever compete with "concrete harm happening to specific people you identify with". It's clear "concrete harm happening to people about whom you give zero fucks, or actively dislike" is meaningless.

In the first category, let's go with atmospheric nuclear testing -- a small but concrete global cancer risk increase. We ended that, but only after doing it a lot, and getting most of the benefit. I'm not sure if occasional-but-universal things like car accidents (measures like airbags, etc.) count as the first or second category. The second gets a whole range of things. The third, virtually everything about warfare. All serious privacy/comsec things to date have been in the third category (unless you don't hate drug users, in which case some might be in the second category). The harm of the first category has been exceptionally minor, even if you believe humans at NSA read every single packet.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#106

Post by tippytop » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:35 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #53

tippytop wrote: post #20

We need a privacy amendment to the Constitution. It needs to shore up the legalese of the 4th which lawyers have made a runaround.

I think what we need is a public that holds the government accountable to the Fourth. If you think that the government defying the purpose of the Fourth will be fixed by pushing for another amendment to be passed and then returning to public passivity, you don't understand how the fourth has been "made a runaround". The Constitution will continue to be treated as something to pay lip service to without substance as l…

Anyone who watches government in action understands quite well how laws are twisted and turned to meet objectives. It only matters what is explicit, and there is no mention anywhere in the Constitution about "privacy". If this is a value that we Americans wish to continue, then it needs to be codified. Any government action begins with words and the interpretation of said words.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#107

Post by damoncali » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:35 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #103

damoncali wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite a long history, the NRA was just getting started in politics when Reagan was elected, and was a lot softer back then. The transformation that began with Cox and Carter in 1977 and was later carried on by Lapierre took time to gain strength. Even in the mid 90's I'd say the NRA was not as strong as it is today. The 1994 assault weapons ban was a wakeup call, and probably contributed to the rapid sales growth o…

I wonder if part of it also relates to a shift in which parts of the political spectrum people associate politically tinged, "potentially subversive" gun carrying with. In the '60s it was mainly associated with the militant left, especially groups like the Black Panthers. That may explain why conservatives of the time, like Reagan, supported gun control as part of a general strategy of supporting the police and law-a…

It could be. The NRA is actively engaged in working with a traditionally liberal segment of the population - poor minorities. There are lots of reasons for that, but one big one is that they are mostly Democrats, and the NRA has become too dependent on Republicans lately.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#108

Post by hga » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:36 PM UTC

rdl wrote: post #94

damoncali wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The threat is certainly more direct and concrete. A lot of people don't know that the recent assault weapons ban that was proposed would make millions of people felons and punishable by 10 years in prison if they did not register their rifles under the NFA (which is currently used for machine gun collectors - it's a painful bureaucratic process that takes months, but allows the ownership of machine guns, suppressors,…

As an aside, gun trusts are a decent way around the CLEO signature requirement for NFA items, at least in states which don't ban them outright (sigh, California). (acutely noticed since I've seen the fare.)

I gather that in a lot of states they haven't been put to the legal test. Not a good bet where judiciaries lean more left than the state itself, e.g. any that picks judges with the Missouri Plan, like my home state of Missouri where our Castle Doctrine has been judicially nullified. Especially since you won't find many political profiles in courage supporting ownership of NFA items.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#109

Post by the_watcher » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:36 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #85

the_watcher wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I see with the ACLU and EFF is exactly what you mention - you've got to get older people involved. Fairly or unfairly (generally unfairly, in my opinion), both of those organizations have pretty negative connotations with the church going grandmother you reference. The ACLU's sometimes mindless pursuit of "civil rights" (which I think they do a good job of generally, but it does grate when everything is c…

That sounds right for EFF, but I'd be interested if there are any numbers for the age distribution of ACLU members. I'd always gotten the impression that their core supporters are baby boomers, generally >50 y/o.

You may be correct, but their core support being baby boomers doesn't exclude the possibility that an audience they need to reach is also in that age group. The issue with privacy is that it should have the largest contingent of support of any single issue. Tea partiers, pure libertarians, anarchists, leftists, gun rights supporters, free speech supporters, paranoid conspiracy nuts, militias (I'm running through every group and stereotype I can come up with here, please don't be offended, just trying show how broad the coalition should be), Black Panther types, the immigration crowd, even some number of religious groups worried about persecution should all be able to unite behind this issue as a single one they care about. Really, it's only going to be the most autocratic types who don't at least sympathize (if not support) the movement. At least, I haven't encountered anyone who doesn't at least get my outrage, even if they might be a bit more open to NSA-type activities than me.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#110

Post by Torkild » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 4:37 PM UTC

jivatmanx wrote: post #75

rayiner wrote: post #48

Privacy advocates need to get their act together and form a single-issue organization. I need to be seeing teenagers coming to my house peddling privacy the way they do for churches and baby seals. The tech industry needs to sack up and realize that their business interests are at stake, and put some serious money in PACs behind the whole effort. It needs to have a focused mission, no getting distracted in related is…

Prohibition succeeded because they formed an alliance with the Women's Suffrage movement.

Prohibition failed because it allowed the bootleggers of the underground to fully monopolize their trade without having to abide by any legal restrictions. If a business no longer has the threat of ramifications for questionable acts, then the questionable acts increase exponentially.

That can be two-way though. Cracking down only builds a stronger underground, which is where I see the entire surveillance issue going. As with all other ails in society, the ones with the power to effect real change are precisely the ones who would suffer most by said change. So it won't happen. Petitions, demonstrations, appeals courts, etc, are all useless. And there could never be a massive, singular pro-privacy effort as there is no money to be made. The NRA and big pharma have huge lobby groups playing with billions of dollars because there's billions more to be made.

So what? It's harder to combat guerrillas than a standing army. There's not always safety in numbers, sometimes that just results in a bigger target. So what if the Feds can tap into the larger encrypted anythings, give them a thousand tiny encryption outlets to deal with instead. Not a united cause, but a million different efforts. OWS failed bigtime because there were too many cooks in the kitchen. Aligning forces means individual voices get lost in the shuffle of the crowd. And Prohibition aligning with the Suffrage movement only resulted in the Suffrage movement being falsely placated to as a new target for Capitalism. Sell them ladies some cigarettes! Sell them some clothes-washing machinery! Let them know how much we respect their struggles by giving them things to go broke on!

(Apologies for any lack in logic- still working on 1st pot of coffee.)