Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008) • Hacker News Board

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#151

Post by rayiner » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:00 PM UTC

josephlord wrote: post #147

rayiner wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it the case that people don't have enough control over the government? As far as I can tell, we have exactly the government we want, or at least exactly the government you might expect to get in a compromise between rural middle America, suburbanites, christian conservatives, and urban yuppies. The people who strongly oppose the security measures taken after 9/11 are in the minority. They were part of Obama's coal…

It could still be a failure of the constitution even if not of democracy.

See: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightof... ("The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information.") (emphasis added).

The NSA's actions seem pretty precisely tailored to stay on the "right side" of the Constitutional line, avoiding the specific aspects of "privacy" protected by the Constitution.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#152

Post by tjr » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:01 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #126

ihsw wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote. Actually, it's not. The US election process operates under the Electoral College[1], so a state majority vote changes all votes to that majority vote (eg: Democrats win majority in Illinois, so all votes in that state end up voting for Democrats in the presidential election). The disparity between the electoral vote and the popular vote is usuall…

For that matter, why even bring up the electoral college? Even if the president were elected by a majority vote, the odds of the election being a tie or decided by a single vote is incredibly small—almost certainly too small to be able to rationally justify the time spent researching candidates or even traveling to the polling location.

It looks like in my state about 1,500,000 people voted in the 2012 presidential election. So if a few hundred thousand people decided to not vote because their one vote doesn't matter, it's conceivable that the result in a state could be swayed.

So why try to persuade people their vote doesn't matter? If enough of them (an admittedly large number) listen, it will matter.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#153

Post by jimworm » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:01 PM UTC

ihsw wrote: post #72

astine wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Carlin is (was) a right fool. The whole problem is that people don't have enough control over the government. Not voting only allows those who would have control over you to have more power. Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote.

> Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote. Actually, it's not. The US election process operates under the Electoral College[1], so a state majority vote changes all votes to that majority vote (eg: Democrats win majority in Illinois, so all votes in that state end up voting for Democrats in the presidential election). The disparity between the electoral vote and the popular vote is usuall…

If the sole effect of voting is to choose a winner, then you're probably right. But I think that's not the only effect that comes out of counting the votes. It's the one place where voters actually lay their cards on the table, or rather cast their votes in the ballot box. Votes are not a limitless resource to voters, unlike words or even opinion polls, and it is an important form of communication to other voters in the next election.

This is where gaming the voting system hurts democracy. Simply voting for the biggest bloc that is not your vision of pure evil is short-sighted, and causes the voters lose their independence - important for a voting system to arrive at an optimum result [1], and it also destroys the only credible method of communicating the lack of confidence in the system to each other [2]. Everybody knowing that everybody else knows that everybody have lost faith in the main blocs is not sufficient to create real change, but it certainly is necessary.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd

[2] https://youtu.be/3-son3EJTrU?t=8m13s

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#154

Post by bladurga » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:03 PM UTC

jshen wrote: post #98

arcadeparade wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama isn't a leader, he's a product, advertised in a way no different from toothpaste. Chomsky speaks: >Political managers are well aware that on issues the public often disagrees sharply with the architects of policy. Accordingly, electoral campaigns avoid issues in favor of slogans, oratorical flourishes, personalities, and gossip. Every year, the advertising industry gives an award for the best marketing campaign…

He could be a leader, and have a marketing campaign. They are not mutually exclusive.

He could also be a woman and a product with a marketing campaign, they are not mutually exclusive.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#155

Post by ChikkaChiChi » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:05 PM UTC

willholloway wrote: post #71

When thinking about the end game of NSA surveillance it is useful to think of the NSA as a tech company with no need to be profitable, almost no legal constraints, the best connections to the biggest corporations (enforced by the power of law with the urgency of national security) and de facto unlimited funds for hardware and top talent. Total information awareness is their goal, and they will succeed.

As a Venture Capitalist (re: Taxpayer) in the NSA's endeavors, I don't believe I approved this part of the business plan.

As an end-user, I also did not agree to any sort of terms-of-service. In fact, the original TOS specifically said this wasn't part of the agreement.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#156

Post by geoka9 » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:05 PM UTC

kunai wrote: post #110

"Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and…

"and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth."

No joke. These are not idle words.

I grew up in Eastern Europe looking up to the great US of A, where hippies stopped a war and abolished the draft, where people can sue the government and win, where privacy and human rights are enshrined in the Constitution, which more than 200 hundred years ago prompted other nations to adopt something similar many years later.

Then the 9/11 came. Fast forward a decade and it looks like all those great achievements went to the toilet. Sorry, I can't help but feel that the Americans have let the world down, and the terrorists have won.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#157

Post by tjr » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:05 PM UTC

jetti wrote: post #97

crazcarl wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between a third party getting 1% of the vote versus 10% could have some impact on politics even if it doesn't affect the outcome of the election.

But just voting to vote is useless. People seem to have the mentality that you pick the lesser of two evils, which is BS. I'm not going to vote for somebody if I don't feel like they are completely up for the job. I'm not going to vote for a 3rd party just so they can get funding because guess what, this years candidate may be great but the funding would be for the next round and who knows who they will have then.

What does not voting accomplish?

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#158

Post by john_b » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:06 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #137

JulianMorrison wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality of voting is that you pick the least worst choice. "Representative democracy" isn't democracy. It's bloodless regime change. You get a choice of who you can work with. Actual liberatory politics begins the day after the election, and involves things like pressure groups, petitions, protests and lobbying.

You're begging the question. Why are the choices the way they are? You see a status quo where neither major party cares about electronic privacy. Is it because there is a vast conspiracy between media and government to only present these two viewpoints? Is it because huge amounts of money go into getting people to support NSA surveillance? Or is it because opposing NSA surveillance is not an issue that reliably yield…

> Why should politicians in a democracy cater to the pet issues of an ideological minority?

From a human and Constitutional rights point of view, they have an obligation to respect the views of those ideological minorities when their main agenda is defending their rights (right to privacy, free speech, or whatever it may be). A pure democratic system is little more than a (usually peaceful) mob rule, but in a representative democracy there is at least the expectation that elected representatives, by virtue of being middlemen between the people and the laws that govern them, as well as only having to risk their job every few years, will be able to reflect on more than what the majority wants at the present moment.

However, if your point was made more from the perspective of maintaining power and control, then I don't disagree with you.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#159

Post by makmanalp » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:08 PM UTC

agwa wrote: post #148

bpatrianakos wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carlin was a great comedian and I'm a big fan but I'm not about to agree with this simply because the late great George Carlin said it. This is totally backwards and you have to do some mental gymnastics to believe it. In the end, this is what it is, a joke. If you don't vote you have done nothing to even try to elect someone who you, in good faith, believe will do what you deem the right thing. Yeah, politicians are…

> Those in power want you not to vote No, those in power very much want you to vote. Voting is a great feel-good process that gives the illusion that the people are sovereign when in reality we have practically no power and the government can do whatever the hell it wants as long as both parties agree on it. If this wasn't a democracy it would be quite clear where the power really lies, but since it is a democracy, t…

You can have the best of both worlds: vote, but don't leave the democratic / political process alone after that for the remaining part of the year.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#160

Post by SEMW » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:09 PM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #144

Why is it not possible to prosecute politicians for fraud or at least sue them in a court of law for making fraudulent claims, possibly via a class action suit? If an advertiser promised that their product does X when it obviously does not, then that is essentially fraud, and I have the right to sue on those grounds because I paid for their services with my money. In the case of politicians, I give them votes based o…

There's two answers to that.

The narrow legal answer is: false advertising regulations generally only apply to commercial trade which doesn't include elections; wider fraud offences are (unlike false advertising) not strict liability so would require you to prove that they knew the representation was false at the time it was made (as opposed to just changing their mind later), which is difficult, and in any case it's unclear that a court would consider a vote to be a gain of money/property; there's no unilateral contract here as there's no objective intent to create binding legal relations with every voter in the country; and administrative law concepts of legitimate expectations don't apply to manifesto/pre-election political promises per R (Wheeler) v PM. (That's all for English law, but I imagine the concepts are similar in the US).

The wider answer is: laws are made by politicians. They're not going to pass laws that would make them liable for lying to win elections.