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

Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 222 posts

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#181

Post by Kylekramer »

bambax wrote: post #175
Kylekramer wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the whole Constitution begins with "We the People of the United States". You can argue that it should include non-citizens, but the constitution itself and subsequent applications are very clear that it does not. It is a somewhat odd proposition to claim the constitution of one country apply to all. Should the rest of the world have stopped drinking in 1919? (Not a Republican mythmaker who loves torture, ju…

The purpose of the US Constitution is not to tell people what to do or not do, it is to define very precisely what the US Government can and can't do (and how it should function), and therefore it seems more than logical that it would talk about what the US Government can or can't do to people in general (or animals, or nature).

I don't know where you get the idea that the purpose of the Constitution is only about how the government functions. It is clearly the majority of the Constitution, but plenty of the Constitution is about what people (American citizens) can or cannot do. Constitution says you have to be eighteen to vote, you can't own slaves, and you can't sell booze from 1920-1933.

I think a lot of people are viewing the Constitution how they want it to be (a set of ideals about liberty and even then only the ideals they espouse) and not what it is (a legal document with centuries of practical use). You can say America is not being moral actors about how they are treating foreign people who don't live within its jurisdiction, but the Constitution has very little to do with this issue. To say it does is cherry picking what you like about the document without acknowledge the realities of it.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#182

Post by jebblue »

rayiner wrote: post #179
nkoren wrote: post #45

The Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Gendered language aside, the idea of the founders was clearly that rights derive from one's innate humanity, and do not derive from government largess. This was the…

> that they are endowed by their Creator Okay, so what about all of us that don't believe in the supernatural? Do our rights come from an all-loving God, or are they creations of man like everything else in society?

It says "their creator". You didn't spring up from a cabbage patch so something created you. The total context of what that means to you is up to you. The US is a free country, believe what you want. A lot of people died and do die to give us that, I'm grateful for them and for the US even though I wish and pray for a better choice in the next election.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#183

Post by bobwaycott »

rayiner wrote: post #179
nkoren wrote: post #45

The Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Gendered language aside, the idea of the founders was clearly that rights derive from one's innate humanity, and do not derive from government largess. This was the…

> that they are endowed by their Creator Okay, so what about all of us that don't believe in the supernatural? Do our rights come from an all-loving God, or are they creations of man like everything else in society?

Well, Enlightenment ideals that were still based in semi-religious terminology aside, "their Creator" does not necessarily require an appeal to the supernatural.

One would, I think, be justified interpreting that to mean the physical processes of the Universe from which humankind arose (justified in interpreting the meaning of 'their Creator', not necessarily possessed of an easily established and defended position regarding how rights themselves rose from the primordial soup (which I must admit would make for an entertaining read)). Science had yet to provide an explanation for the origin of life, as I'm sure you know, and we can safely dispense with the defense that these rights come from a god. To suggest they come from the Universe is equally silly, but it's a hell of a lot better than the supernatural.

One would, I think, be more justified interpreting it properly just as you said--the Creator is humankind itself, like everything else in society. All (nearly all?) notable political theorists have built their analyses of social states on the premise that there are fundamental rights agreed to be important for all persons, for which humankind organizes governments/societies to protect and guarantee in the pursuit of justice. (I can't think of a notable theorist who has argued otherwise, but would be interested in knowing of one.)

Their appeals to the supernatural aside, the founders are certainly the creators of the rights of which we still believe we are endowed.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#184

Post by rayiner »

bobwaycott wrote: post #183
rayiner wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that they are endowed by their Creator Okay, so what about all of us that don't believe in the supernatural? Do our rights come from an all-loving God, or are they creations of man like everything else in society?

Well, Enlightenment ideals that were still based in semi-religious terminology aside, "their Creator" does not necessarily require an appeal to the supernatural. One would, I think, be justified interpreting that to mean the physical processes of the Universe from which humankind arose (justified in interpreting the meaning of 'their Creator', not necessarily possessed of an easily established and defended position r…

> To suggest they come from the Universe is equally silly, but it's a hell of a lot better than the supernatural.

No, it's equally supernatural.

> One would, I think, be more justified interpreting it properly just as you said--the Creator is humankind itself, like everything else in society.

Rights come from your neighbors willing to fight to protect your "rights" whether its your right to life or your right to property.

And that's why rights are not universal. I'll take up arms to defend my neighbors, but not people in China or Russia.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#185

Post by bobwaycott »

Goladus wrote: post #120
nkoren wrote: post #45

The Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Gendered language aside, the idea of the founders was clearly that rights derive from one's innate humanity, and do not derive from government largess. This was the…

It would, perhaps, be enlightening to quote the entire sentence from the US Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the c…

But to follow that completely, you've also made no contract by your consent to give your government the power to arrest, prosecute, or employ various armed agents to use against another who has not so consented to your government.

Treaties are an implicit social contract. The parties to a treaty are contracting binding social obligations and permissible and expected behaviors. If they were not a social contract, they would have no binding power. They may usefully be understood as a constitution of sorts between foreign powers.

Violating a treaty is violating a social contract. A social contract does not equal a constitution alone.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#186

Post by sounds »

e3pi wrote: post #180
sounds wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for that. Can I just say, I wouldn't say the Enlightenment Ideal is all but gone. It's not even near death. We, the people, chose leaders and were betrayed. That doesn't just apply to the US, but I'll start there. I believe the people were half-awake...but not completely unaware of who they were electing or what they would lose. The idealist's battle against tyranny on one side and anarchy on the other is s…

> The idealist's battle against tyranny on one side and anarchy on the other is strewn all across the pages of history. Some idealists lost their way. But the ideals, "Safety and Happiness" – really, the entire Declaration of Independence or the UN Declaration of Human Rights – the ideals don't die. > They are self-evident. Like 3.14159 and 2.71828. sounds, I'm with you on this one, being intrinsically inalienable --…

Did you really just put a Lady Gaga in with SCOTUS? :)

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#187

Post by mindcrime »

mikeg8 wrote: post #167
honzzz wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. When I was younger I kind of admired Americans and their ideals and I automatically perceived them as the 'good guys'. I did not want to get American citizenship or anything but I had spent couple of months in the US, I loved it and Americans were my friends - I used to defend them every time someone was critical about the US. Now I would not even want to visit again. TSA alone would be enough for it not to…

American Citizens and the US government are not the same thing. While we call ourselves a democracy, the elected officials and legislation they create don't always align with the values of the citizens. It's become a complicated mess but please don't use "America" as a synonym for the US government and their actions. We are all just as upset and betrayed, if not more, than you.

Indeed. I'm American by birth, and definitely love "America" as a people and a set of ideals and a culture... and I mostly abhor the (current) US government as it's practiced. In fact (and NSA, if you're listening, go ahead and take note) it would be quite appropriate to label me about as "anti government" as they get. I think our "leaders" are mostly scum and I don't consider any of them as "representing" me, and especially not my supposed "elected representatives" from North Carolina (Richard Burr, Kay Hagan and David Price). The only members of Congress I really have any respect for are Senators Ron Wyden, Rand Paul, and Mark Udall.

Our system of government started out with nobel ideas and it's served reasonably well for a long-time, but the decay and corruption are really starting to set in. It may also be the case that the divisions in this country are becoming so sharp that it's not even possible to talk about one government that truly represents America as one cohesive whole.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#188

Post by pyre »

angersock wrote: post #177
4891 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you - this is the most sensible comment I've seen in this thread. Many thinkers throughout history have noted that states and criminal gangs are effectively the same. They are both inherently violent organisations. Criminal gangs are tiny states; states are large, settled criminal gangs. The Yakuza in Japan or the Cray family (when they ruled half of London) are examples of intermediate forms: criminal gangs th…

Absolutely fantastic post, sir or madam. I very much agree that the rest of the world is being a bit two-faced, on the one hand enjoying immensely the pax americana which we have wrought and on the other decrying the evils of American imperialism--despite doing damned little to act in a similarly noble fashion. As much as we may, for example, decry the surveillance of foreigners by the .gov and bemoan the lack of ope…

  | the US is still very much better in these
  | regards than many of the other first-world
  | nations.
Should the USG continue to push the envelope until such a point as this is no longer true? How far should the envelope be pushed before it is 'too close' to the edge?

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#189

Post by arrrg »

philwelch wrote: post #124
arrrg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are factually wrong. You, as a US citizen, are most certainly protected from my government by the German constitution. Not when it comes to all basic rights in the constitution (only Germans have freedom of movement, freedom of labor and freedom of association), but most are universal and apply to every person. The US constitution is out of date and simply wrong on this point. Human rights are universal and every…

The US Constitution is mostly the same. If you're in the United States, regardless of your nationality, you have the right to free speech, the right to remain silent when questioned by police, the right to demand a search warrant before letting the police into your home or automobile, the right to purchase and possess firearms, the right to espouse whatever political opinions you may have, and even the right to refus…

There is a right to privacy (in case of the German constitution literally, by the way). And I take issue with anyone saying that violating the privacy of non-citizens is totally ok.

I do not want to claim any kind of superiority – that is very clearly not the case. The German government consists of many, many people who do not respect privacy at all and are disgusting scumbags. No question about that.

I just want to say that from a moral point of view the statement that it’s ok that non-citizens have no right to privacy is totally bankrupt and idiotic.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#190

Post by pasbesoin »

Many in "our" community assign a fair amount of credence to the statement: Information is power.

We see the trend. A... -- I seldom haul out this word, but I will now -- "neo-Fascist" [1] regime absorbing a potentially exponential increase in information while seeking to increasingly restrict our access to and control over same.

That is, I think, in good part what it boils down to.

Post reply on HN