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

Administration Using the Full Power of the Surveillance State on Whistleblowers

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 140 posts

Re: Administration Using the Full Power of the Surveillance State on Whistleblowers

#21

Post by [deleted] »

arkades wrote: post #12
ISL wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can argue that those representatives who claim to be fiscally conservative but vote for unfunded liabilities are not, in fact, fiscally conservative.

It's a political party. If people that identify X vote for you, who identifies X and votes in a block with other people that identify X for matters that attract Identity X voters to said party... then you don't get to pull the No True Scotsman. You are the party of X, whether or not some arbitrary philosophy party X is supposed to uphold is consistent with the party's actions.

[deleted]

Re: Administration Using the Full Power of the Surveillance State on Whistleblowers

#22

Post by rtkwe »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #9
Arubis wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you know, Truman. Or Hoover. Generally speaking, people capable of getting themselves elected President have authoritarian tendencies.

Bush ushered in the modern surveillance state. Since him, the differences of the 2 parties has blurred insomuch while the government may vary from administration from administration as to what services the federal government as a whole provides, but one thing is for sure: it will always be watching you no matter what. The alphabet agencies will never relinquish their newfound surveillance powers.

They wouldn't willingly but they can be forced, the agencies aren't natural phenomena they exist because they're legally allowed to, it just takes a greater political will that isn't isolated to one political party, because from the TLA's POV these programs help them do their jobs and politically it's easier to be seen 'doing something' about threats than it is to say 'some threats are only counterable by fundamentally sacrificing freedoms that shouldn't be sacrificed.' This is partially because the sacrificed freedoms are less tangible and real than the threats, it's hard to quantify the trade-off of living in a surveillance state to most people vs the idea that people could just come in one day and blow up/shoot up a store/concert/festival you happen to be in.

Re: Administration Using the Full Power of the Surveillance State on Whistleblowers

#23

Post by elliekelly »

Arubis wrote: post #13
Dirlewanger wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bush ushered in the modern surveillance state. Since him, the differences of the 2 parties has blurred insomuch while the government may vary from administration from administration as to what services the federal government as a whole provides, but one thing is for sure: it will always be watching you no matter what. The alphabet agencies will never relinquish their newfound surveillance powers.

It's pretty likely that your and my (dis)taste for particular politicians and parties overlaps, but keep in mind that only one single senator voted against the passage of the Patriot Act as originally presented. My strong suspicion is that the association of W. with the modern surveillance state, while accurate, has far more to do with timing than with party.

My Constitutional Law professor was big on not just exploring the legal analysis of cases but on making sure we understood the social/historical context at the time decisions were made. He used to tell us fear is the biggest threat to freedom because nothing erodes the constitution as quickly as a public panic. At the time I honestly thought he was being a little dramatic but seeing all of the things we allow the government to do in the name of "fighting terrorism" I realize he had a pretty good point.

Re: Administration Using the Full Power of the Surveillance State on Whistleblowers

#24

Post by Dirlewanger »

Arubis wrote: post #13
Dirlewanger wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bush ushered in the modern surveillance state. Since him, the differences of the 2 parties has blurred insomuch while the government may vary from administration from administration as to what services the federal government as a whole provides, but one thing is for sure: it will always be watching you no matter what. The alphabet agencies will never relinquish their newfound surveillance powers.

It's pretty likely that your and my (dis)taste for particular politicians and parties overlaps, but keep in mind that only one single senator voted against the passage of the Patriot Act as originally presented. My strong suspicion is that the association of W. with the modern surveillance state, while accurate, has far more to do with timing than with party.

Of course it was timing. A Democrat in office during 9/11 would have made no difference. Nobody was seeing straight at that time. Everyone wanted the federal government to do something about those darn terrorists. With the PATRIOT Act passed, it was like that quote from the Stars Wars prequels: "So this is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause..."

Re: Administration Using the Full Power of the Surveillance State on Whistleblowers

#25

Post by dllthomas »

Arubis wrote: post #19
Arubis wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COINTELPRO?

Since I'm being downvoted (probably appropriately for a half-assed answer), some clarification: Mr. Hoover was demonstrably happy to (ab)use the powers of the state against both political and civilian domestic opponents. I actually don't mean to single him out in particular, but more to point to the overall trend.

I think you're confusing Herbert Hoover and J. Edgar Hoover.

Re: Administration Using the Full Power of the Surveillance State on Whistleblowers

#26

Post by Arubis »

komali2 wrote: post #17

> with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States There are two versions of the United States. 1. The People of. The ones that benefit from whistleblowers. They are not injured when classified information is distributed - they get valuable insight they don't normally get into the doings of their employees (government officials that take their salary from taxes). The ones upon…

This is an excellent breakdown of something that feels obvious but was hard to express. Thank you.

Re: Administration Using the Full Power of the Surveillance State on Whistleblowers

#27

Post by Arubis »

Arubis wrote: post #19
Arubis wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COINTELPRO?

Since I'm being downvoted (probably appropriately for a half-assed answer), some clarification: Mr. Hoover was demonstrably happy to (ab)use the powers of the state against both political and civilian domestic opponents. I actually don't mean to single him out in particular, but more to point to the overall trend.

EDIT: to sibling comment, you are correct. I'm both learning and eating crow.

Re: Administration Using the Full Power of the Surveillance State on Whistleblowers

#29

Post by dsfyu404ed »

Arubis wrote: post #5
cronix wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bush started after 9/11.

Or, you know, Truman. Or Hoover. Generally speaking, people capable of getting themselves elected President have authoritarian tendencies.

As an aside, the fact that the FBI building is still named after Hoover says something about the values of that organization (yes, I know they passed a law giving it that name which would make it tricky to rename).

Re: Administration Using the Full Power of the Surveillance State on Whistleblowers

#30

Post by 481092 »

_bfhp wrote: post #18
Elpomm wrote: post #2

Conservatism should be about maintaining checks and balances that keep the government honest. IMO this is something that even Trump's supporters should be concerned about, especially if they themselves lean a bit libertarian.

The most profitable central principle for a party of corporations is deregluation of _industry_. Scaling up of the military and authoritarianism is a profitable choice as well. Those are two main incentives of many conservative parties and groups. The unifying principle of conservatism is: survival of the fittest. The strongest, toughest country, business, and individual has the right to survive. Helping and trying t…

>The unifying principle of conservatism is: survival of the fittest

This isn't just a principle of a party but a natural law. This is displayed in liberal politics also. Life is a fight using powers as a utility, hard and soft powers. Liberals tend to bank on using the powers of certain ideologies, many as vague as conservative ideologies, in order for those ideologies to survive. Some use the soft power of love which may prove sometimes to be fittest when that power gathers enough political support, some use the hard powers of war and competition which may seem fittest in some occasions. And of course, love and warfare is seen and used in both/all parties even when they don't seem to realize it, sometimes hypocritically on the surface but often when you look deep enough, you see the forces of natural law shining through and it's not just love and war against each other, it's just organisms which may be ideological, biological, etc competing in what some would view as a thermodynamic machine racing towards entropic neutrality.

But to say only conservatives employ 'survival of the fittest' is such a vast simplification.

Post reply on HN