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

51–60 of 140 posts

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

#51

Post by ceejayoz »

vkou wrote: post #45
merpnderp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been on a trend of less and less true as Congress continues to abdicate its responsibilities to bureaucrats in the Executive office. It doesn't matter which party they vote for as much of the day to day lives of citizens is determined by people who never stood for election, and barely answer to someone who did.

Those bureaucrats are appointed at the whim of the President, and occasionally through a senate confirmation, both of which are elected offices. > and barely answer to someone who did. Their hiring is done by elected officials. Their employment and power, aside from a few positions, which are fixed-term, is contingent on the whims of those elected officials. Just because Congress has been very busy with abdicating al…

> Their hiring is done by elected officials.

No, hiring is largely done by other civil service personnel. The Secretary of State isn't deciding who works in the cafeteria - there's a number of tiers of career employees between him and that decision.

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

#52

Post by dsfyu404ed »

Arubis wrote: post #47
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

This is based on the incorrect impression I was working on when making that argument, corrected elsewhere in this thread--Hoover the president and Hoover the first head of the FBI were different men.

I assumed you were talking about J. Edgar Hoover since the president and the guy who founded the vacuum company don't seem very relevant to a discussion about surveillance and censorship.

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

#53

Post by Clubber »

komali2 wrote: post #36
Clubber wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is a living creature and that's what many 2nd amendmenters don't seem to realize, that the government of the USA isn't The People of, it's an organism that will maintain its form by any means necessary. Legal ones are the safest, illegal and immoral ones if needs must. Second amendment-ers are keenly aware of this.

Speaking from experience with them, they seem to think the 2nd amendment must necessarily be respected by the very government they think is allowing them the guns to threaten said government with in the first place. That's the cognitive hole I'm pointing to - if they stockpile weapons to eventually potentially overthrow the US government, they must do so knowing that it will be illegal to do so regardless - the 2nd a…

>government they think is allowing them the guns

Technically, the government #2 doesn't "allow" us rights, they are given to us by the constitution of which government #2 is ultimately bound to. The same fight happened against our right to free speech with the Sedition Act, of which our right to criticize the government ultimately survived. Citizens are still fighting to keep our right of privacy, the rights of the press, and of course the right to bear arms, among others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918

Having said that, the second amendment, as it stands with government #2, is ultimately another check and balance, as is freedom of press, and speech. As with nuclear armaments and M.A.D., arms don't have to be used to be a deterrent. There are many examples in history where armed civilians were effective against much stronger militaries.

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

#54

Post by maximente »

_bfhp wrote: post #50
481092 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 whic…

If everyday human life must echo the eons-long process of evolution, can we say the same for other natural laws? Gravity is a natural law; so people inevitably bow to their superiors? People bowing to each other is gravity shining through! But capillary action is another natural law, so it means people inevitably rise up to best their superiors... When my cat cuddles up to me on the bed, this natural 'life is a fight…

> When my cat cuddles up to me on the bed, this natural 'life is a fight' law falls to pieces. Beings are capable of generosity without a gaining idea, and most of us have encountered this as part of our lives.

devil's advocate: your cat does this so that you continue to feed/protect/pay attention to it.

you may not like that negative point of view, but it seems like a reasonable strategy for survival in a really tough world pre-modern era (still is tough for many).

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

#55

Post by maximente »

Arubis wrote: post #16
ralusek wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patriot Act and the NDAA are nails in the coffin of a free society.

This does strike true. A useful inquiry would be: what can we do about it? The technological sidestepping game seems to be running out of steam.

one thing i've been thinking about is one issue political parties.

"our mission, once elected, is to..."

US example: thinking about medical care here: what if a political party came out and said, "we don't care about marijuana, gay marriage, federal debt, ...: only getting medical care for all.

you'll say, well that's impossible, people won't vote for them without knowing e.g. what their stance on abortion is.

but... i'm convinced those wedge issues are what keep the 2 party system intact. they'll just ruin you by pitting the other k % of people against you as mortal enemies, demonizing and alienating those voters. easy example is abortion, who probably have a lot of bright line voters.

anyway, it'd be really tough, as would any new political party in the US, would be attacked endlessly by the RepubliCrats. but, seems like an interesting thought nonetheless.

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

#56

Post by whatshisface »

_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…

A big military isn't profitable for most businesses, who have to pay for it with corporate taxes.

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

#57

Post by jacobwilliamroy »

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…

How are whistleblowers a threat? People like Donald Rumsfeld ought to be tried for war crimes. The "annexation" of Hawaii was both a war crime and a violation of the constitution (read: crime). All of these are common knowledge, well documented, yet there are very few people who are actually doing anything about it.

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

#59

Post by jacobwilliamroy »

vkou wrote: post #37
drak0n1c wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a dichotomy in the government between elected representatives and unelected bureaucrats. The "deep state" exists but it is not nearly as malicious as popularly portrayed. At worst, those who make their careers as unelected bureaucrats and federal officers may occasionally be self-protecting and rationalize their decisions in terms of the trolley problem as for the greater national good, and are overly confid…

Most unelected bureaucrats only have a job at the whims of elected representatives. Your vote for the bureaucrats, via proxy of your representative. I'm not sure why people have a hard time grasping this concept, when they grasp the concept of representative democracy (Where you vote for new legislature, or for supreme court appointments, or for executive actions, via proxy of voting for a representative of congress,…

There has been a trend of Congress delegating more and more powers of legislation and enforcement to the executive branch. FCC, NOAA, TSA, CIA, NSA, FBI, ATF, DIA, USCIS and others are children the executive branch and mostly operate without interacting with congress. Agencies like FCC and NOAA actually have the power to make "rules" which we can be punished for breaking, and the system for approving these rules contains minimal checks and balances.

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

#60

Post by monocasa »

ceejayoz wrote: post #41
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.

One can argue that's a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

You can't say "you're not a scotsman because I don't like your actions or opinions". You can say "you're not a scotsman because you're neither from scotland, nor have any particular tie to it."

Similarly fiscal conservatism has an actual definition, and it's totally vaild to say "you don't adhere to the definition", as long as you're not applying spurious constraints.

Post reply on HN