Unsurprising, but still disappointing. Actually I'm glad someone is trying to hold them accountable. It seems silly tho that we need to pass a law to uphold what's already written into the constitution. It highlights that the constitution only has teeth in some legal contexts, primarily where a court case is being heard on a citizen being prosecuted. Conditionality seems to not have any bearing on preventing agencies…
Surveillance is a form of power. Power does not give up power. Law is enforced via power. When it meets a greater power then the law is contravened. Look at the US and how it broke international law to force a plane down that it thought had Snowden.
>Trump was never going to act against these interests even if he’d wanted to given all the other aspects he was embroiled in. Yet another person completely unaware that Trump let the Patriot Act expire: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics/house-vote-fisa/inde... Can't say I'm surprised, the left didn't want to make huge news about it because it made Trump look good (and the establishment left supports the Patriot…
Just in case anyone sees that and thinks it was due to any sort of principles or concerns about mass surveillance, a quote from the article: "Thank you to our GREAT Republican Congressmen & Congresswomen on your incredibly important blockage last night of a FISA Bill that would just perpetuate the abuse that produced the Greatest Political Crime In the History of the U.S., the Russian Witch-Hunt. Fantastic Job!"
Who would have a better understanding of the issue at hand than someone who’s campaign was spied on by political operatives leveraging FISA powers?
Regarding the DoD purchasing data from data brokers, I would much rather first focus on laws or regulations that set legal standards for the collection, sale, and other distribution of personal information. For example, make the sale of personal information to a government agency an act that requires posting notice on a public register. Also, a hefty tax on the sale of personal information would be nice to see.
I would focus on the collection and sale of personal information first because it is often done without the informed consent of the person to whom the information is associated.
Unsurprising, but still disappointing. Actually I'm glad someone is trying to hold them accountable. It seems silly tho that we need to pass a law to uphold what's already written into the constitution. It highlights that the constitution only has teeth in some legal contexts, primarily where a court case is being heard on a citizen being prosecuted. Conditionality seems to not have any bearing on preventing agencies…
i'd go one step further and prohibit our government from surveilling any non-governmental foreigner without an auditable warrant, and strictly prohibit corporations with heavy sanctions from sharing any non-governmental surveillance with the government whatsoever (on top of existing privacy laws of course). the government should be in service, not in command, of the people.
The US government has a history of requesting extraordinary powers for extraordinary situations and never give them back. All the modern surveillance apparatus had its beginning during WW2. When the war was over, instead of pacifying the world, they immediately switched to create a cold war against a former ally to justify an even more expensive surveillance apparatus. With the end of former Soviet Union, instead of dismantling the surveillance industry, they started to create new enemies around the world, so people would be coerced to keep them employed against the interests of the population.
Don't you mean Ron Wyden and not Ron Paul? Otherwise you're pretty much spot on.
They mean making it into the White House I believe. Ron Paul would certainly attempt to dismantle it, and he'd fail miserably (he'd never win election to begin with though). The larger confusion on the part of the parent is thinking the President is in charge of much of anything or has the power to dismantle any of these deep state perma structures that have been built up in the post WW2 era; these are structures tha…
I don't believe that. First, a pres. in their second term can do it without fear of electoral repercussions to themselves. And these days there's so much made up stuff that half the country believes that it wouldn't make any real difference in the big picture.
There was the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee after all. The people that benefit from the current situation would be against changing it of course. But I agree it's extremely unlikely to be changed. I think the reason is that most federal elected politicians have a comfort with what these groups are doing that gives them a sense that we need these things. Something like "we are doing a terrible amount of spying on americans but it's protecting us". Plus they get campaign donations from the military industrial and spying complexes. And not much attention is given to the fact that a dishonorable leader could use this to start blackmailing opponents and maybe even ultimately control the population. Fortunately we haven't ever come close to a leader like that, ha ha.
> he'd never win election to begin with though How do you persevere in the face of this type of media blacklisting? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMdrwhDoZjQ
Yep. We saw it with Andrew Yang as well. Either being left out completely, or media outlets taking about 'him' without actually saying his name.
I'm skeptical of this media blackout. I heard lots of people talking about this, he was on podcasts, I saw him interviewed. Look at how much discussion there is about him running in NYC. I think it was much more that there were a whole lot of credible people running and there wasn't enough air in the room for him to get much. I saw every losing group complain of the election being stolen from them in some way, Warren, Sanders, Yang.
They mean making it into the White House I believe. Ron Paul would certainly attempt to dismantle it, and he'd fail miserably (he'd never win election to begin with though). The larger confusion on the part of the parent is thinking the President is in charge of much of anything or has the power to dismantle any of these deep state perma structures that have been built up in the post WW2 era; these are structures tha…
> he'd never win election to begin with though How do you persevere in the face of this type of media blacklisting? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMdrwhDoZjQ
Am i missing something? How does the video demonstrate "blacklisting"? It looks like the feed cut out.
Surveillance is a form of power. Power does not give up power. Law is enforced via power. When it meets a greater power then the law is contravened. Look at the US and how it broke international law to force a plane down that it thought had Snowden.
The thing I still can't fathom, all these years after Bush II and then Snowden, is just how little human beings really care about mass surveillance. Yeah, the Snowden leaks made a splash, but the media cycle turned over a couple weeks later and everyone moved onto other things. It's like, if you're of a certain age, you had to read 1984 or whatever in school. You'd think "well, no one would stand for that sort of thi…
Maybe 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' by Neil Postman will help you fathom it; here's the forward:
Surveillance is a form of power. Power does not give up power. Law is enforced via power. When it meets a greater power then the law is contravened. Look at the US and how it broke international law to force a plane down that it thought had Snowden.
Would you prefer no laws? Seems we benefit from them no?
Not everyone + you is "we". Lots of people are hurt by bad laws; your appreciation for your government's laws tends to correlate to how much money or clout you have. Mainly because it allows you to ignore them.