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

81–90 of 140 posts

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

#81

Post by Spooky23 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #51
vkou wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Irrelevant.

The Secretary is accountable, and has people working for him or her who serve at the Secretary’s pleasure.

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

#82

Post by Spooky23 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #44
vkou wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> Most unelected bureaucrats only have a job at the whims of elected representatives. Your vote for the bureaucrats, via proxy of your representative. This is true for political appointees - ambassadors, Cabinet secretaries, etc. - but much less so for the civil service, where folks like State Department diplomatic staff or FBI agents tend to serve multi-decade careers under many different administrations.

As well it should be. You don’t want the spoils system appointing FBI agents.

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

#83

Post by Spooky23 »

andrekandre wrote: post #72
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.

is trump conservative or is he right wing? even if they are usually conflated or found together, aren’t they pretty much different things?

Trump is a fascist, which is a little different. The high school political spectrum thing breaks down out of the context of the 20th century.

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

#84

Post by ceejayoz »

Spooky23 wrote: post #81
ceejayoz wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Irrelevant. The Secretary is accountable, and has people working for him or her who serve at the Secretary’s pleasure.

Irrelevant.

Most of the people working in the State department do not serve at the Secretary’s pleasure.

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

#85

Post by stevenicr »

tbyehl wrote: post #35
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.

Clinton and CALEA don't get enough credit for creating the infrastructure of the modern American surveillance state.

Recent developments made me realize that we need to add cloudflare to this list.

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

#86

Post by PavlovsCat »

carapace wrote: post #78

I don't think the surveillance systems can be put back in the bottle. The technology is always getting cheaper and the economic and political benefits are clear. If you accept that premise, I think we have to develop systems that are humane and self-referential.

Humane constant surveillance is an oxymoron. Surveillance has a chilling effect on even just developing as thinking person, so, if you accept the premise (for which there is no actual hard reason), you can have a humane system, maybe, but no humans in it.

Even good thoughts sometimes require incubation in private. Mass surveillance restricts learning, communication, and down the road thinking, to such a degree, it's like outlawing books with more than 10 pages. Humans as we cherish them today -- ones with agency and spontaneity -- cannot exist in such conditions, meaningful social progress will stop.

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

#87

Post by Spooky23 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #84
Spooky23 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irrelevant. The Secretary is accountable, and has people working for him or her who serve at the Secretary’s pleasure.

Irrelevant. Most of the people working in the State department do not serve at the Secretary’s pleasure.

The bosses do. Government employees don’t just run around and do whatever.

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

#88

Post by casefields »

andrekandre wrote: post #72
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.

is trump conservative or is he right wing? even if they are usually conflated or found together, aren’t they pretty much different things?

The only thing conservative about Trump are his judicial picks, which is because he agreed to allow the Federalist Society to give him screened/approved candidates.

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

#89

Post by PavlovsCat »

apo wrote: post #75

> On August 8, 2014, dozens of FBI agents raided Hale’s house with guns drawn and searched his computer and flash drives. This all happened during the Obama administration, which declined to file charges. Five years later, Trump’s Justice Department revived the case. The article fails to point out that it was the Obama administration that really turned up the heat on whistleblowers: https://www.politifact.com/punditf…

> Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

from

http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/

https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://change.gov/agenda/ethic...

yet:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/assange-snowden-seek...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-...

https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/01/14/obamas-legacy-his...

https://www.whistleblower.org/in-the-news/salon-jane-mayer-o...

And so on, and so forth. Let's not pretend this didn't happen and rewrite history just to engage in partisan scapegoating. Let's not normalize revisionism, too.

(edit: I say that because your comment was greyed out when I started writing my reply, which is just intended to elaborate on what you said)

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

#90

Post by carapace »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #86
carapace wrote: post #78

I don't think the surveillance systems can be put back in the bottle. The technology is always getting cheaper and the economic and political benefits are clear. If you accept that premise, I think we have to develop systems that are humane and self-referential.

Humane constant surveillance is an oxymoron. Surveillance has a chilling effect on even just developing as thinking person, so, if you accept the premise (for which there is no actual hard reason), you can have a humane system, maybe, but no humans in it. Even good thoughts sometimes require incubation in private. Mass surveillance restricts learning, communication, and down the road thinking, to such a degree, it's…

Let me be clear that I am not advocating for constant ubiquitous surveillance. Only I don't see a way to avoid it happening. There may be a severe disruption in civilization what with the climate and all, but one day "there will be lemon-soaked paper napkins."

At best you can try to limit who has the surveillance tech, but to do that you have to have the surveillance tech, eh? The problem is circular.

So, since we cannot (I believe) do without the surveillance, can we remove the chilling effect?

For example, in Star Trek the computer always knew where everyone was (unless the script called for a mysterious disappearance) and no one felt stifled, eh?

Post reply on HN