It doesn't really. This is one of those policy areas that the "tech subculture" tends to fixate on, but that doesn't in any way mean it's actually "the largest single issue of our time." It's pretty helpful to be mindful of your own biases and those of your subculture when making claims like that. What issues does the "tech subculture" not really pay attention to that could actually be far more significant?
The existence of warrantless wiretapping brings into question whether the courts even have the right to overrule government actions (a power SCOTUS gave itself back in the early days of the republic). They also circumvent key parts of 100 year old criminal law like the exclusionary rule. And that's just the legalise parts. Not to mention freedom, privacy, democracy etc.
If only FISA required warrants, ohh wait!
Or if FISA actually granted warrants for mass surveillance. Which they legally can't.
And when the government did it anyway and lied to the court about it and it was reveiled at least one judge resigned in protest, but government kept doing it anyway.
I mean seriously, FISA is a shitty system and even that wasn't shitty enough for what the US wants to do to its own people.
If you want FISA, then you actually agree that we need to shut down 99% of the NSA and bring the executive branch to heel...
Here’s one. They heard a case Moore v Harper that tests independent state legislature theory. Should state legislatures be allowed complete control over electors? Depending on how they rule, you’ll either never hear about it again or it will own the news cycle for a month.
If it wasn't significant, it wouldn't be practiced by security agencies that long withdrew themselves from control.
This is a complete new form of information gathering. That people aren't really good to classify abstract dangers is certainly a problem.
People that know the technical aspects are able to classify the problem and inform others that are less tech savy. The normal user doesn't know how you can correlate data and extrapolate information. Nevertheless it is very much possible to an extend never before seen in any society.
What do you believe to be more significant? Ressource consumption, politics, ecologic problems? All these issues are very intertwined with any other political topic.
The vast majority of people just virtue signal about privacy. They don't actually care (and when I say care, I mean feel strongly enough about it to change their actions to specifically avoid surveillance).
Supreme Court is def stacked, but in this case, its likely they don't wanna waste their time with something that will 100% have no actionable outcome.
Many people switched to Signal recently when they heard about it for the first time. The only ones I know who stopped using it did so because of UX flaws. Why is there no mainstream browser with an "Enable Tor" button? Probably because it's the browser makers that are virtue signaling, not the public. The browser makers all rely on tracking you to make their business model sustainable. Give the people a true, reasonable choice for privacy and they will likely take it.
Because using anything other than the Tor Browser Bundle is a good way to differentiate your usage from that of the vast majority of Tor users and render yourself more easily identifiable than otherwise.
For many people, this could simply be the beginning of the funnel, a gentle introduction to Tor, which could be accompanied by a message instructing them how to download and use the Tor Browser Bundle. I doubt that will happen any time soon because of the existing business models, but it would be a major step if it did.
> Why is there no mainstream browser with an "Enable Tor" button?
That's sort of irrelevant though, if you don't mind me saying: the entire purpose of scotus is to take cases that the mainstream don't care about but which have significant implications either for individuals, small groups or society as a whole.
That's why it was the supreme court that created gay and interracial marriage. Neither minority could get fair treatment via the ballot box.
If the majority cared, in theory at least, they need only vote to get what they want. The Senate, the House and POTUS all serve them (to greater or lesser or degrees).
SCOTUS is for the little guy. That's why it's members are NOT elected or otherwise subject to public opinion.
I think when given a set of options they understand, many people will choose more privacy from companies and the government because that’s what they want. I think that’s especially true when they understand the actual scope and scale of the surveillance.
It is _their job_ to consider these issues. They have their entire lives dedicated to this task.
(I think of money/lobbying/laws/regulatory capture/copyright/etc)
That said it's amazing that our government was basically architected in the 1700's.
I wonder what the next iteration of government will look like?
I actually think SCOTUS is one of the better or at least more reformable parts. We've had terrible courts (deciding ex slaves cannot be citizens or sue in court for instance). And good ones.
Right now, were in a reactionary phase after the 60s and 70s produced a great cultural advance. Once that dies out we might see more progress. Until then we wait and hope...
But I don't think the court is about to make climate change illegal (sadly) so...