Except when I'm on HN, everywhere I go there just are no people who see anything fundamentally wrong with the entire premise, so I think saying that only 45% don't care is a very low-ball estimate. From the look of things, it's more like 95%.
Except when I'm on HN, everywhere I go there just are no people who see anything fundamentally wrong with the entire premise, so I think saying that only 45% don't care is a very low-ball estimate. From the look of things, it's more like 95%.
Last week, when the story first broke, Maher was ambivalent about it and he justified his ambivalence by focusing on nuclear weapons - as in because nukes can kill so many people the risk is just too great so we need to do everything and anything to stop them.
Obviously he didn't know enough about the situation to understand that dirty bombs are the only nukes that it is even plausible to consider being used by terrorists (rather than foreign governments) and that dirty bombs are all about the dirty and not so much the bomb - fallout over a couple of city blocks and not an explosion that could destroy a city hiroshima style. Still enough to kill hundreds, maybe thousands if an attacker gets everything just right, but not the existential threat that obliterating Manhattan would be.
I'd like to see Greenwald on his show, Greenwald did a pretty good job of calling Maher on his BS regarding the arab spring the last time he was on there. Since he's right in the middle of this story I'm sure he'd do even better.
The only "liberal" group I'm particularly disillusioned with is mediaite - everything I've seen from them on the topic has been despicably underhanded apologisms.
Another quote of his that seems applicable here:
"Yet many human beings, resigned to sensuality and indolence, uninstructed and unimproved, have passed through life like travellers in a strange country."
Very possible that there are people on HN that don't care as well. But because of the overwhelming amount of people who make their opinions known who do care, it would be karma suicide to admit otherwise except in the most delicate terms. Even if you don't need or care about karma points it generally doesn't feel good to have people load up on you.
I wonder at what point any issue within a group gets so lopsided in one direction that dissent almost never materializes. It becomes viewed as "so bad" on it's face that people rarely speak in favor of it. Or you have to walk on eggshells to even discuss the other side.
That seems to be one of the downsides of the karma system - when a population of high karma users tend towards a certain point of view it creates social pressure for others to reinforce the orthodoxy. It doesn't help that once you get the down arrow, you're free to simply downvote opinions you disagree with rather than engage the poster.
I've wondered once or twice whether karma shouldn't be publicly visible anyway. After all, one should be able to judge a post on its own merit without having a measure of the posters' relative popularity to tell you how much you probably should agree with them or not.
I would add also that I'm sure there are people that don't realize that a high karma score can come not only from comments such as you describe but additionally simply because someone was the early poster of a story that got voted up.
So in a certain karma range we don't know how many points are from that vs. from agreement with a comment. (My guess though is that as karma increases most of it comes from comments and activity that is not related to posting a popular link).
It really does seem all but meaningless, and yet it seems as if the whole culture of this site is build around farming it and gaming it.
Fundamentally, I have a great deal of sympathy for the security services, understand the difficulty of the job that they have been tasked with, and can see no other reasonable way of achieving the goals that they have been set. However, my opinion flips and flops back and forth as I read each new revelation, get caught up in the moral outrage of the crowd, write something incendiary and provocative, then sit back, think a bit, and regret (maybe) being so rash.
But then again ... I understand all too well the tremendously vulnerable situation that the general population is in with respect to the state, and comprehend the risk of abuse, not so much from individual analysts or the current administration as much as from the opportunistic acts of a future administration.
But then again ... It is foolish to expect answers to come easily when the questions themselves are so difficult, so it is natural to strike out in the wrong direction a few times before finding a good path.
As a former member of the diplomatic community living in the US, I am (now as then) almost certain that the NSA were recording all of my telephone calls and internet browsing activity, as well as bugging the apartment in which we lived. It did not then and does not now stop me from browsing for kinky porn, having massive stand-up arguments with my wife, and emailing the Samaritans about wanting to commit suicide. (TMI, I know, sorry - but they can only hold something over your head if you want to keep it a secret).
I chose not to care then, and I have to continue choosing not to care. (Not a decision one can undo easily, anyway). Living in a glass goldfish bowl or not, life goes on; and perhaps the best (or least worst) thing that can come out of all of this is that we become a little bit more honest about human imperfection and fallibility - I do not think that I am alone in being an imperfect, flawed human being.
Perhaps if we stopped pretending to be perfect (or at least not-as-deranged-as-we-really-are) we would be somewhat less vulnerable to those who would seek to exploit the information imbalance.
So, I guess I do not care about them invading my privacy, because that boat sailed a long time ago. I do care in principle about them invading everybody's privacy, because of hypothetical future abuses. I think that at least some of the potential for abuse can be blunted by being more open and honest with ourselves, and by coming to terms with our own failings rather than trying to hide them.
I thought the same for a long time. Then I moved - ironically - to the "big city" (actually, it's getting smaller by the year, but it was second largest in my country some years ago). I thought that living in a big apartment building would give me anonymity and that I could do as I pleased, without being a subject of neighbours surveillance. I was wrong. It took them literally a week to learn that I'm not frequenting the mass in a nearby church. That meant, to them, all out war; I had lived there for a few years, but then I had to move, because I realized that damage to my mental health is just too great.
I'm sure there were some normal people there and that they didn't care. OTOH there were a few old geezers who made a hobby out of bullying others. The point is that you don't care about what people know about you only until they start hurting you because of what they know. Then you wish they didn't know in the first place. You may be even correct that majority of people wouldn't care about you and your own life, but there probably will be someone who will care, and who will make your life quite miserable.
For example:- last year I heard my grandfather-in-law admit playing a part in a massacre, which I am pretty sure is this one, 60 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lari_Massacre. The story was coming via a translator, so I am not sure of the details, but I got the vague impression that he was one of the organizers. What do you do with information like this? How should I feel? Mostly, I feel confused. Ironically, my wife was working with the FCO legal advisers when the survivors of abuses committed during British rule originally sued - (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/05/mau-mau-victims-...). Funny how the tentacles of past misdeeds reach to the future! Perhaps blown by that ill wind of legend?
Moving on to more contemporaneous misdeeds, when I bore mute witness the UN happily paying off drug dealers in West Africa: http://reliefweb.int/report/guinea-bissau/un-peacebuilding-f... ... not that the alternatives were any prettier, but still: When you deal with all the evil and mess of the world, you get a bit tainted yourself. As per my grandmother's folksy aphorism: "When you throw a glove in mud, the mud doesn't get 'glovey'. "
Compared to all the evil that is out there, PRISM seems pretty sweet and innocent - and, to be honest, the revelations were hardly a surprise since the (phone metadata bit) was leaked (or obliquely hinted at least) to me over 12 months ago.
So: I think my sense of unease is more strongly related to our collective capacity for evil than anything else.
Another example of this is the massive paranoia in Germany about Streetview before it came out in that country. That one seems to have been unwarranted.