Demonstrations to protest NSA spying planned for July 4th
restorethefourth.net
restorethefourth.net
But even more importantly it's infringing on their human rights that should guarantee that they don't have to live in fear in a surveillance state and they have the right to anonymous speech or being able to have confidential conversations with people, without having to think that everything they say is being recorded by the government, and if if they even say the "wrong words" they may end up on certain "lists" that are monitored more heavily.
Likewise, didn't the group that incited protests over the bus fare increase later support ending the protests, since the protests are said to have been co-opted by militants and fascists?
Likewise likewise, neither anonymous speech or confidential conversations have gone away (that is, where they were possible before). But you may have to choose to enforce that by technical means (a capability we didn't used to have, by the way, just ask people who lived in the age of letters and phone calls).
Likewise^3, the prioritization of who would be monitored by warrant is certainly a legitimate function of the security apparatus, unless you're trying to claim that picking random conversations to get a warrant for is somehow more effective in breaking up terror cells or criminal conspiracies.
I would argue that taking action against people merely for what they believe in is screwed up, but I not only wouldn't blame people for keeping a closer eye on those who advocate large changes to government, I'd be offended as a taxpayer if they weren't doing exactly that.
Brazilian here, and you are right. The big protests started in one capital and not all capitals raised their fares, at least not recently. One week before that, in my city, we had thousands of protesters, who wanted something to be done about the violence (873 people were murdered by gunshot in the first quarter alone, out of a population of 2.5 million, giving over 60 per hundred thousand people).
After the demonstrations in São Paulo, it spread like wildfire. Since not all cities have the same problems (at least, not in the same priority), the protesters had different agendas. But they were (and stil are) all over the country.
Most of my life I've thought that malaise amongst the oppressed was the stable state. But these protests suggest that is either wrong, or something has shifted the vocabulary of the dynamics from equilibrium to attractors. At least for a certain class of countries [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abelian_sandpile_model#Self-org...]
It remains to be seen if this has done anything to dampen the strong dystopian possibility of cross-national oligarchs whose members are large bureaucracies and whose mission is the status quo.
And it is worth paying attention to these countries where broad abuses are not merely potential. Because if it is not possible to regain their rights, then it is all the more important to not ignore the currently well intended overreach of Lawful Good Paladins.
We no longer live in an age where rhetoric tears down walls and opens doors. Somewhere along the line, people in power recognized they can just ignore pretty words and they'll usually go away.
1. Enact reform this Congress to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the state secrets privilege, and the FISA Amendments Act to make clear that blanket surveillance of the Internet activity and phone records of any person residing in the U.S. is prohibited by law and that violations can be reviewed in adversarial proceedings before a public court;
2. Create a special committee to investigate, report, and reveal to the public the extent of this domestic spying. This committee should create specific recommendations for legal and regulatory reform to end unconstitutional surveillance;
3. Hold accountable those public officials who are found to be responsible for this unconstitutional surveillance.
(2) and (3) seem very straightforward, realistic, and productive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_records_provision#Secti...
Notably, Google itself has launched a campaign against the gag order related to NSLs, which we should all (hopefully) support!
If I'm right, then I think this might be achievable. It would not say that any surveillance could be challenged in a public proceeding, only indiscriminate surveillance. Production of a lawful court order would presumably be sufficient to inactivate this provision. Hmm, I suppose things could get sticky if there were debate over the lawfulness of the court order... nonetheless, I'm not prepared to give up on this yet.
It's easy to ignore or contain 50-1000+ protesters [1][2] at some 600 locations (see Occupy Wall Street), whereas a centralized protest (maybe in DC?) of 70,000+[3] will hear their voices ringing across the world.
It's easy to feel like your working together and making a difference with someone across the globe, but really to be heard you need to work together,as a team, in close proximity. Change isn't easy.
[1] Wrong: http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2011/ows_gallery_121...
[2] Meh, street performers pull bigger crowds: http://media.syracuse.com/news/photo/10265946-large.jpg
[2] Here we go: http://wakingamericaup.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/i-have-a-...
After a time you can double, triple, quadruple, etc. your numbers. Then go to DC with 70-100,000 and get attention.
Maybe what's needed is an agenda that clearly works towards such a demonstration, one that's broken up into attainable goals/milestones. If demonstrators don't feel that they're continually making progress, they lose interest -- or maybe its hope that they lose. And at some point, you need strong leadership to reign in all the pieces.
Why not set it for the day before? 100,000+ people on the steps of the Capitol or in front of the White House on the evening of the 3rd would get much more coverage than doing anything on the 4th.
Development of public support against greater security at the cost of freedom is the only way to make meaningful change. Yes, marches/demonstrations can be part of this. But small demonstrations do not alone capture the public's interest. One must capture the public mind--and that means informing the public and winning their support of having less "security" where weaking or violating the protections of their basic rights are concerned.
Right now, as various polls have showed, far too many Americans desire the feeling and theater of security. They are content to be invaded at airport security because eventually they can still fly. They are content to have their communications slurped up because they can still send that email and make that phone call.
It's not until they're staring at a public fountain from which they are not able to drink because it has a stupid printed sign above it that says "Whites Only" that the public will accept that things have gone horribly wrong.
I think demonstrations would be excellent to see, but not if they're anything like the Occupy movement, which the wider public opposed against their own self interest. It is very difficult to get the public's attention when they do not feel the effects. The public is rather shitty at evaluating and appreciating things in the abstract. Demonstrations that are massive and concentrated would have a much more significant impact. Think of the Civil Rights March on Washington. That level of mass and concentration. Doubling it would be even better.
And yet, even that basic right to protest has been severely weakened by the fact that one must get a permit to protest in many of the locations that would be tactically good choices. This is madness. The 4th is not the only Amendment that the People have allowed to be weakened over the last two centuries.
Americans have become very lazy where protecting their rights are concerned, because the vast majority of Americans do not participate in protecting those rights when they are violated against minority factions.
Then I'm assuming you're planning to attend your local demonstration.
This statement sounds a little defeatist and gives an excuse for not participating in demonstrations (since the required massive scale is likely not reached, one might be better of not going).
Actually demonstrations, even if they do not effect immediate change, will still have a number of positive outcomes. First, they will likely be reported on in the news (at least that would be the case in Germany), raising awareness. Second, demonstrators will meet like minded individuals with whom they can network and form strategies. Third, demonstrators will realize that they are not isolated and feel more empowered as a result. Last, it will at least remind the public and politicians that some people do care about this.
Is any of this enough to affect change? Likely not. But it is a first step and if we can't even go demonstrate against this then we might as well stop caring. The possibility that demonstrations will not have the immediate effect we desire should not stop us.
The only remedy we have in this country is lawsuits. Not class-actions, either; individual lawsuits for $500k each, for egregiously prejudicing your individual rights guaranteed by the constitution. ten thousand or so of those, with the president's name in all caps (head of the Unitary Executive) listed as the defendant.
or, you know, you could try to make a well-regulated militia of 3D-printed pea shooters, so you can overthrow the largest and most heavily-armed military in the history of the world. that'll definitely work.
Myself, I appreciate the disclosure I'm being given that Scott McNealy was right all those years ago when he said we have zero privacy anyway. The government has the right to do whatever they want with their property. if you use/are their property (isn't that ARPAnet thing US military property?), expect them to enforce their interest in that property.
TL;DR for the downvoters (+6 to -2 in less than 20 minutes? hilarious): PROTEST BAD. LAWSUITS GOOD.
Thanks for the downvotes. perhaps you could combine them with a reply of why I'm wrong in my reasoning?
The ethos of Hacker News is all about changing the status quo, and America as a country was about asserting independence and changing the status quo, in the name of certain kinds of rights that wound up embodied in the Constitution.
Arguing that protests are useless, that we don't live in a free society, that courage is unnecessary: it's frankly quite sad. People died in previous wars to give us the right to protest, the freedom in our society, and it is necessary that people should continue to fight to keep things that way, with courage.
Your reasoning sounds a little paranoid, like the "government has already won" and that there's nothing we can do about it. That's not going to be a popular attitude.
Perhaps you believe you live in a free society, I don't. I understand the ramifications of the Fourteenth Amendment, and how the bill of rights was filtered through the 14th to see what still applied to "subjects of congress" (hint: only the 2nd amendment comes out unscathed due to DC v Heller). I've read (and used) the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act [1], and understand how it allows someone to actually own people (actual slavery). I've filed UCC-1 Liens against people and had sheriffs seize debtor's property or put people in jail for not paying (debt slavery). These are not signs of a free society. these are signs of fascism and tyranny.
I hope you'll forgive my worldview for being different than yours, but perhaps we can find some common ground: We both want to live in a free society. We both want a populace to show courage. we think it's quite sad that people died in previous wars to give us the right to protest. We both think the government has already won (the people are the government), and there's nothing we can do about that. We both think is necessary that people should continue to fight to keep things that way, with courage.
I bet we agree on many more things, actually.
That's a terrible justification for not protesting. Free societies require courage.
As for being courageous in a free society: Let me know when you find one. we can both move there and be courageous together. In the interim, I'm going to play by the rules of the game, as I'm stuck in the system.
Perhaps you guys don't understand this: they have _really_ big guns. waaaay bigger than anything we have. and they have the authority to use them when they're threatened by acts of mass protest. the Executive's powers used at Kent State ages ago have only gotten stronger. Don't be like those poor bastards. or the Seattle WTO protesters. or the DNC/RNC protesters.
Seriously, they _want_ you to sue them. Just do it.
+1
Demonstrations can and will be used to crack down further. Despite our rights to protest, government will still use them as a way to frighten the non demonstrators. This is what we have seen in the UK. Protesters are re-defined as criminals as and when it suits.
Also, I think you probably have a point in suggesting the use of the law. Seems to me as an outsider that a lot of US progression has been via enlightened judges.......eventually. My suggestion would be to raise huge amounts of cash to fight in the courts and lobby hard.
I really do hate to say this, because it yet again shows up the political disconnect we all seem to have, but governments simply ignore protest. Well, unless its Middle East style, with huge amounts of violence and political types dragged out and, well, killed. And, that isnt going to happen in the West, right? Look, we in the UK had 1 million people march in London against Gulf War 2. That is like 5 million marching in DC (roughly, if I have my maths right). And guess what.... the UK government ignored them flat. Later, the UK people voted that government back in to power. Total waste of time.
When was the last time protest really worked? More over, should it?
However, invoking the 4th of July as part of the American public consciousness is not guaranteed to resonate with the wider world population.