Because only corporations should be allowed to maintain this kind of pervasive surveillance, for pay.
Your only recourse is voting (as it should be in a democratic society), however that's a pointless exercise when a change in leaders/political-parties-in-power doesn't result in a change in policy.
Just like how the natural progression beyond free-trade agreements is even tighter economic and social integration between nations (eg: European Union, Trans-Pacific Partnership), the natural progression beyond voting is civil disobedience (ie: protesting). I'm sure you can imagine what lies beyond civil disobedience.
And how do we know who to keep in office and who to vote out when there is very little transparency?
You have a point that it may be difficult to vote for the right people, but it's very easy to make a good start. If a politician campaigns on and promises to increase the amount of creepy spying in your country like Obama did between 2006 and 2008, don't vote for him/her.
It's very important to vote in the primary elections in order to not end up with two evils by the main presidential election. The same logic goes for all other elections, too: your state government, and all levels really. Voting for just one president from two choices is hardly voting at all.
I mean, we can have all these complicated websites/applications that are expected/relied upon to have utmost security (that are constantly being made better), but we still can't have the option to vote online? I know in some eastern European countries people can vote online like Estonia [0].
[0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/06/e...
But even the process that people would have to go through to even get something like that up and running would be too heavily influenced by the ever printed federal reserve notes flowing into the beltway.
The way people state we can participate in the system just seems so moot when I think about it. Which is probably why I don't vote and because subversion seems to be the only thing working these days that is in the interests of the people and not just what we are told where our interests should lie…
Outside elections seriously massive scale public protest or large scale civil disobedience and general strikes really can change things. For smaller things mass lobbying of politicians can swing a balance.
Edit: Actually online is still worse than a good recountable, auditable paper based system although maybe equal to a Diebold polling station based one.
Oh really?[0]: "The Florida election recount of 2000 was a period of vote re-counting that occurred following the unclear results of the 2000 United States presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, specifically the Florida results. The election was ultimately settled in favor of George W. Bush when the U.S. Supreme Court, with its final ruling on Bush v. Gore, stopped a recount that had been proposed by the all Democrat Florida Supreme Court, which had the effect of awarding Bush a majority of votes in the Electoral College."
With one flick of the wrist by a couple appointed judges, recounts become moot.
And as we have seen throughout history, they can grant themselves more power through amendments and executive orders that can go (and have gone in some cases) unchecked once enacted.
>2) recounts did not become moot
In that instance they did. But of course, something like this can never happen again even though it happened once already.
>Surely you've noticed that other elections since then have also involved recounts and nobody has tried to prevent them going ahead on the basis of Bush v Gore.
I haven't, care to point to some information?
By 'they' I presume you mean Presidents and Senators. And guess what the Cosntitution contains provisions for them to do exactly that, and for you to challenge it if you see fit. And that sort of thing happens quite frequently.
>2) recounts did not become moot
In that instance they did.
That doesn't even make sense.
I haven't, care to point to some information?
Really, you can't use Google to search for stories about election recounts over the last 12 years? You're just being lazy now. How can you expect me to take you seriously on elections when you obviously don't pay much attention to them?
Here's a story about a recount. Last year. In Florida. The Republican lost. Happy now? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84068.html
I guess "stopped a recount that had been proposed by the all Democrat Florida Supreme Court, which had the effect of awarding Bush a majority of votes in the Electoral College." is over your head.
>Really, you can't use Google to search for stories about election recounts over the last 12 years? You're just being lazy now. How can you expect me to take you seriously on elections when you obviously don't pay much attention to them?
>Here's a story about a recount. Last year. In Florida. The Republican lost. Happy now? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84068.html
Probably because I don't pay attention congressional elections because I don't live in Florida? I'm sure many other citizens wouldn't pay attention to that.
Really, you can't scroll through this thread? Now you're just being lazy now. How can you expect me to take you seriously when you obviously don't read through this thread to look if I stated my participation level in the puppet show on federal reserve note strings we call an election process in its current form? If I can have some of your Kool Aid, I'll be happy.
Probably because I don't pay attention congressional elections because I don't live in Florida?
That didn't stop you knowing about the Florida recount in Bush v Gore, did it? I've never even been to Florida, I just read newspapers and use the internet and pay attention to the makeup of Congress.
If I can have some of your Kool Aid
And I thought you wanted to have a serious conversation. Oh well, more fool me.
I didn't say Bush v Gore had made recounts. You said that.
The recounts were underway before the supreme court stopped them in Bush v Gore.[0]
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), is the United States Supreme Court decision that effectively resolved the dispute surrounding the 2000 presidential election. Only eight days earlier, the United States Supreme Court had unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), and only three days earlier, had preliminarily halted a recount that was occurring.
See the last part: had preliminarily halted a recount that was occurring
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
>And I thought you wanted to have a serious conversation. Oh well, more fool me.
Only as serious as one can converse with a state apologist. ;)
a recount != recounts.
Troll away, but I'm out of this conversation.
And to suggest that just because it only happened once, to mean that it can't happen again is naive (but I guess that is in the nature for apologists of the state).
Because databases and computer systems aren't audit able? How do dba's and computer forensics ever solve any problems?
>The fact that there were votes to argue in court about is still a step above "computer says Bush".
A step above because you say so? I guess all those punch card machines that accepted and counted votes during the election probably were dismissed then since a computer gave an answer.
As for auditing computer databases and software that is hard enough with computers you control but for elections the people operating the machine are one of the threats and the process needs to be verifiable by independent volunteers and the parties contesting the election.
When a voting system is insecure and abuses your trust, someone makes tremendous gains, and nobody may even know. The incentives to rig an election are huge, and the verifiability of an online election is very low.
How do you think paper ballots, for example, hinder progress?
Because the electronic machines in use now aren't vulnerable?
>How do you think paper ballots, for example, hinder progress?
Not easily accessible to all people (like those with disabilities, and those without sufficient access to public transportation, those having to work without having the flexibility to show up to vote) and it's disconnected from the way more and more people are engaging about ideas and exchanging information that could influence how they vote. Same is true of electronic voting machines in use during elections…
And it's not like people haven't documented themselves on youtube committing voting fraud in person or the news stories that pop up about it…
I think these drawbacks of paper ballots are minor compared to "black box voting" where there's absolutely no way to prevent or even know about massive scale frauds.
Way to minimize the disenfranchisement millions of people from the voting process. Besides, do you really think people are going to recount millions of ballots, when the last attempt to do so was waived away by appointed judges in 2000?
Even if massive scale fraud were going on, most people would stick their heads in the sand (at least in the United States), like we have seen with other issues…
These problems are surmountable.
The problems of "black box voting" are not.
Massive scale fraud with paper ballots is harder given relatively simple means of oversight.
Really? Man made problems surrounding "black box voting" and voting online aren't surmountable, but only proposed solutions to the archaic nature of the status quo that aren't being implemented (or not effectively in the case part of what you listed is being used), suffice as such? That's laughable.
The problems of "black box voting" are insurmountable. They cannot be solved.
Just like the internet voting in Estonia…
>The problems of "black box voting" are insurmountable. They cannot be solved.
Because you say they are? Plenty examples of groups of people overcoming the perceived impossibility of "complex" systems throughout history contrary to popular beliefs during those occasions…
1) Be able to identify the correct people and allow them to vote.
2) Give them certainty that their vote is recorded correctly.
3) Give them privacy while voting so that they cannot be coerced or bribed (postal voting fails this one too).
4) Allow volunteers to audit the process. e.g. Observe polling stations, sealed ballot boxes, numbered, signed, counts open to observers, tallies checkable, votes recountable etc.
5) Allow wide access to the vote, short queues, local polling stations, physical access etc. Postal voting helps this but at a cost to points 3 and 4. This is manageable when postal voting is a small proportion of the total but gets riskier if it rises.
Online voting fails to allow for most of these requirements in ways that are not just hard they are impossible to fix. You can trade some for others like the ability to confirm your vote was correctly recorded but that gives a receipt and the possibility for coercion or bribery.
Now the US voting system also fails many of these at least in some locations but giving the power to run the elections to controllers of the computers is too dangerous. There are just too many opportunities to tamper with votes that way with almost no risk of detection.
I had not looked into the Estonian experience until now but this is one perspective on it: https://www.verifiedvoting.org/report-on-the-estonian-intern...
The verifiedvoting.org website also has lots of other information about internet voting and voting machines generally. I did not look at it before compiling my list above.
Tampering with some computer systems? Not so hard.
* By proxy I mean a sychophantic gov official in their pocket.
If I believe that every man is free to do what they please as long as it doesn't have a direct negative effect on someone else's right to be free, how can I vote for someone and give them the implicit power to restrict the freedom of myself and others?
And when society is built around the presence of their services, not using them may not be a realistic option. If you don't like the way banks behave, for example, not using them isn't a realistic option.
Therefore mass protest and political action are perfectly reasonable approaches to changing corporate behavior.
Option 1 is available. Earning less money means you pay less tax, and spending less money means you pay less tax. You have control over both of these things.