Comment by Broken_Hippo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Broken_Hippo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Horrifying story that will change absolutely nothing. The government isn't willing to back away from the power (even after it became known) and people aren't upset enough in mass to actually do things about it - things that would probably be done in vain for some time. And changing the minds of many people in the 'innocent people have nothing to hide' I find to have a general delusion, believing the government (or at least the law) is mostly infallible.

It is not a new pattern, either. Look back to what we (americans) did to each other in the 50's (are You a communist? Do you act like one?). Had we had the tech then to spy like now, we'd have done so. Which means that despite the sensational news stories, I find almost apathy from normal people I meet - the paranoid has known for years (don't talk on that cell phone, they can listen in on those easily... does anyone remember this attitude?). Privacy intrusions simply exist. They are. You aren't escaping them. It might make one angry, but there is nothing people feel they can do about it. I personally disagree, but also feel the path to balance in this area is an uncomfortable one.

I disagree. Every such story has the potential to make people re-think their false belief that "I've got nothing to hide".

I for one have added it to my list of bookmarks, and hope I remember to pass it on when somebody downplays the dangers of surveillance the next time.

Ultimately, scaling back the mass surveillance state can only be done using popular support. Stories like this one are the best way to get that support, because they are concrete evidence of its danger (rather than the abstract worries that are usually repeated).

There's a difference between reading 1984 and seeing articles of how things play out in real life in your own country.

There's a difference between reading 1984 and seeing articles of how things play out in real life in your own country.

There is no difference. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change.

I was going to make a lengthy comment detailing all the possible ways that Americans could effect change, and then going point-for-point with reasons why none of those ways could possibly work in this case. But it's too depressing. Besides, I would love to wrong.

Our only hope is if a website manages to act as a "vote multiplier" in the sense that it serves a function analogous to a lightning rod: it focuses people by telling them who to vote for and who not to vote for, and when to vote, and even how to vote. No one will do their own research. Want to make a difference? Make that website, and then achieve popularity large enough to make a difference.

Things have changed. They've changed many times in the course of modern history. The Church commission happened, the Senate Intelligence committee happened, the FISA court was set up, things change.

Gov'ts are designed for slow change. The advantage of this being that it should avoid massive populism to dismantle everything in one go (imagine if the Tea Party had control of the Senate). There are movements both in the judicial and the legislative branches to start pulling back the excesses of the executive.

Sure, Obama could "executive order" everything away, but why would the executive neuter itself? Luckily checks and balances are a thing, and we're fixing this.

What worries me is that the mechanisms for government slowly adapting to changing situations have been eroded. Massive public protests are now far less effective than they were, because the authorities are using new technologies, such as mass-surveillance, to suppress them.

The result is an ossifying system of government, that is slowly, but surely diverging from consent of the people.

>Gov'ts are designed for slow change.

Except they haven't changed slowly. Think of how far we've come since 9/11.

If the government is designed to change slowly, yet has experienced this period of rapid change, then it seems that we have to ask, "what force is being applied to overcome the slow-change inertia?"

the changes since 9/11 happened because the legislature and the executive agreed that the way the intelligence community was operating at the time wasn't effective.

The environment of 9/11 was particularly unique (being the first major attack on American soil from a "foreign entity" in a long time), and it's important to understand a couple things.

It's not the patriot act, but this story on the AUMF (http://www.buzzfeed.com/gregorydjohnsen/60-words-and-a-war-w...) shows the sort of environment in which the AUMF and the Patriot Act were passed. It's slightly insane.

Almost all of the "radical" change post-9/11 is based on things written in these laws written over a 2-month period that was patently different from the status quo.

Policies developed from these acts have been struck down on multiple occasions, and there is a momentum towards rolling things back, rather than going further. But we still get the characteristic slowness of government. Without a strong event to do so, it will be hard. The Snowden leaks seem to be a good trigger for a Church committee-style event, but it won't be instant.

Yes, it was the post 9/11 environment that led to the post 9/11 changes. We are still on that footing. But, if it was 9/11 that caused us to form consensus, and thus move so swiftly at that time, then what, exactly, is it now?

Because I would argue that the momentum is categorically not "towards rolling things back". Honestly, I find that an astonishing statement in light of the fact that 12+ years later, we are still engaged in a rapidly progressing surveillance agenda and just learning about the Snowden revelations regarding same. This does not even touch the fact that drone strikes have risen sharply, we're still engaged in extrajudicial killings, Guantanemo is still open, and on and on.

So, it's not just that we have lingering laws on the books post 9/11 that will take time to unwind. It's that we are still engaging in--and indeed, expanding--activity supported by these laws. What is the driver for this? What is the end goal?

> I disagree. Every such story has the potential to make people re-think their false belief that "I've got nothing to hide".

Most people will easily rationalize this away and just think that he was a Muslim after all. Good Christians don't have to worry about a thing (except Muslim terrorists of course).

In this case, I do think they will look at all of the factors and conclude that it was just a crazy set of coincidences that would rarely happen, and certainly not to themselves.

In fact, some might conclude that such a set of circumstances warrants the investigation described, especially given this permanent state of fear in which many now live.

In any case, I do believe the "it won't happen to me" rationalization is one of the biggest reasons people show little concern. And, for those who are concerned, a sense of powerlessness is probably the biggest obstacle to action.

Where are you getting these 'facts' about how people are going to behave from?

Truly, if it changes one person's mind then it's done some good. This alone won't change anything but spreading this to allow people to see there are kinks in the armour will allow people to perhaps vote in the future for difference.

When the majority is against something, sometimes some good can be done. Not always. The government is all powerful, but there is a chance.

Why don't you ask nhaehnle where he/she gets her facts?

Please reflect on what this kind of comment does. This kind of struggle is conducted almost entirely in the mind. If you want to win, you have to believe that you can win, you have to look for ways to win, you have to find hope and give it to other people on your side. The other side are out there trying to convince you that you can't win, that no-one really cares, that their victory is inevitable. Don't help them do that. Yes, it looks kind of bleak right now, but don't give up.

Even without the Snowden revelations, collection of personally identifibale information is increasingly common and often unavoidable.

The US, for example, takes fingerprints from all non-residents entering the country. In the EU, most of the countries that make up the borderless Schengen Area require you to provide your fingerprints when applying for a passport (usually from both hands). Last year, a German man refused to give his fingerprints to the German authorities when applying for a passport. His application was rejected. The case went to the European Court of Justice who ruled in favour of fingerprinting. The court stated that, yes, fingerprinting was a violation of an individual's privacy, but was neccesary to prevent fraud.

Whatever the pronouncements of officials about the protection of your personal info, it's certain, as in the story posted, that law enforcement agencies will have access to this data.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com