Hacker News Reader

You can both support building a tool to give people healthcare and be against government surveillance. Most people are able to compartmentalize their support or opposition for various government policies and do not see the doing of one thing they don't like as a reason not to support any other thing the government does.

That's kind of my question though, is how do you compartmentalize that? This may be a personal character flaw, but I definitely wouldn't be able to.

The NSA revelations aren't just some small political transgressions, this is a rather world shaking development that shows we have been subject to vast, malicious (i.e. not for our good but for the good of others), and illegal surveillance that has steadily eroded many of our God given* rights and liberties. On top of that, this is something the administration has wholeheartedly supported and gotten in bed with, and shows no signs of turning back (beyond token political acts that will in the end accomplish very little, if anything).

So, wouldn't you question further actions by someone who has proven themselves to act against you so wholeheartedly? Myself, while I normally would have been overjoyed at a healthcare overhaul in this country, am now extremely suspicious of the motivations behind it. Why would this administration act in our favor when they have been acting against us for so long?

Thus, my question to brandonb :)

*as per the Declaration of Independence

Edit: I would say a good analogy would be: Assuming I were Charlie Brown, at what point do I begin to doubt Lucy's psychiatric advice when she's pulled the football out from under me so many times?

Well... I'm pragmatically there's things I'm going to agree with and things I'm going to disagree with for every. single. administration. So the choices are either working within the context of the system that exists today, or anarchy. Working within the context of the system includes reinforcing the things that can positively affect people's lives (healthcare) and fighting things that can negative affect them (spying). Fighting "the system" as a whole is paramount to advocating anarchy.

The government isn't one thing. It might be worth doing some reading on systems thinking, for instance some of the writing by Donella Meadows. People inhabit a government system and they either set boundaries for themselves, or have those boundaries asserted onto them; boundaries between their area of influence and other areas of the system they consider out of bounds. If they didn't, no one would be able to focus and get things done.

People often think that the failings of a system are chiefly because of the motivations of the actors in the system. But what's more accurate is that the failings are often because of the structure of the system, and the inhabitants often don't feel they have the ability to change the structure.

The least effective way to change the behavior of a system is to twiddle the various buttons and knobs that each inhabitant has ready access to. The most effective way to change the behavior of a system is to change the overall goal of the system, which would necessitate a complete restructuring.

So that's why it is easy to believe that various NSA wrongdoings aren't entirely because of nefarious motivations (although that is probably part of it), and very much driven by system structure (log and analyze data) that simply weren't "checked" as their technological tools and abilities increased over time. What many of us have failed to realize is that our own personal security has been a form of security-through-obscurity in the past. We can put personal data up on a website and not tell anyone, and before search spiders, it might have stayed private. But we can't expect such a website to stay private these days, because of how technology has increased. It's the same with our private data, and how our browsing habits can be mined to create freakishly accurate personal profiles. There was never any privacy protection there to begin with other than obscurity, and we just convinced ourselves it was there by believing in social mores that hadn't been challenged until technology increased too much.

Meanwhile, the health system was about constructing an entirely new structure/system for health insurance, benefits, and penalties.

So... I wouldn't say it is a matter of compartmentalizing. It's more a matter of appreciating that the government is a huge collection of disparate systems and motivations, and that there can be simultaneous breakdowns and successes.

First, thanks for the book recommendation... the quickest way to my heart is giving me something interesting to read.

While I mostly agree with you, it's important to realize that a single administration (speaking directly of the President, his close advisors, and officials he has put in place) has both encouraged the NSA in their actions and also produced the ACA. At what point do we write off the machinations of a political machine as the intricacies of a complicated system, or vice versa? Do we merely ignore common threads that point to a single motive as conspiratorial thinking, or do we act assuming the worst?

I'm not so naive as to think the NSA has become what it is through the directions of a single person or group. I mostly agree that you hit the nail on the head, but the fact remains that many people in our current administration were given a high level overview of current processes, projects, and operations and gave the O.K. to not only continue in the current direction, but intensified efforts, brushing aside the consequences and ramifications that only a stupid person would have ignored. And I refuse to believe that these people got to where they are via stupidity.

If you honestly think like this what do you think people should do that live under more invasive governments ? Even most of Europe has more invasive data collection laws (in all European countries, the secret service and the IRS equivalent can tap/copy/... anything they want to without warrants, and any cooperation they request must be freely given on pain of imprisonment. Anybody who's worked at a Euro ISP knows this. Nobody ever mentions it for some reason)

All European ISPs must give a certain organisation a command shell (sort-of) that allows them to copy any and all traffic to a specific customer without the ISP even knowing they're doing it. They have to do this for free and provide free tech support. This is why cisco, alcatell, juniper, HP, ... both produce "lawful intercept" versions of all their network software [1]. Installation of these images in most of the world (not just Europe) is not optional.

Unlike in the US, the ISPs never get to see any warrants. Asking for that is a crime, that can land you in prison. "Obstructing" justice can also land both directors and techies in jail (ie. not promptly providing prompt tech support to idiot police officers who wonder why tapping an ADSL line does not tell them when the tapped person checks gmail on their phone). There are not allowed to be limitations. For example if you are an American customer of an ISP that operates in Europe, they can tap you (e.g. Liberty Global). And obviously, the government refuses to pay anything for the quite substantial effort required to implement all this.

ISPs only deal with a certain central organisation (it's more-or-less interpol) that basically gives open tapping to a list of European organisations that doesn't fit on a single page, and several organisations that aren't even European.

So given this, what do you think the entire European telco, government, and ... industry should do ? Keep in mind that people working for this infrastructure is probably around 50 million people.

[1] http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst65...

If you fell so strongly about it, how can you remain a citizen? Thought so.

While a bit brusque, this comment does illustrate that we're all compartmentalizing to some extent. Even pdeuchler, who suggests that same's lack of ability to compartmentalize may even be a character flaw...

It isn't, you're doing it already. Living and working here, paying taxes, it all supports the state to some extent.

You can't escape these dilemmas and still interact with the world in basically any way. Take any product. Money that buys avocados will inevitably support Mexican cartels. Widespread guac boycotts would just starve the farmers trying to claw towards legitimacy through economic growth.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230327770...

We're all hypocrites given enough scrutiny.

And there are some reasonable defenses for it.

Jeremy Lott wrote a whole book on that topic, "In Defense of Hypocrisy," http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1595550526/kevinholts...

Other arguments offered in this review: http://www.bookslut.com/nonfiction/2006_11_010195.php

(This is, of course, assuming this is hypocritical, as not everyone finds the spying out of bounds, difficult as that may be to conceive. Entirely separate discussion there though, one that's been trod to death on these boards.)

> The NSA revelations aren't just some small political transgressions, this is a rather world shaking development that shows we have been subject to vast, malicious (i.e. not for our good but for the good of others)

When was it shown that this was not for our good but for the good of others? I think you may be confusing the ends and the means. If the means turned out to not be good for us, that does not mean the ends they were trying to achieve weren't for our good. It just means they failed.

technically it's not giving healthcare to anyone... but rather providing a means to charge for a base-level. the healthcare law doesn't give any free handout's, even to people who can't afford the "affordable" fees the gov't charges for the base-level healthcare.

(just saying, it matters to be correct on this topic)

If everyone tries to reconcile everything the government does, no good person would ever work for the government.

If you want to change it, change it from the inside.

Thats is what they are doing.

People can protest on the streets or online but changing the government from the inside will be more effective.

This is probably the best reply I've gotten (I've asked this outside of this thread before as well), and my response would be to ask where the line is when one's efforts stop changing the machine (to abstract the discussion away from "government", not to insult it) and begins furthering it's interests. I honestly don't know the answer, and so I ask inflammatory questions to further my understanding of the issue.

"Changing it from the inside" is a carrot dangled in front of people to make them think that they can effect change by becoming a cog in the machine. First off, cogs don't change the machine specifically because they're limited in their function.

The people who join the government to try to change it from the inside are the same people who, five years later, complain that their hands are tied and they can't effect meaningful change for the better and must continue along the well-trodden path of obedience. I think Obama is a great example here, but I'm sure there are many others.

I did not say "Changing from the inside" works all the time. There's no perfect solution.

If these YC alums, etc decide they don't want to be a "cog in the machine", how else can they have improved the healthcare web site?

The only possible way to change a government is from the inside. Even if you have a violent revolution, what happens next? The leaders of the revolt become the leaders on the inside of the new government.

Government is not like a company you can boycott; it is an unavoidable attribute of human society. The operative questions are how are you participating in it to achieve your aims, and how effectively.

While I can see huge ethical concerns were this project related to the NSA, I don't think you can necessarily force that association here. While I agree with your frustration with the administration, especially with regards to surveillance and civil rights, I also would like to see the ACA do well and lead to a better life for most Americans. I don't think its wrong to want to work on solving this problem (healthcare) while disagreeing with other actions of the government, as the above poster is working on something that will directly help millions of americans. I see improving healthcare as a separate issue from the NSA scandals, and I think that, in refusing to help with fixing healthcare.gov, you are harming millions of poor and needy Americans without actually accomplishing much of anything.

I'm not the person you asked, but there seem to be quite a few things wrong with the assumptions underlying this question.

> an administration that has shown complete disregard for our privacy and civil liberties

Is it really true that this is the case for this administration more so than other administrations? Admittedly the increase in opportunity for surveillance has been huge in the last couple decades so the quality of the comparison degrades as you go further back in time, but what the NSA has been doing seems entirely in line with what they've been doing for decades. To be clear, what they've been doing for decades is really, really shitty and I'm glad people are finally outraged, but then wouldn't your view require basically boycotting working with any administration ever? I don't think it's an unreasonable proposition to not hold hostage policies that are potentially worthy just for a single (however significant) issue that you disagree with.

> your support of an administration

> continuing to further said administration's political aims

This leads to me to my next point: it seems like your comment assumes that this was done purely out of a desire to help a political figure, instead of considering the possibility that the volunteers may think that Healthcare.gov is a worthy goal or at least that its brokenness is negatively affecting the American people (I don't think there's any disagreement across the political spectrum on this latter point). That's an awfully cynically political way to look at the world, and I don't think it's accurate to assume that that viewpoint is shared by the volunteers. I think it's probably a safe assumption that the volunteers acted more out of a desire to see hc.gov working than to see Obama's political capital enhanced per se.

Do you quit your job when your boss does something you don't like? The government will live on beyond this administration and hopefully the site will as well. I don't know what privacy you can expect when they hold the keys, my expectation would be 0. Finally, government procurement is always littered with inefficiency and occasionally large scale corruption. These questions really answer themselves.

Now if only you had asked something about technology.

>Do you quit your job when your boss does something you don't like?

False equivalence. The correct analogy would be "Do you quit your job when your company does something you don't like?"

Many people would answer yes to that.

Many people would say yes. Empirically, few of them follow through on it.

Here is something that'll blow your mind: lots of technologically savvy people don't think surveillance is a policy so bad that it destroys the governments overall credibility. Some even don't see a problem with it.

Thus my, admittedly loaded, question :)

If you're starting from the assumption that everyone else who is "technologically savvy" is obviously in agreement with you, then you're making a large mistake in your reasoning somewhere.

Smart people often disagree about things in this world, including in particular whether the actions of the NSA show "complete disregard for our privacy and civil liberties" and whether they're justified or not.

Also, half the idea of democracy is to compromise with other people. Thinking that people shouldn't do any work for the government because they don't agree with some of the actions of that government is ridiculous.

To make the coupling explicit, what assurance do we have that information given to HealthCare.gov won't be illegally accessed by employees at NSA and other three-letter agencies?

But how would you ever make government better without getting involved? I mean unless you are talking about scrapping the existing system and replacing it, you must be involved in order to change it.

Pretty much everything you wrote is complete nonsense. There's no relation between healthcare and spying. People don't put their medical information into the system (hello! no more denials for pre-existing conditions). "Corrupt"? Really? Then you try to shame the folks for participating but even acknowledge that inanity with your caveat. Pretty shameful all the way around.