The Outrage about PRISM spying is wearing off already(pcworld.com)
pcworld.com
The Outrage about PRISM spying is wearing off already
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2043777/the-outrage-about-prism-spying-is-wearing-off-already.html
110 comments
Failing to pass the law but coming close to passing the law means literally nothing. That is not a victory.
And have you talked to people outside of the Internet about it? Plenty of people didn't ever care, and are now upset with Snowden for even having leaked what he did.
This is not going to "pick up steam" any more than it already has, short of non-spying related leaks (Obama killed a guy with his laser vision, for example).
And have you talked to people outside of the Internet about it? Plenty of people didn't ever care, and are now upset with Snowden for even having leaked what he did.
This is not going to "pick up steam" any more than it already has, short of non-spying related leaks (Obama killed a guy with his laser vision, for example).
I think you're being unnecessarily negative. I like the metaphor Wyden had: "The side of transparency and openness is starting to put some points on the board." All-or-nothing thinking is not helpful.
But you have a point. Snowden didn't come to the public with revelations about how these programs were persecuting anybody in particular. So the objections one might raise are more theoretical, about "turnkey tyranny", or that panoptic surveillance is itself an offense against the people. I have a feeling that if a more specific case came to light, it would change everything.
But you have a point. Snowden didn't come to the public with revelations about how these programs were persecuting anybody in particular. So the objections one might raise are more theoretical, about "turnkey tyranny", or that panoptic surveillance is itself an offense against the people. I have a feeling that if a more specific case came to light, it would change everything.
It's not all-or-nothing thinking re: failing to pass the law. A vote count's closeness has very very little to do with how close the outcome actually was. It literally means nothing that the vote count was so close.
I also don't think one case will do it. It'd have to be a trend (people literally snatched up in the night), a policy shift (all copyright abuse starts being enforced because now they have that data), or some kind of tragic action leading to the deaths (yes deaths) of people on US soil.
I also don't think one case will do it. It'd have to be a trend (people literally snatched up in the night), a policy shift (all copyright abuse starts being enforced because now they have that data), or some kind of tragic action leading to the deaths (yes deaths) of people on US soil.
You may be right. But in my opinion it's not the severity of the action that's brought to light, it's who gets hurt. The elites of the US are usually fine with extraconstitutional shenanigans and human rights violations when they only affect foreigners, or relatively powerless people within the US.
When it affects the domestic balance of power, then you start to see elite consensus building against it, and the wheels of reform start turning. This is how a hotel break-in is more serious than a secret war in Indochina.
It's possible that US elites will perceive surveillance as a threat to themselves. If they don't, you're probably right and then everyone just gets used to it, and any reckoning is kicked down the road for a few more decades.
When it affects the domestic balance of power, then you start to see elite consensus building against it, and the wheels of reform start turning. This is how a hotel break-in is more serious than a secret war in Indochina.
It's possible that US elites will perceive surveillance as a threat to themselves. If they don't, you're probably right and then everyone just gets used to it, and any reckoning is kicked down the road for a few more decades.
No one's actually gotten hurt because of the NSA's surveillance, so that's the problem. All of these potential consequences are theoretical. We're trying to string the NSA up on what amounts to pre-crime.
The Pentagon Papers didn't impact Nixon directly (Nixon was even pleased at first since it could only affect the reputation of his predecessors). But you have a good point, certainly it seems there's finally an awakening in Congress. Even most of those who voted against defunding NSA then sent a letter to the White House saying that some form of changes would still be required.
There is a follow up protest to Restore the 4th, 1984 Day, planned for this upcoming Sunday, August 4. If there is one being held near you, please consider attending. Keep checking if there isn't one nearby, as they have been adding a few more locations in the past day.
http://1984day.com/
http://1984day.com/
Do all of these rallies insist on using Facebook for organizing their privacy protests?
The irony is stunning.
The irony is stunning.
Yeah, I find it stupid as well. I have the Facebook domain blocked at the /etc/hosts level and generally won't go there, period.
[deleted]
It's not surprising. The Zimmerman trial was an excellent distraction to get everyone's mind off of privacy and on to racial divisiveness. Now that the trial's long over, all that NSA stuff seems so distant in the memory of the average American. It was a brilliant move by the administration.
Are you saying the Obama administration set up the Zimmerman trial just to distract people from the NSA stuff?
It's highly unlikely that anything about the Zimmerman trial was a deliberate ploy to distract the American public from more pressing issues but... The president did explicitly weigh in on the trial which gave it more notoriety in the press. It's not impossible that he was hoping it would distract from the NSA issue.
More likely though, there are just more people for whom race relations is a bigger deal than government spying.
More likely though, there are just more people for whom race relations is a bigger deal than government spying.
I am still outraged but I don't know what to do about it. I don't think the restore the 4th/1984 day stuff is the right way to go about it. That is a great way to spread a message but has about a 0% chance of shutting down the NSA etc...
This stuff has recently caused me to fall into a bit of depression because I feel totally helpless.
Does anyone else feel this way? What could we do?
This stuff has recently caused me to fall into a bit of depression because I feel totally helpless.
Does anyone else feel this way? What could we do?
Until the NSA issue actually has an effect on the every day lives of the american population, it's going to be hard to get much support, when there are issues will actually make a difference in people's lives. We, the hackers and geeks, all see the frightening potential for abuse, but as it is now... the NSA does not make one bit of difference in the life of the average american. Taxes, health care, gun control, immigration, minimum wage, etc.. These are issues that will (or people feel will) have an impact in their day to day life.
Furthermore, as a political issue, it's actually a problem that this is not a partisan issue. In the current polarized political climate, what politician wants to be seen working with the enemy? The democrats can't go after the spying as it's their party and president who are currently doing it. The republicans can't go against it as they originally started it and are the tough on terrorism party. When it comes to the NSA, the political machine is attempting to divide by zero.
Furthermore, as a political issue, it's actually a problem that this is not a partisan issue. In the current polarized political climate, what politician wants to be seen working with the enemy? The democrats can't go after the spying as it's their party and president who are currently doing it. The republicans can't go against it as they originally started it and are the tough on terrorism party. When it comes to the NSA, the political machine is attempting to divide by zero.
The distressing part about all this is that there is, in fact, very little to be done about this. For now, the best thing anyone can do is to keep the issue from dying. Raise awareness. Find reliable data to back up claims against PRISM and XKeyscore (data of which, I'm sure there are respectable amounts). The more people know, the more can be done about the issue. Protests, speeches, walkouts, boycotts, and, should worse come to worse, riots can be organized. Maybe more people working on the projects can be convinced to defect or sabotage the project.
Just fight to keep this relevant.
Just fight to keep this relevant.
Definitely.... However, I have been working to keeping this subject alive but at a certain point people don't want to hear it and even more disturbingly I've found that many people don't think that our government would really do something like that even after reading about it.
What you need is more people outraged and willing to make a stand. Lives will have to be less comfortable in the US before that happens on a large enough scale. The harder the average citizen must struggle for survival, the more likely you are to hit the breaking point. You are trying to come up with a way to improve your situation, but that may require worsening the situation for others. The US government knows this, which is why they always work to keep the proles happy and complacent.
Organize ourselves. The people need a way to influence the government more. We can do this through collecting money for specific causes and deciding, as a group, how best to influence politics, be it through billboard advertisements that shame particular representatives into acting in the interests of their constituents or by funding lobbyists to meet with congressmen etc. We need better tools to act as groups.
The way the average american thinks, if the police slowly came every other day and disappeared one of your neighbors, they'd shrug it off and say "oh well what can you do, we need to be safe".
Until it was their turn and there was no one to protest.
This is why we still have the TSA grabbing your genitals and the NSA grabbing everything else. "oh well what can you do, we need to be safe".
Meanwhile congresspeople would write in exemptions for themselves and figure out how to do insider trading to profit from the activity (btw, they gave themselves back the right to do the insider trading).
Until it was their turn and there was no one to protest.
This is why we still have the TSA grabbing your genitals and the NSA grabbing everything else. "oh well what can you do, we need to be safe".
Meanwhile congresspeople would write in exemptions for themselves and figure out how to do insider trading to profit from the activity (btw, they gave themselves back the right to do the insider trading).
> "oh well what can you do, we need to be safe".
I think that's a touch of a generalization. I'm a guy that flies 4+ times a month, and I'm on a team of people who keep the same travel schedules. Not once has anyone I've ever known mentioned "safety" when the subject of TSA, or any invasive government program, comes up.
No, the thing that we're scared of is not some vague notion of a terrorism, but being caught up in some power tripping TSA agents wet dream. You get groped because the alternative is causing a scene, getting detained, missing my flight, and thus missing out on the job which was my entire reason for entering the awful airport in the first place. A missed job means that there's no repeat next year, which puts my line of work and lively hood in jeopardy. Is it exciting? No. But it's reality.
Talk of standing up to "the man" is easy, but action is several orders of magnitude harder. I have student loans, I have an apartment and family which would go under if not for my income. Things really aren't bad enough yet to put all of that on the line. So you go through "security," get your balls groped because it's better than the alternative, and you press on.
I suspect that there are more like me than there are mindless "Gotta catch the terrorists at any cost!" people. Things would have to get much worse and actually tip the balance to where it makes sense to fight before I actually will.
Don't think of us all as terrorist fearing surrender monkeys.
I think that's a touch of a generalization. I'm a guy that flies 4+ times a month, and I'm on a team of people who keep the same travel schedules. Not once has anyone I've ever known mentioned "safety" when the subject of TSA, or any invasive government program, comes up.
No, the thing that we're scared of is not some vague notion of a terrorism, but being caught up in some power tripping TSA agents wet dream. You get groped because the alternative is causing a scene, getting detained, missing my flight, and thus missing out on the job which was my entire reason for entering the awful airport in the first place. A missed job means that there's no repeat next year, which puts my line of work and lively hood in jeopardy. Is it exciting? No. But it's reality.
Talk of standing up to "the man" is easy, but action is several orders of magnitude harder. I have student loans, I have an apartment and family which would go under if not for my income. Things really aren't bad enough yet to put all of that on the line. So you go through "security," get your balls groped because it's better than the alternative, and you press on.
I suspect that there are more like me than there are mindless "Gotta catch the terrorists at any cost!" people. Things would have to get much worse and actually tip the balance to where it makes sense to fight before I actually will.
Don't think of us all as terrorist fearing surrender monkeys.
I don't, and won't, fly for as long as the TSA gropes and scans people. That limits my rapid travel abilities and has prevented me from doing certain things, but I would rather maintain my principles on that matter. Does it actually do anything? Probably not. Nonetheless, I refuse to ever subject myself to such treatment.
The problem with the NSA outrage is that it's about what the NSA could do with the data, not what they have done.
The abuse of power is mostly theoretical at this point, and until we see confirmation that the NSA is using their knowledge of people for evil, it's all just speculation.
The privacy violations are simply not enough for people to care, and I'm not 100% sure they're wrong.
The abuse of power is mostly theoretical at this point, and until we see confirmation that the NSA is using their knowledge of people for evil, it's all just speculation.
The privacy violations are simply not enough for people to care, and I'm not 100% sure they're wrong.
This is all true, but it still doesn't mean the problem shouldn't be addressed.
And yes, the outrage is going to die down somewhat, the question then becomes how much is the media going to sell out their principles? Most people have to go back to their lives. But for journalists, it's their job to report on this sort of thing.
Are they going to continue hammering for answers? Are they going to continue to report on whether anything has been done about secret warrants and the FISA court?
Or are they going to give up at the first sign of fickleness in their audience and cater to their whimsy? Are they going to skip writing an article about the issue and instead write a meta-article about how people are no longer outraged about the issue?
And yes, the outrage is going to die down somewhat, the question then becomes how much is the media going to sell out their principles? Most people have to go back to their lives. But for journalists, it's their job to report on this sort of thing.
Are they going to continue hammering for answers? Are they going to continue to report on whether anything has been done about secret warrants and the FISA court?
Or are they going to give up at the first sign of fickleness in their audience and cater to their whimsy? Are they going to skip writing an article about the issue and instead write a meta-article about how people are no longer outraged about the issue?
If they are collecting and storing everyone's data, it will be abused. It's only a matter of time and gradually weaker requirements for accessing it.
It needs to be stopped now before they can abuse it.
It needs to be stopped now before they can abuse it.
Frankly, you don't know that.
We can wax Orwellian as much as we'd like, but until you actually have evidence of these supposed abuses happening, most people will recognize your slippery-slope for what it is, and stop paying attention to you.
Pre-crime goes both ways; are you really prepared to string up an organization for a crime it could commit, because you've "seen the future"?
We can wax Orwellian as much as we'd like, but until you actually have evidence of these supposed abuses happening, most people will recognize your slippery-slope for what it is, and stop paying attention to you.
Pre-crime goes both ways; are you really prepared to string up an organization for a crime it could commit, because you've "seen the future"?
When it's a government agency violating my privacy against my will, and against the spirit of the law, then yes, absolutely I am prepared to put limits on their ability to do that due to the extreme risk of abuse. Limits on government power exist for a reason. Because governments inevitably expand and abuse their power.
It's very very far from a foregone conclusion that they're a) violating the letter or spirit of any law and b) even violating your privacy in the first place.
Besides, the whole point of a democracy is that you, specifically, aren't supposed to have very much power. What you're prepared to do isn't what most people are prepared to do, because this perceived threat is not an actual threat, not yet.
And if you think governments inevitably expand and abuse their power, then you must believe that this fight is a useless and hopeless one, one you're doomed to lose. It's a nice line, but it doesn't fit with anything else you're trying to say.
Besides, the whole point of a democracy is that you, specifically, aren't supposed to have very much power. What you're prepared to do isn't what most people are prepared to do, because this perceived threat is not an actual threat, not yet.
And if you think governments inevitably expand and abuse their power, then you must believe that this fight is a useless and hopeless one, one you're doomed to lose. It's a nice line, but it doesn't fit with anything else you're trying to say.
They're collecting phone records of everyone. They say they haven't been collecting location data yet (I don't trust them, but we'll leave that aside for now) but a court just ruled that they are free to do so, so I expect they will start to if they haven't already. That violates my privacy even though it is technically legal.
Furthermore, collecting business records of everyone without a warrant requiring probable cause absolutely violates the spirit of the law they claim authorizes it, as evidenced by the authors of that very law saying so.
Your second paragraph is meaningless to the discussion, because what I, and others, are trying to do is raise awareness of the threats to convince others to act, which is something everyone is free to do on any subject.
Governments do inevitably push at the edges of everything they're allowed to do, which is why we have to keep enforcing and adding limitations as necessary to keep them from pushing out in new areas. It's not hopeless, as long as there are still independent branches of government that don't all work together on everything. Congress needs to establish firm limits and close the loopholes and twisted interpretations of law the executive branch continues to find and exploit.
Furthermore, collecting business records of everyone without a warrant requiring probable cause absolutely violates the spirit of the law they claim authorizes it, as evidenced by the authors of that very law saying so.
Your second paragraph is meaningless to the discussion, because what I, and others, are trying to do is raise awareness of the threats to convince others to act, which is something everyone is free to do on any subject.
Governments do inevitably push at the edges of everything they're allowed to do, which is why we have to keep enforcing and adding limitations as necessary to keep them from pushing out in new areas. It's not hopeless, as long as there are still independent branches of government that don't all work together on everything. Congress needs to establish firm limits and close the loopholes and twisted interpretations of law the executive branch continues to find and exploit.
They're not collecting everyone's phone records or location data at all times, that's absolutely untrue.
Can you provide a reason why collecting business records against the spirit of the law, or am I just supposed to take your word for it? Who, specifically, voted for and wrote the law that says this? What court agrees with them? There's a process in place for what you're talking about, and why hasn't that process been worked through?
You said, and I quote, "Because governments inevitably expand and abuse their power." If this is true, then there is nothing you can do to stop it (that's what the word inevitable means). Do you not think this is true?
You just take what you've read, and extrapolate it ten times over. It's making an open debate impossible. You're harming the process. Stop it.
Can you provide a reason why collecting business records against the spirit of the law, or am I just supposed to take your word for it? Who, specifically, voted for and wrote the law that says this? What court agrees with them? There's a process in place for what you're talking about, and why hasn't that process been worked through?
You said, and I quote, "Because governments inevitably expand and abuse their power." If this is true, then there is nothing you can do to stop it (that's what the word inevitable means). Do you not think this is true?
You just take what you've read, and extrapolate it ten times over. It's making an open debate impossible. You're harming the process. Stop it.
Whenever I fly I request a hand screening and it seems that more often than not the person screening me is more uncomfortable than I am. In the past I have literally walked a TSA employee through the procedure because he was to shy to touch me like he was "required" to.
It's not only passengers who struggle with this stuff but also the employees of the companies that require this kind of behavior.
It's not only passengers who struggle with this stuff but also the employees of the companies that require this kind of behavior.
I flew out of Newark twice last month, and both times I was the only person who requested a hand screening, and both times the TSA employee doing the screening just seemed pissed off with me for making them do it.
It does seem that sadly most people will just accept what ever ridiculous rules are forced upon them,
It does seem that sadly most people will just accept what ever ridiculous rules are forced upon them,
This was pretty much my experience as well. Also, a lot of the time, these TSA folks were just kids. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them are still barely out of high school.
I request a hand screening every time I fly as well. But I don't kid myself into thinking I'm effecting change.
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1946
Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1946
Then they came for the basement dwelling nerd, validating his entire existence.
Hm? Was that meant to be an insult to me? I'd appreciate hearing your full reasoning for the disparagement. From my perspective, I was only sharing a classic piece of literature that had a theme relevant to the parent's comment, with a message we all could learn from, that happens to be one of my favorite poems. I didn't claim to be out there, throwing myself on the line—though I did attend a protest on the matter, and have previously actively participated in a political campaign to support my views. Anyways, you were saying?
This and also never forget that on a global scale we are all living in the very upscale parts of the metropolis.
Of all those sci-fi stories I've read where there is one major oppressive force with their boot on a smaller oppressed group, WE ARE THAT BIG TOTALITARIAN NATION!
I'm saying we as in, we in the over-developed world. I'm personally a slav living in Sweden.
Of all those sci-fi stories I've read where there is one major oppressive force with their boot on a smaller oppressed group, WE ARE THAT BIG TOTALITARIAN NATION!
I'm saying we as in, we in the over-developed world. I'm personally a slav living in Sweden.
In many ways it resembles the story of Weimar republic and Hitler's ascension to power. There have been of lot of speculation about why that may have happened, what kind of social forces have made the population behave in a way that ultimately harmed everyone etc. but there was no way to test it experimentally.
Now there's a window of opportunity for social scientists to test the hypotheses and maybe even find out what's really going on in these kind of situations.
Now there's a window of opportunity for social scientists to test the hypotheses and maybe even find out what's really going on in these kind of situations.
> (btw, they gave themselves back the right to do the insider trading)
I've seen that claimed with regard to the amendment passed to the STOCK Act a few months ago, but those claims were wrong. Is there some other change I missed?
I've seen that claimed with regard to the amendment passed to the STOCK Act a few months ago, but those claims were wrong. Is there some other change I missed?
They removed the disclosure requirement so it's impossible to find out who is doing what, so it's impossible enforce.
http://nyulocal.com/national/2013/04/15/congress-quietly-rep...
They are really good at loopholes for themselves, really good.
http://nyulocal.com/national/2013/04/15/congress-quietly-rep...
They are really good at loopholes for themselves, really good.
They did NOT remove the disclosure requirement. What they did was change the disclosure requirement so that except for members of Congress, candidates for Congress, the President, and the Vice President, the disclosures are not placed in an online database.
So, enforcement against members of Congress, the President, and the Vice President has not changed. You can still look up their disclosures online. If you want to look at the disclosure of one of the other 28000 people covered, you can go look at the physical form they filed.
So, enforcement against members of Congress, the President, and the Vice President has not changed. You can still look up their disclosures online. If you want to look at the disclosure of one of the other 28000 people covered, you can go look at the physical form they filed.
[deleted](1)
I would right away move from Google, Microsoft, Apple, products if I had good alternatives.
Basically I do not use any Apple products, but Skype is the only Microsoft thing I use.
Duck Duck Go as search engine works, but still I like my personalized search results, they get me faster where I want to go. Though my search results should be secure and not spied upon. Duck Duck Go is also missing image search and some other problems like 25 Mb / 25 MB does not give me 0.125, but instead Provincial Trunk Highway 25, Brandon, Manitoba
Then comes the problem of phone operation systems. Ubuntu Unity, Firefox OS could be nice, but they are long way to come here. Only mobile operation system options for me are iOS, Android or that damn Windows currently.
It's pretty damn hard to stop using Facebook, Google+ or Twitter just for the reason of spying, because everyone of your friends is in one of them.
If I decide to stop using these systems where I can be spied upon I most likely will lose ability to contact most of my friends who are not technically skilled to use something like torchat or does not care that much to learn to use it.
If I leave these systems I can no longer easily inform my friends about the dangers of the systems they are using.
Thing is walled gardens are walled gardens and they are hard to compete with. Do I wait that people create better and secure services or go offline and never come back?
Basically I do not use any Apple products, but Skype is the only Microsoft thing I use.
Duck Duck Go as search engine works, but still I like my personalized search results, they get me faster where I want to go. Though my search results should be secure and not spied upon. Duck Duck Go is also missing image search and some other problems like 25 Mb / 25 MB does not give me 0.125, but instead Provincial Trunk Highway 25, Brandon, Manitoba
Then comes the problem of phone operation systems. Ubuntu Unity, Firefox OS could be nice, but they are long way to come here. Only mobile operation system options for me are iOS, Android or that damn Windows currently.
It's pretty damn hard to stop using Facebook, Google+ or Twitter just for the reason of spying, because everyone of your friends is in one of them.
If I decide to stop using these systems where I can be spied upon I most likely will lose ability to contact most of my friends who are not technically skilled to use something like torchat or does not care that much to learn to use it.
If I leave these systems I can no longer easily inform my friends about the dangers of the systems they are using.
Thing is walled gardens are walled gardens and they are hard to compete with. Do I wait that people create better and secure services or go offline and never come back?
Like any other outrage in the past few decades. We have become soft and there is nothing you can do about it. Instead of writing intellectual comments on the matter, we should go down the street, burn some tires, overthrow the government; stuff like that. Yet here I am,thinking that no one will be brave enough to initialize or follow me if I would. They made us soft and we obeyed. Don't tell me there is a civilized road to solving this because the stakes are way too high for anyone to turn in what we have become.
Americans don't know outrage. They've been trained from a young age to be apathetic and those that have the audacity to fight back have been systematically beaten down.
When's the last time they've had to mobilize the National Guard because there was a protest?
The entire American economy could collapse because of a giant banking scandal and people wouldn't even raise a fist in anger.
When's the last time they've had to mobilize the National Guard because there was a protest?
The entire American economy could collapse because of a giant banking scandal and people wouldn't even raise a fist in anger.
I don't think it's that we're not capable of getting angry or taking action. It's just that nobody can be bothered to do anything until something directly affects them.
The effects of PRISM are easy to ignore for most people because its not easily visible. On top of that many people actually accept it because they feel its a necessary trade off for security.
Add all that up with the fact that we get bored easily and that's how politicians are able to do just about anything they want. They just have to be a little more patient than the public.
The effects of PRISM are easy to ignore for most people because its not easily visible. On top of that many people actually accept it because they feel its a necessary trade off for security.
Add all that up with the fact that we get bored easily and that's how politicians are able to do just about anything they want. They just have to be a little more patient than the public.
The best part being these downvotes only proving the point.
People aren't protesting because like the article says...they really don't care. NSA spying doesn't directly affect them in any tangible way, so there is no reason for the average person to be upset. If people were being physically yanked from their homes and interrogated related to NSA spying intel, then it might be a different story I believe.
> Americans don't know outrage.
Americans have never experienced anything really worth being outraged about, at least not the current generation of people.
Americans have never experienced anything really worth being outraged about, at least not the current generation of people.
Spending over a trillion dollars on various nonsense wars, completely destroying the education system, massive youth unemployment, a political system with candidates entirely out of touch with their base, you know, nothing to get upset about.
The problem is if you asked a dozen people from the under-20 demographic what "Occupy Wall Street" is it's like half would have no clue.
The problem is if you asked a dozen people from the under-20 demographic what "Occupy Wall Street" is it's like half would have no clue.
Probably far more than half. Because even unemployed 19 year olds in the U.S. have a vastly better quality of life than hardworking people in the rest of the world.
Regarding your points:
1) The U.S., like every major western power in the last couple of hundred years, uses war to achieve political objectives. In the case of the Iraq war, it was to turn a regime that was slipping out from under America's thumb and replace it with one that was friendlier to the U.S. That happened. Regardless of whether you think the war was ultimately in the U.S.'s interests, it's hard to call something that so much of the population supported so long truly outrageous. "Outrageous" must be more than mere political disagreement.
2) There is nothing outrageous about the U.S. educational system. Adjusted for our socio-economic demographics, the U.S. performs about the same on international educational tests as western european countries: http://www.epi.org/publication/us-student-performance-testin.... In the U.S., the educational system has become the whipping boy for deep-rooted sociological problems. In a nutshell, whites enslaved black people for hundreds of years, systematically denied them the opportunity to advance, and when the Supreme Court forced integration just 60 years ago, whites responded by fleeing the cities to homogenous suburbs, leaving urban cores full of poor blacks and none of the infrastructure of functioning middle class society. On the other front, we let in huge numbers of low-income Hispanic immigrants, far more than we can effectively integrate into the larger society. In the face of all this, we have the gall to blame it all on the educational system.
When Chicago's public school system drag's down the average of the whole of Illinois, everyone blames the schools. They blame No Child Left Behind, they blame teachers, they blame the Department of Education. But it's not the schools' fault that so many of those kids have no fathers, that the neighborhoods are dominated by gangs, that the kids come from generations of families without any education. There is no educational fix to these sociological problems. The solution isn't within the government's power, and certainly not within that of the schools. The solution is all the middle class people from the Detroit suburbs moving back into the city, stabilizing the social structure of the city, sending their kids to Detroit public schools so as to dilute the influence of social phenomena like gangs that thrive in low-income ghettos, and to build functioning integrated communities with broad parental involvement. Butt hat will happen when hell freezes over, and until then people will complain ceaselessly about the government's failure with regard to education.
3) Massive youth unemployment relative to who else? U.S. youth unemployment rate (15-24) is right around the OECD average, below all of the big western European countries except Germany: http://www.economist.com/node/21528614.
Regarding your points:
1) The U.S., like every major western power in the last couple of hundred years, uses war to achieve political objectives. In the case of the Iraq war, it was to turn a regime that was slipping out from under America's thumb and replace it with one that was friendlier to the U.S. That happened. Regardless of whether you think the war was ultimately in the U.S.'s interests, it's hard to call something that so much of the population supported so long truly outrageous. "Outrageous" must be more than mere political disagreement.
2) There is nothing outrageous about the U.S. educational system. Adjusted for our socio-economic demographics, the U.S. performs about the same on international educational tests as western european countries: http://www.epi.org/publication/us-student-performance-testin.... In the U.S., the educational system has become the whipping boy for deep-rooted sociological problems. In a nutshell, whites enslaved black people for hundreds of years, systematically denied them the opportunity to advance, and when the Supreme Court forced integration just 60 years ago, whites responded by fleeing the cities to homogenous suburbs, leaving urban cores full of poor blacks and none of the infrastructure of functioning middle class society. On the other front, we let in huge numbers of low-income Hispanic immigrants, far more than we can effectively integrate into the larger society. In the face of all this, we have the gall to blame it all on the educational system.
When Chicago's public school system drag's down the average of the whole of Illinois, everyone blames the schools. They blame No Child Left Behind, they blame teachers, they blame the Department of Education. But it's not the schools' fault that so many of those kids have no fathers, that the neighborhoods are dominated by gangs, that the kids come from generations of families without any education. There is no educational fix to these sociological problems. The solution isn't within the government's power, and certainly not within that of the schools. The solution is all the middle class people from the Detroit suburbs moving back into the city, stabilizing the social structure of the city, sending their kids to Detroit public schools so as to dilute the influence of social phenomena like gangs that thrive in low-income ghettos, and to build functioning integrated communities with broad parental involvement. Butt hat will happen when hell freezes over, and until then people will complain ceaselessly about the government's failure with regard to education.
3) Massive youth unemployment relative to who else? U.S. youth unemployment rate (15-24) is right around the OECD average, below all of the big western European countries except Germany: http://www.economist.com/node/21528614.
> Adjusted for our socio-economic demographics, the U.S. performs about the same on international educational tests as western european countries
You've been very perceptive in recognizing the situation on US educational system, but you overlook the fact that the socio-economic class who's doing poorly is increasingly getting bigger. I think therein lies the problem -- and, the continuing streak of anti-intellectualism has this peculiar feature of worsening everything around it ten-fold, and it's extremely seductive because of the capitalistic factor (dumbed down movie/shows dialogues, dumbed down news, etc.). A vast amount of data at this point portends social unrest in terms of class warfare, politics, etc. What'll happen when unemployment keeps going up, when the clamor of "entitlement programs" gets more agitated, when school systems get even more stressed with funding issues? I really think that's where shit will hit the fan.
> The solution is all the middle class people from the Detroit suburbs moving back into the city, stabilizing the social structure of the city, sending their kids to Detroit public schools so as to dilute the influence of social phenomena like gangs that thrive in low-income ghettos, and to build functioning integrated communities with broad parental involvement. Butt hat will happen when hell freezes over, and until then people will complain ceaselessly about the government's failure with regard to education.
Right, exactly. So, the way I see it, there are a good many reasons for alarm. I spent my teenage years in American inner cities, so yes I know just how bad it is, I saw at least 2 fights per week or so breaking out in high school that would end up in police involvement.
Can you think of a solution? The best solution I can think of: boarding schools, that are run like military schools, that get teens away from the bad neighborhoods for at least 8 months of the year, that give them some tough love treatment to discipline them.
You've been very perceptive in recognizing the situation on US educational system, but you overlook the fact that the socio-economic class who's doing poorly is increasingly getting bigger. I think therein lies the problem -- and, the continuing streak of anti-intellectualism has this peculiar feature of worsening everything around it ten-fold, and it's extremely seductive because of the capitalistic factor (dumbed down movie/shows dialogues, dumbed down news, etc.). A vast amount of data at this point portends social unrest in terms of class warfare, politics, etc. What'll happen when unemployment keeps going up, when the clamor of "entitlement programs" gets more agitated, when school systems get even more stressed with funding issues? I really think that's where shit will hit the fan.
> The solution is all the middle class people from the Detroit suburbs moving back into the city, stabilizing the social structure of the city, sending their kids to Detroit public schools so as to dilute the influence of social phenomena like gangs that thrive in low-income ghettos, and to build functioning integrated communities with broad parental involvement. Butt hat will happen when hell freezes over, and until then people will complain ceaselessly about the government's failure with regard to education.
Right, exactly. So, the way I see it, there are a good many reasons for alarm. I spent my teenage years in American inner cities, so yes I know just how bad it is, I saw at least 2 fights per week or so breaking out in high school that would end up in police involvement.
Can you think of a solution? The best solution I can think of: boarding schools, that are run like military schools, that get teens away from the bad neighborhoods for at least 8 months of the year, that give them some tough love treatment to discipline them.
The only reason there's bad neighborhoods is because people have stopped caring, and the only reason they've stopped caring is because they're powerless to change anything.
There are some instances in places like Detroit where neighbors have banded together to fight off thugs, gangs, and dealers, and it seems to be working a lot better than relying on the erratic or indifferent response of local police forces.
The solution isn't military schools, it's people taking the initiative and asserting themselves, having a direct hand in reshaping their neighbourhood.
There are some instances in places like Detroit where neighbors have banded together to fight off thugs, gangs, and dealers, and it seems to be working a lot better than relying on the erratic or indifferent response of local police forces.
The solution isn't military schools, it's people taking the initiative and asserting themselves, having a direct hand in reshaping their neighbourhood.
> The only reason there's bad neighborhoods is because people have stopped caring, and the only reason they've stopped caring is because they're powerless to change anything.
If they are powerless to change anything, then them caring or not is irrelevant.
The reason that there are bad neighborhoods is that the people that aren't "powerless to change anything" (who may or may not live in the neighborhood, but nevertheless influence it by their power, including the power to direct resources away from it) have either stopped caring or, more often, have active interests that are served by actions which hurt the neighborhood.
If they are powerless to change anything, then them caring or not is irrelevant.
The reason that there are bad neighborhoods is that the people that aren't "powerless to change anything" (who may or may not live in the neighborhood, but nevertheless influence it by their power, including the power to direct resources away from it) have either stopped caring or, more often, have active interests that are served by actions which hurt the neighborhood.
The solution has to be practical and doable. It seems to me campaigning for boarding schools as a solution to the ills of society and getting them open is more doable than somehow getting people to take the initiative.
> Can you think of a solution?
Honestly, I can't. I've recently been on a tour of the Delaware Valley for job-related purposes, and visited Camden, Trenton, etc. And I don't know what can be done. Ending the drug war would probably help, but I think we've got Iraq-scale rebuilding to do in some of our cities...
Honestly, I can't. I've recently been on a tour of the Delaware Valley for job-related purposes, and visited Camden, Trenton, etc. And I don't know what can be done. Ending the drug war would probably help, but I think we've got Iraq-scale rebuilding to do in some of our cities...
And yet, if we actually decide to do Iraq-scale rebuilding of our inner cities you'll see people shouting "SOCIALISM!!!" Makes me wonder how we ever won the populace support to spend that kind of money on Iraq/Afghanistan. I guess probably because it was packaged as a threat "If we don't go over there they're going to bomb us because they hate our freedom". So perhaps one line of campaigning to get funding for social programs for inner cities could be "If we don't go over in inner cities to rebuild them they're going to start coming into your suburb homes and steal your stuff and make your life miserable".
> When Chicago's public school system drag's down the average of the whole of Illinois, everyone blames the schools. They blame No Child Left Behind, they blame teachers, they blame the Department of Education. But it's not the schools' fault that so many of those kids have no fathers, that the neighborhoods are dominated by gangs, that the kids come from generations of families without any education. There is no educational fix to these sociological problems. The solution isn't within the government's power, and certainly not within that of the schools.
IT probably isn't within the schools power, but not the governments? Who alloctes law enforcement resources -- resulting in safe areas and gang-dominated ones? Who sets tax policies and, through them, drives the distribution of the rewards of the economic system? Who pumps as much as the rest of the world combined into military spending, over other priorities like, say, adult education, urban law enforcement, etc.
The problems you point to are, in many cases, not within the power of the schools to correct, but they seem to be direct products of government decisions about priorities, so I am suspicious of the claim that they are outside the power of the government to correct (outside the interest of the government to correct, perhaps.)
IT probably isn't within the schools power, but not the governments? Who alloctes law enforcement resources -- resulting in safe areas and gang-dominated ones? Who sets tax policies and, through them, drives the distribution of the rewards of the economic system? Who pumps as much as the rest of the world combined into military spending, over other priorities like, say, adult education, urban law enforcement, etc.
The problems you point to are, in many cases, not within the power of the schools to correct, but they seem to be direct products of government decisions about priorities, so I am suspicious of the claim that they are outside the power of the government to correct (outside the interest of the government to correct, perhaps.)
I think it's a cop-out to say that the problems are the result of the government's priorities. I think the problems are the result of peoples' priorities.
My view is that you can't have functioning, stable societies without strong social ties. And in the U.S. much more so than in Western Europe, those social ties have broken down, especially across racial and socio-economic lines. And when middle and upper class people have no personal investment in the social institutions that lower class people depend on, there is nothing the government can do to fix that.
I'll give you a concrete, personal example. I'm moving to Wilmington, DE because my wife is starting a job there. Wilmington is one of the most dangerous cities in the country, adjusted for population. It's also about 60% African-American, and 25% of the population is below the poverty line. My wife and I have identified one of the few neighborhoods in downtown Wilmington where we'd be willing to live, a new development by the riverfront. The development is literally walled-off from the rest of the city. I-95 divides it from the neighborhoods to the north-west. The Amtrak line, built on a raised stonework viaduct with only a few points of access underneath, separates it from neighborhoods to the north-east. The river and a wildlife refuge separates it from neighborhoods to the south and southeast. None of the people in the city who work for the law firms or the banks, or DuPont, etc, send their kids to the downtown public schools, and as a result have no investment in the quality of those schools (even though its overwhelmingly their tax dollars that fund those schools). The two groups of people live in a city where the downtown core is just a mile across in each direction, and yet somehow live and work in a completely disjoint set of residential areas and workplaces, segregated by race and class.
So tell me how the government is going to fix Wilmington, DE? Or Camden, NJ? Or Baltimore, MD? This is a situation that is replicated all over the country and it's intractable.
My view is that you can't have functioning, stable societies without strong social ties. And in the U.S. much more so than in Western Europe, those social ties have broken down, especially across racial and socio-economic lines. And when middle and upper class people have no personal investment in the social institutions that lower class people depend on, there is nothing the government can do to fix that.
I'll give you a concrete, personal example. I'm moving to Wilmington, DE because my wife is starting a job there. Wilmington is one of the most dangerous cities in the country, adjusted for population. It's also about 60% African-American, and 25% of the population is below the poverty line. My wife and I have identified one of the few neighborhoods in downtown Wilmington where we'd be willing to live, a new development by the riverfront. The development is literally walled-off from the rest of the city. I-95 divides it from the neighborhoods to the north-west. The Amtrak line, built on a raised stonework viaduct with only a few points of access underneath, separates it from neighborhoods to the north-east. The river and a wildlife refuge separates it from neighborhoods to the south and southeast. None of the people in the city who work for the law firms or the banks, or DuPont, etc, send their kids to the downtown public schools, and as a result have no investment in the quality of those schools (even though its overwhelmingly their tax dollars that fund those schools). The two groups of people live in a city where the downtown core is just a mile across in each direction, and yet somehow live and work in a completely disjoint set of residential areas and workplaces, segregated by race and class.
So tell me how the government is going to fix Wilmington, DE? Or Camden, NJ? Or Baltimore, MD? This is a situation that is replicated all over the country and it's intractable.
> I think it's a cop-out to say that the problems are the result of the government's priorities. I think the problems are the result of peoples' priorities.
Okay.
The problems are a result of peoples' priorities, as implemented through the government.
That doesn't make it any less within the power of government to stop causing problems. The things you point to about social ties are why it is not in the interest of the government (and the people who influence it) to correct the problems, not why it is not within the power of government to do so.
Okay.
The problems are a result of peoples' priorities, as implemented through the government.
That doesn't make it any less within the power of government to stop causing problems. The things you point to about social ties are why it is not in the interest of the government (and the people who influence it) to correct the problems, not why it is not within the power of government to do so.
You can't legislate social cohesion. San Francisco, for example, tried. They made it so school assignments were heavily randomized and living in a wealthy neighborhood was no guarantee of your kid going to the local school. And it was a miserable failure of a policy. Instead of taking the chance of little Timmy going to school with 50% Chinese immigrants, families just left the city for the suburbs as soon as they had kids. They abandoned the policy just a couple of years ago.
You certainly can legislate to promote or inhibit social cohesion. (The family-priority structure of much of the US legal immigration system is one example of how you can promote it, and the poorly-aligned-with-demand per-country/per-category quotas and resulting huge immigration delays in legal, family-based categories are an even better example of how you legislate to inhibit it.) There's plenty of examples (on both sides, because US policy is incoherent as regards this goal) in other policy areas besides immigration.
What are some of them, outside immigration?
There are some social residence programs that place minorities/lower-class folks in areas with good schools, high average incomes, etc. If I recall correctly (I heard it on NPR a few months ago) the program had varying degrees of success -- some folks just couldn't fit in and opted to go back previous inner-city residences, while some actually saw measurable improvement in quality of life: children doing better in school, improved outlook and satisfaction.
You probably saw the research results of the crack baby studies -- as it turned out poverty plays an incredibly big role in how children grow up [1]. So I really think this is something we need to continue experimenting with. Sadly, these residency programs cost a lot and most communities are unwilling to fund it. So really the first step is convincing people the reality of these things -- e.g., my neighbor, an incredibly smart biomedical engineer, calls advocates of these programs "troublemakers" who want to "bring socialism" into this country.
[1]: http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/2013/0725/Crack-...
You probably saw the research results of the crack baby studies -- as it turned out poverty plays an incredibly big role in how children grow up [1]. So I really think this is something we need to continue experimenting with. Sadly, these residency programs cost a lot and most communities are unwilling to fund it. So really the first step is convincing people the reality of these things -- e.g., my neighbor, an incredibly smart biomedical engineer, calls advocates of these programs "troublemakers" who want to "bring socialism" into this country.
[1]: http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/2013/0725/Crack-...
You can't legislate social cohesion.
Singapore does. I don't know enough about Singapore to know how well that is working out, though.
Singapore does. I don't know enough about Singapore to know how well that is working out, though.
The US has never been shy about using its military power, but to fight two wars of aggression simultaneously with only limited opposition speaks to how passive or passively supportive the population has become. Killing hundreds of thousands is just the cost of doing business, apparently. At least it wasn't Mexico where things would be awkwardly close to home, right?
> ...[America] let in huge numbers of low-income Hispanic immigrants...
They aren't low-income immigrants, they're immigrants who are paid low incomes. This is exactly the same as happened to the Irish, the Polish, and the Italians.
Your arguments basically boil down to race being a huge factor, but maybe it's more a case of racism than race.
As for unemployment, the United States is not as bad as the worst basket cases of Europe, but that's hardly worth celebrating. Unemployment has doubled according to the numbers you've provided. Isn't that a bit worrying? Isn't nearly 20% unemployment just a little high? It's like Spain was in 2005 and look what happened then.
> ...[America] let in huge numbers of low-income Hispanic immigrants...
They aren't low-income immigrants, they're immigrants who are paid low incomes. This is exactly the same as happened to the Irish, the Polish, and the Italians.
Your arguments basically boil down to race being a huge factor, but maybe it's more a case of racism than race.
As for unemployment, the United States is not as bad as the worst basket cases of Europe, but that's hardly worth celebrating. Unemployment has doubled according to the numbers you've provided. Isn't that a bit worrying? Isn't nearly 20% unemployment just a little high? It's like Spain was in 2005 and look what happened then.
> Killing hundreds of thousands is just the cost of doing business, apparently.
And always has been. The U.S. has been aggressive in using "military diplomacy" since the Spanish-American war, if not earlier. And when you're the dominant military power in the world, that's probably the winning play.
> They aren't low-income immigrants, they're immigrants who are paid low incomes.
They're paid low incomes because they have no education and little skills. Yes, their experience matches that of the Irish, the Polish, etc, but back then people weren't bashing the U.S. educational system for the fact that poor Irish immigrants weren't doing well in school. This is not an argument against immigration--its an argument against papering over the fundamentally different demographic factors at play in the U.S. when condemning its education system relative to that of Western European countries.
> Your arguments basically boil down to race being a huge factor, but maybe it's more a case of racism than race.
There is nothing racist about pointing out that the U.S. faces sociological challenges that most western European countries do not. It's the policies that led to those sociological challenges that are racist (slavery, segregation, white flight, the drug war).
And always has been. The U.S. has been aggressive in using "military diplomacy" since the Spanish-American war, if not earlier. And when you're the dominant military power in the world, that's probably the winning play.
> They aren't low-income immigrants, they're immigrants who are paid low incomes.
They're paid low incomes because they have no education and little skills. Yes, their experience matches that of the Irish, the Polish, etc, but back then people weren't bashing the U.S. educational system for the fact that poor Irish immigrants weren't doing well in school. This is not an argument against immigration--its an argument against papering over the fundamentally different demographic factors at play in the U.S. when condemning its education system relative to that of Western European countries.
> Your arguments basically boil down to race being a huge factor, but maybe it's more a case of racism than race.
There is nothing racist about pointing out that the U.S. faces sociological challenges that most western European countries do not. It's the policies that led to those sociological challenges that are racist (slavery, segregation, white flight, the drug war).
> ...back then people weren't bashing the U.S. educational system for the fact that poor Irish immigrants weren't doing well in school...
Back then it was okay to bash them for just "being Irish" and there wasn't much of an education system to criticize.
The demographic challenges the US faces are not unlike those in Spain, Britain, France, or any country that's had to absorb a portion of its colonial population.
The US seems to favor hyper-segregation, where you have schools that are 99% black and others that are 99% white. Integrated schools, by and large, simply don't exist.
Back then it was okay to bash them for just "being Irish" and there wasn't much of an education system to criticize.
The demographic challenges the US faces are not unlike those in Spain, Britain, France, or any country that's had to absorb a portion of its colonial population.
The US seems to favor hyper-segregation, where you have schools that are 99% black and others that are 99% white. Integrated schools, by and large, simply don't exist.
> The US seems to favor hyper-segregation, where you have schools that are 99% black and others that are 99% white.
The segregation of US schools is largely a product of the segregation of the US population more generally.
The segregation of US schools is largely a product of the segregation of the US population more generally.
The NSA is collecting information; nerds rage at how the U.S. has become a third world dictatorship; lawyers argue about whether it's legal or not; the average American rightly realizes that nothing has happened that is worth burning tires and trying to overthrow the government over.
There is no civilized way to overthrow a government that no longer has the interests of its people at heart. Luckily, we don't live under such a government. At worst we have a bunch of misguided old people that don't realize that the internet is much more valuable to younger people than just the tool for commerce they perceive it as. At the end of the day, the kind of liberties that average Americans care about, the kind that affects the lives of Americans directly: being able to own guns, being able to get abortions, being able to belong to religious groups, however mainstream or wacky, being able to criticize the government, etc, are strongly in place. And despite the recession, Americans still enjoy among the highest standards of living of any large liberal democracy on the planet. Few Americans would trade places with someone in Spain or Italy, or the UK (with its oppressive laws re: speech and guns) for that matter.
There is no civilized way to overthrow a government that no longer has the interests of its people at heart. Luckily, we don't live under such a government. At worst we have a bunch of misguided old people that don't realize that the internet is much more valuable to younger people than just the tool for commerce they perceive it as. At the end of the day, the kind of liberties that average Americans care about, the kind that affects the lives of Americans directly: being able to own guns, being able to get abortions, being able to belong to religious groups, however mainstream or wacky, being able to criticize the government, etc, are strongly in place. And despite the recession, Americans still enjoy among the highest standards of living of any large liberal democracy on the planet. Few Americans would trade places with someone in Spain or Italy, or the UK (with its oppressive laws re: speech and guns) for that matter.
It’s not simply apathy, and personally I think one of the most dangerous things is for American’s to blame ourselves for lack of change when the system is pretty much designed to minimize civil unrest.
The biggest issue is simply comfort. Most HNers work for pretty cool companies, but even then how many would face repercussions if they took the day off to burn tires in the street? Also this type of serious protest you discuss does happen for just a day, but maybe weeks (or longer). Many HNers would definitely face employment concerns if they took weeks off to protest, and most people outside the tech community would be fired/seriously repremanded as the employer/employee balance of power is extremely imbalanced right now.
The surveillance state is, imho, one of the greatest existential threats to individual freedom in the history of the US, but for anyone looking at the risk calculus it’s still a future threat: today you have tons of food, entertainment, a place to live and most people don’t actually feel the affects of the shrinking limitations on freedom (in fact the only people who do are those who are fighting against this changes, another point in favor of not protesting from the pov of risk).
So the calculus of pleasure means for most people protest is more painful than the current state of things. But there’s also the pain factor. Most Americans are aware of the incarceration rate of the US. We’re also aware of the terrible conditions in US prisons. We know the fate that became Manning, can only imagine what will happen to Snowden and under the current administration US citizens have even been targeted for assassination (no due process involved). Not only is there a threat of reduced pleasure to consider, you really, really don’t want to face punishment at the hands of the US government.
Finally there’s the completely uninteresting but real problem of geolocation: The US is a huge country, where are we going to meet? Even in DC today most protester are actually hired to protest, they aren’t concerned citizens but paid by a group of concerned citizens to protest in a formulaic and safe way.
Assaults on American freedoms are being extracted in such a brilliant way that pleasure/pain calculus won’t sway in favor of massive protest and unrest until the government has such power that such protests can be squashed before their inception (this is exactly why the surveillance state is so dangerous).
But please don’t turn your anger inward or towards other Americans: learn about tools that can fight the surveillance state (legal and technical), start small community discussion about these topics, and continue to fund organizations that are fighting for your rights in these domain. And yes keep being angry on HN, everyone who up or down votes your comment at least has to think about what is being said.
The biggest issue is simply comfort. Most HNers work for pretty cool companies, but even then how many would face repercussions if they took the day off to burn tires in the street? Also this type of serious protest you discuss does happen for just a day, but maybe weeks (or longer). Many HNers would definitely face employment concerns if they took weeks off to protest, and most people outside the tech community would be fired/seriously repremanded as the employer/employee balance of power is extremely imbalanced right now.
The surveillance state is, imho, one of the greatest existential threats to individual freedom in the history of the US, but for anyone looking at the risk calculus it’s still a future threat: today you have tons of food, entertainment, a place to live and most people don’t actually feel the affects of the shrinking limitations on freedom (in fact the only people who do are those who are fighting against this changes, another point in favor of not protesting from the pov of risk).
So the calculus of pleasure means for most people protest is more painful than the current state of things. But there’s also the pain factor. Most Americans are aware of the incarceration rate of the US. We’re also aware of the terrible conditions in US prisons. We know the fate that became Manning, can only imagine what will happen to Snowden and under the current administration US citizens have even been targeted for assassination (no due process involved). Not only is there a threat of reduced pleasure to consider, you really, really don’t want to face punishment at the hands of the US government.
Finally there’s the completely uninteresting but real problem of geolocation: The US is a huge country, where are we going to meet? Even in DC today most protester are actually hired to protest, they aren’t concerned citizens but paid by a group of concerned citizens to protest in a formulaic and safe way.
Assaults on American freedoms are being extracted in such a brilliant way that pleasure/pain calculus won’t sway in favor of massive protest and unrest until the government has such power that such protests can be squashed before their inception (this is exactly why the surveillance state is so dangerous).
But please don’t turn your anger inward or towards other Americans: learn about tools that can fight the surveillance state (legal and technical), start small community discussion about these topics, and continue to fund organizations that are fighting for your rights in these domain. And yes keep being angry on HN, everyone who up or down votes your comment at least has to think about what is being said.
I don't think Americans are soft; I think they know that the odds aren't in their favour. America is a massive country, so it is hard to reach critical mass - the point at which people feel they can go out and "raise hell" without simply getting arrested/killed because their group is too small and lacking in support. For example, the Restore The Fourth protests were extremely tiny. They barely made a blip in international news, which tends to feature happenings in the US prominently. An uprising of that size would be extinguished almost immediately if it became violent or destructive. However, if the streets were filled with angry protesters, to the point where local police might not be able to handle it, then people would more open to revolutionary action. At a certain point, people will recognize the risk/reward balance is in their favor, but right now it is not anywhere close. I think you can blame the fact that Americans have fairly comfortable lives. If Americans were going hungry, it would be different.
In the USA, there's a chance to completely revamp the government (well, Executive and Legislative branches, anyways) every 6 years. No anarchy required.
That is a pipe dream they sell to keep people compliant. It costs a lot of money to run a campaign. Oddly enough we have these weird rules where the fund raising entities can hide where the money is originally coming from. Most likely because both parties are being funded by the same source, the whole two party system is a fraud that is used to keep people docile with the illusion of choice. Under the current system we have no choice, the whole thing needs to be torn down and rebuilt....
No one forces anyone to vote for any candidate. No argument that it costs a lot of money to run a campaign, and perhaps that should be changed. But ultimately, I think the majority of the country (myself included) thinks that the best way isn't to tear the country apart and start from scratch, it's to work with what we have. And outside of just money, there are plenty of other ways to get involved, starting in your community. Start with your local representatives if you want, and clean house from there. Go door to door in your neighborhood and talk to people one-on-one and get the movement started!
Again you can't change it by voting for candidates when they all bow to the same master. You must first remove those who control the system.
Mole people?
Seriously, who? CEOs? Wall Street CEOs? CEOs tend to act according to the board & shareholders, and if they don't, they tend to get replaced with someone else. The largest shareholders tend to be places who get money from 401k plans, or pension funds. Want to send a real message? Convince everyone to stop contributing to 401k's or their pension funds. The money dries up, Wall Street feels the pinch in a BIG way (to the tune of trillions), the big corporations fold / find a new CEO that will convince people to put their money back into the markets.
Seriously, who? CEOs? Wall Street CEOs? CEOs tend to act according to the board & shareholders, and if they don't, they tend to get replaced with someone else. The largest shareholders tend to be places who get money from 401k plans, or pension funds. Want to send a real message? Convince everyone to stop contributing to 401k's or their pension funds. The money dries up, Wall Street feels the pinch in a BIG way (to the tune of trillions), the big corporations fold / find a new CEO that will convince people to put their money back into the markets.
You should do more research into the subject, sadly, is well documented but people tend not to believe or acknowledge it. In fact the knee jerk react when it is mentioned is to call everyone who has looked into it a cook or a quack.
Regardless there is a group of individuals who have been pushing their agenda for well over a 100 years now, they have been instrumental in enacting federal taxes, the federal reserve, the moving off of the gold standard, and pretty much every war we have fought. The control the candidates and those who serve in their cabinets. You can start by looking at www.cfr.org.
Kings, Presidents, Congressman all are interchangeable and just pawns to them.
Regardless there is a group of individuals who have been pushing their agenda for well over a 100 years now, they have been instrumental in enacting federal taxes, the federal reserve, the moving off of the gold standard, and pretty much every war we have fought. The control the candidates and those who serve in their cabinets. You can start by looking at www.cfr.org.
Kings, Presidents, Congressman all are interchangeable and just pawns to them.
> It costs a lot of money to run a campaign.
That's exactly the barrier to entry. Obviously, it plays in favor of a few ultra-rich people.
And that's why they will try everything so money will NOT be taken out of politics.
That's exactly the barrier to entry. Obviously, it plays in favor of a few ultra-rich people.
And that's why they will try everything so money will NOT be taken out of politics.
[deleted](1)
For the average citizen it's all about reward and risk. A large population of the US is middle class and the risk of being detained, alienated or whatnot is far greater than the reward of complete liberty. And besides the surface illusion of liberty seems to be doing an alright job anyways.
Now if the majority of US population sinks into poverty then the elite will have something to worry about. A far more likely scenario for the near future is that smaller countries become affected by citizen outrage, at which point they cut US political and economic influence out of their governments' decisions. You know how America imposes sanctions on Cuba? Well imagine that a large portion of the world imposes sanctions on the US. That might have some meaningful effect although an ongoing relationship with China alone might be enough to keep the US going for a while.
Now if the majority of US population sinks into poverty then the elite will have something to worry about. A far more likely scenario for the near future is that smaller countries become affected by citizen outrage, at which point they cut US political and economic influence out of their governments' decisions. You know how America imposes sanctions on Cuba? Well imagine that a large portion of the world imposes sanctions on the US. That might have some meaningful effect although an ongoing relationship with China alone might be enough to keep the US going for a while.
Elected officials don't have a reason to action any concern unless you're willing to change your vote over it (indeed, if lots of people are willing to change all their votes over it.)[1]
Something like PRISM doesn't even get the requisite majority support (well, it does for email, not for phone records), let alone high enough priority to make people vote for some third "privacy party" candidate in the next presidential election, or to vote out legislators based on their support for it. It doesn't stand a chance of being changed.
(except by a ruling that it breaches the 4th, which is rather unlikely, sadly.)
[1] example from the UK; leaving the EU (most people would say yes, but wouldn't change their vote over it). House of Lords reform, too. If we ever get a referendum on either, boom!
Something like PRISM doesn't even get the requisite majority support (well, it does for email, not for phone records), let alone high enough priority to make people vote for some third "privacy party" candidate in the next presidential election, or to vote out legislators based on their support for it. It doesn't stand a chance of being changed.
(except by a ruling that it breaches the 4th, which is rather unlikely, sadly.)
[1] example from the UK; leaving the EU (most people would say yes, but wouldn't change their vote over it). House of Lords reform, too. If we ever get a referendum on either, boom!
Most people in the US probably assume that:
* the agencies performing surveillance by and large have good intentions
* surveillance has or will have no practical impact on their lives, because
* they're not doing anything wrong, so they're probably fine, and anyway
* they can't really do anything about it.
As for the first, it reminds me of this Onion article: "Smart, Qualified People Behind The Scenes Keeping America Safe: 'We Don't Exist'"[0]. We have ordinary people, people with flaws and cognitive biases. They're hyper-sensitized to threats, convinced we're all in imminent danger unless we institute mass surveillance For Our Own Good. This is essentially a flawed premise (the road to hell, etc).
The second is more or less correct. It makes no difference in one's daily life.
In the third, I chose the word "wrong" deliberately. Most people incorrectly assume they've not done anything illegal, but most people don't have nefarious plans and therefore assume they've nothing to worry about.
The third is also more or less correct, but it's a flawed premise that you, personally, have to be able to do something about it.
I really think more people should be educated along the lines of "Don't Talk to the Cops"[1]. Even if you have no nefarious plans, the justice system's incentives are all aligned against you; they want convictions, not the truth. The adversarial nature of the system is predicated on you not being thoughtlessly compliant.
[0]: http://www.theonion.com/articles/smart-qualified-people-behi... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik.
edited: formatting. wish I knew how to do bulleted lists.
* the agencies performing surveillance by and large have good intentions
* surveillance has or will have no practical impact on their lives, because
* they're not doing anything wrong, so they're probably fine, and anyway
* they can't really do anything about it.
As for the first, it reminds me of this Onion article: "Smart, Qualified People Behind The Scenes Keeping America Safe: 'We Don't Exist'"[0]. We have ordinary people, people with flaws and cognitive biases. They're hyper-sensitized to threats, convinced we're all in imminent danger unless we institute mass surveillance For Our Own Good. This is essentially a flawed premise (the road to hell, etc).
The second is more or less correct. It makes no difference in one's daily life.
In the third, I chose the word "wrong" deliberately. Most people incorrectly assume they've not done anything illegal, but most people don't have nefarious plans and therefore assume they've nothing to worry about.
The third is also more or less correct, but it's a flawed premise that you, personally, have to be able to do something about it.
I really think more people should be educated along the lines of "Don't Talk to the Cops"[1]. Even if you have no nefarious plans, the justice system's incentives are all aligned against you; they want convictions, not the truth. The adversarial nature of the system is predicated on you not being thoughtlessly compliant.
[0]: http://www.theonion.com/articles/smart-qualified-people-behi... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik.
edited: formatting. wish I knew how to do bulleted lists.
i haven't lived in America long enough, I'm Asian. I lived in Australia for long enough to know what democracy feels like, at least on the surface.
But this incident is really something that I can't comprehend. What's happening to all those crouching potential heroes in American movies? The only hero I've seen so far is Snowden. Where have all those American brave cowboys gone? Where has the American dream gone? The dream of liberty, freedom, of a Fair country?
Haven't lived in America myself, but from the self-confident, open-minded Americans I met, from Hollywood movies, I just can't understand why people are kinda OK with this incident. Why are people so tolerant to such a pretty big lie.
But this incident is really something that I can't comprehend. What's happening to all those crouching potential heroes in American movies? The only hero I've seen so far is Snowden. Where have all those American brave cowboys gone? Where has the American dream gone? The dream of liberty, freedom, of a Fair country?
Haven't lived in America myself, but from the self-confident, open-minded Americans I met, from Hollywood movies, I just can't understand why people are kinda OK with this incident. Why are people so tolerant to such a pretty big lie.
I think privacy is already gone. I remember Geraldo Rivera going on a "Privacy is gone forever" rant after 9/11, and I was ashamed to admit that I actually agreed with him.
Not sure why this article has been flagged, but here's an anecdotal counterpoint. I run a public XMPP server listed on [1], and since the PRISM revelations the number of new user registrations has increased significantly. I've seen no sign so far of a downturn in new registrations.
[1] http://xmpp.net/
[1] http://xmpp.net/
"There's some hard evidence that all this privacy stuff just doesn't alarm us all that much."
I wish all these articles would stop the reinforcement of apathy in every spying article's opening paragraph. It sets the tone for the entire piece.
I wish all these articles would stop the reinforcement of apathy in every spying article's opening paragraph. It sets the tone for the entire piece.
Wow, what a crap article. I've got a more to-the-point headline, if Mr. Vaughan-Nichols has trouble coming up with another: "World Doesn't Stop On A Dime To Fix Problems: Must Mean Nobody Cares". Classic spin-down.
Why is this surprising? This happens with every single item of news worth getting up in arms about. You are just seeing the receding area under the bell curve of social interest...
Relax. The Party is everything, knows everything. There are no spies, only brave members of the inner committee doing their duty for the empire.
FYI this entry was just still among the top 30 stories on HN and is currently listed at #169. Can somebody explain this please?
*The Outrage in the USA about PRISM spying is wearing off already.
The rest of the world however..
The rest of the world however..
says "PC World" ...
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, accpetance
"[...] the ten most searched terms, according to Google Trends, were: iOS7, PS4, Tim Tebow, Mac Pro, Kingdom Hearts, Miami Heat, IGN, Chad Johnson, NBA Playoffs, and the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference ( WWDC)."
Probably the most important cause of this is the fact that the mass media are tightly controlled by a couple of extremely rich people. And they don't like change as they fear the loss of power. The current system works very much in their favor.
Free and unbiased media is the basis for democracy.
Probably the most important cause of this is the fact that the mass media are tightly controlled by a couple of extremely rich people. And they don't like change as they fear the loss of power. The current system works very much in their favor.
Free and unbiased media is the basis for democracy.
Another way to look at it would be to say that people care about things that directly affect them. The NSA stuff isn't something that really affects anyone's day-to-day life, whereas in the US there are just HUGE portions of the country that play PS4, watch sports, buy phones, etc. No conspiracy theory necessary.
The Zimmerman trial isn't something that affects everyone's day-to-day life, but the media chose to focus on it. Imagine what would happen if the media had instead focused on the NSA scandal. If that were to happen, things would change very quickly.
> No conspiracy theory necessary.
This is a saddening statement. What I'm saying has nothing to do with conspiracy. (When I say "controlled by a couple of extremely rich people", "a couple" might even be "a few hundred", but that's still "a couple".)
This is a saddening statement. What I'm saying has nothing to do with conspiracy. (When I say "controlled by a couple of extremely rich people", "a couple" might even be "a few hundred", but that's still "a couple".)
You suggested that a few rich people control the media and tell people what to care about. That's pretty much the definition of conspiracy theory.
Alternate hypothesis: you're in a tiny minority of people who think the internet is really important. Like, foundation of society important, as opposed to a convenient place to buy shit and message your friends and look up the release date of the latest Madden game. Surveillance of the internet seems more important to you than it does to other people, and you can't understand why and have to resort to an explanation involving the shadowy elite.
Alternate hypothesis: you're in a tiny minority of people who think the internet is really important. Like, foundation of society important, as opposed to a convenient place to buy shit and message your friends and look up the release date of the latest Madden game. Surveillance of the internet seems more important to you than it does to other people, and you can't understand why and have to resort to an explanation involving the shadowy elite.
But do you really care? Or are you more like my dogs, who
can be distracted at any moment by a rustling in the
leaves. "Oh, look, a squirrel!" their alert little faces
seem to say.
The problem of centralization, and its solution:
http://myownstream.com/blog#2011-05-21
http://myownstream.com/blog#2011-05-21
Outrage is useless. Protests won't stop shit. Did they stop the wars? Nope.
It's what you do with that situation is important.
I'd say an independent party should use privacy as an opportunity, a platform, name the responsible for the spying. Name the politicians who voted for it, name the judges to let it happen.
Another good thing that will come out of it is the awareness of the encryption. More people will start using it. Assuming NSA doesn't have a magical anti-crypto algorithms, and it's a pretty solid assumption, NSA can spend trillions of dollars on hardware and still not be able to decrypt just one message.
It's what you do with that situation is important.
I'd say an independent party should use privacy as an opportunity, a platform, name the responsible for the spying. Name the politicians who voted for it, name the judges to let it happen.
Another good thing that will come out of it is the awareness of the encryption. More people will start using it. Assuming NSA doesn't have a magical anti-crypto algorithms, and it's a pretty solid assumption, NSA can spend trillions of dollars on hardware and still not be able to decrypt just one message.
> Outrage is useless. Protests won't stop shit.
I don't see it that way, b/c this is just 1 out of tons of measures that will be needed. Each measure will stimulate other measures, it's an interactive thing.
I don't see it that way, b/c this is just 1 out of tons of measures that will be needed. Each measure will stimulate other measures, it's an interactive thing.
Maybe I suffer confirmation bias because I'm following the story, but it seems to be picking up steam to me. A few days ago, the US House of Representatives almost passed a law which would have curtailed the NSA's activities, and now we have the XKeyScore revelations which are still playing out.
From the release of the Pentagon papers, to Nixon's resignation, took three years. The incident which ultimately led to the president's resignation was a side issue, buried in the back pages of the A section, for most of that time.
I'm not sure if the US government is still capable of policing itself in that way. But however it plays out this isn't going to be over in a few weeks.