Reauthorizing mass surveillance shouldn't be tied to funding the government

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/11/reauthorizing-mass-surveillance-shouldnt-be-tied-funding-government

by panarky • 3 years ago

250 63 3 years ago

Terr_• 3 years ago

Not wrong, but kind of incomplete, given that all sorts of policies get held hostage with these stupid "Congress makes impossible mutually conflicting demands" fights.

tehwebguy• 3 years ago

Yeah a lot of things shouldn’t be but everything except renaming post offices is now.

TriangleEdge3• 3 years ago

I'm curious what the `upvoteCount/commentCount` will be for this post.

I'd also be curious to see a chart where x is time and y is a score for something along the lines of "I am free to critique the US government without any form retaliation".

RobRivera• 3 years ago

Curious george is that you!? :3

TriangleEdge3• 3 years ago

Since I'm being downvoted,... what I'm suggesting is that it's going in a downwards trend.

Edit: The chart is going in a downwards trend.

BobaFloutist• 3 years ago

Yes, we understood your implication that the government is punishing critique by down voting hacker news posts. I think you got down voted because people disagree, not because they didn't understand.

alphanullmeric6• 3 years ago

Funny to see this make headlines here, where many people would gladly support using mass surveillance to fund the government. The same ones that support financial privacy restrictions are quick to play victim when the same violations are applied in ways that don’t benefit them.

lern_too_spel6• 3 years ago

That's how it works. People support policies that are beneficial and don't support policies that are harmful. Privacy is just one component of this evaluation. If we demand absolute privacy with no government oversight, even by warrants, the cost of increased crime will be larger than the marginal benefit from increased privacy. If we demand that nobody can hold somebody else's data, the cost to businesses that rely on their employees getting information from their company's logged communications will be larger than the marginal benefit of increased privacy.

alphanullmeric6• 3 years ago

It’s how it works for people that lack consistency. If you don’t want absolute privacy then you are also free to support an absolute lack of it. “I want privacy except when it stops me from getting at other people’s money” is not an acceptable option.

boredpeter• 3 years ago

Yes the ultra wealthy shouldn’t be able to conceal wealth that gives them immense power to control a so called democratic and free society.

Regular people without that same wealth and power should have some amount of privacy from their government.

It’s not impossible to hold those two beliefs without being a hypocrite.

alphanullmeric6• 3 years ago

While you're running away from that other yes or no question, I might as well try asking you this one - do you support privacy?

motohagiography• 3 years ago

While I've believed that developing privacy and encryption tech was ignoring the deeper problem, and it was a poor substitute for using that effort to actually engage with and reform the institutions we use privacy tech to protect ourselves from, when you are up against anonymous cynicism like earmarking continuity of government bills, the only thing left to do is shrug and become a cypherpunk maximalist. Life is too short. Might as well ride this civilization into the ground.

peltier3• 3 years ago

-and it was a poor substitute for using that effort to actually engage with and reform the institutions

Well said. Its amazing that the IC has lagged behind on this and not made sufficient efforts to regain the publics trust.

-the only thing left to do is shrug and become a cypherpunk maximalist. Life is too short. Might as well ride this civilization into the ground.

This is the saddest story ever monitored. Many share that sentiment and has for decades.

panarky2• 3 years ago

cypherpunk maximalist

Way past time to get assassination markets back in the popular imagination so that a new generation can re-litigate the usenet flame wars of olde, amplified by a factor of ten thousand.

SenAnder• 3 years ago

developing privacy and encryption tech was ignoring the deeper problem

It was not. Even with privacy-respecting government and laws (and corporations), it is important that mass surveillance isn't easy, or it's virtually guaranteed to happen.

Stealing is illegal, yet you don't leave your cash savings on the windowsill.

agentgumshoe5• 3 years ago

These are the kinds of things that annoy me in relation to celebrities. For instance, Taylor Swift/Kanye could raise this issue and probably single-handedly cause enough upset to have this changed/removed.

I wish they worked positive (and sure, sometimes they'll probably get it wrong) policy change rather than quiet charities and token signalling.

In terms of the government using it for ransom, well, the other side should absolutely say they'll shutdown government if these privacy overreaches are not removed. Put the pressure back on and vocalise the absurdity of the situation. But hey, it's not a wild guess to say both sides are really in support of the measure and use the 'ransom' as an excuse to pass it.

OfSanguineFire• 3 years ago

If a celebrity spoke out on this issue, wouldn’t that basically just result in the tabloid press responding with a campaign of “Hmm, what does he/she have to hide?” No surprise if people who already find it hard to live a private, peaceful life don’t want to invite that on themselves.

kmeisthax• 3 years ago

Celebrities are about as ignorant about the issue as regular people, but there's also millions of people vying for them to say stuff. So much so that it's literally a commodity that they sell.

Furthermore, celebrities often get pushback for making political statements, even extremely milquetoast ones like "Israel shouldn't collectively punish Palestine for Hamas". Their job is to be liked by everyone, which means they can stand for nothing.

That being said, I know of few people who actually support America's current surveillance apparatus. Liberals hate it because it's corrosive to liberal democracy; Trumpists hate it because it hurt them; and left-wingers hate it because they're the intended target. The phrasing I use for this kind of issue is "anti-partisan": the general voting population hates it, but politicians want it to continue because it's instrumental to other goals that the voting population would support.

A key wrinkle is that most anti-partisanism would also disadvantage wealthy individuals if it got its way - i.e. right to repair harms OEMs' god-given right to force you to buy a new one - so wealth tends to rally around continuing the thing we don't want. Celebrities are sort of in the wealth orbit insamuch as social capital and being well known is a saleable commodity, so they also have a tendency to orbit around opposing antipartisan issues.

In other words, they don't want the CIA to spy on them, but they also want a neoliberal economy to sell products into, which is growing increasingly unpopular, which requires having a CIA spy on extremists, which means they want the CIA to spy on someone else. None of this is consciously understood or planned, there's no CIA guy telling celebrities to shut up about the spying, it is merely a coincidence of class interests and incentives.

peltier3• 3 years ago

That would require integrity and honesty, something fame rarely allows for. But I agree, but I would refrain from asking Kanye to voice his concerns at this particular issue at this particular point in time.

hipadev232• 3 years ago

Imma let you finish, but Kanye is a poor example to make your point. He has one ineffective charity in Chicago and otherwise all public action has revolved around showcasing his own struggles while simultaneously presenting himself as the solution to the world’s problems.

Swift has been fairly vocal and ignited action around LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, sexual assault topics, and drastically improved voter turnout among her fans.

mrangle2• 3 years ago

Re: Swift

None of those advocacies being effectively controversial / MSM disfavored. Essentially, they read as an almost required checklist for establishment darlings. Advocating for them isn't bravery, today. It's common business sense.

The point being that these advocacies aren't a substitute, in any sense, for one that might draw her negative press. If the measurement is bravery, or unusual effort or some such.

Shawnj2• 3 years ago

I really like a lot of what John and Hank green have done with their fame recently, funding healthcare for low income companies and publicly calling out drug companies when they screw extremely poor people over

agentgumshoe5• 3 years ago

That's exactly why I mentioned Kanye. All the influence with none of the outcomes.

Perhaps Swift should postpone a concert until one such disagreeable law is changed...

anigbrowl• 3 years ago

Celebrities do adopt political causes, but can generally only influence one issue; maybe something broader by endorsing a candidate or party, but with massive dilution. To do more they'd have to become politicians, but those who do almost inevitably end up operating within personality cult dynamics as opposed to responsible statecraft.

lern_too_spel6• 3 years ago

Given how little people on this very forum understand Section 702, why would you think that Ye would understand it well enough to take an informed stand that is convincing to his followers?

mc322• 3 years ago

I’d rather not have celebrities use their cultish followings to push for any cause, good or bad because they tend to be ignorant on the issues and only superficially attach themselves to some aspect.

jauntywundrkind2• 3 years ago

Mental exercise: what if we then voted on the celebs, voting for and against the causes celebs put up?

In my view, you're gripe is that this system would be super shallow. Kind of agreed! What could give it more depth & substance, what could better direct this available energy? Sure, "don't" is a valid answer! But also, what might we try?

agentgumshoe5• 3 years ago

So just like politicians (cough, Lindsay Graham, cough)...

mrangle2• 3 years ago

Celebrities depend on media favor for career survival. Their favor on crucial political topics is therefore captured. In other words, most celebrities don't have the effective freedom to be able to advocate for any political cause.

Surveillance is de facto permanent.

fallingknife• 3 years ago

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,”

- Senator Chuck Schumer

kornhole• 3 years ago

Celebrities might present themselves as of the common people and they probably once were. Don't let them fool you. Other than a few exceptions, they are in the upper class and partying with the rest of the owner/donor class. Their interests are aligned to ensure that the common folks never get enough power/privacy.

IG_Semmelweiss• 3 years ago

In ancient Rome actors were so low status they were subject to infamia, which meant that they couldn't defend themselves in court and could even be beaten or killed without legal repercussions.

It was considered to be a worthless profession (actors were seen as professional liars) akin to prostitution.

Not all celebrities are actors, but my point is that Romans were around for almost 2000 years and that should tell you something.

You expect too much out of the profession.

Kevin09210• 3 years ago

These are the kinds of things that annoy me in relation to celebrities. For instance, Taylor Swift/Kanye could raise this issue and probably single-handedly cause enough upset to have this changed/removed.

Unless of course they are handled by the state apparatus itself:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Kanye/comments/ylhm5g/this_text_kan...

I'm going to help you one of a couple ways.…. First, you and I sit down and have an loving and open conversation, but you don't use cuss words, and everything that is discussed is based in fact, and not some crazy stuff that dumb friend of yours told you, or you saw in a tweet.
Second option, I have you institutionalized again where they medicate the crap out of you, and you go back to Zombieland forever. Play date with the kids just won't be the same.
Harley Pasternak to Kanye via a text.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1588556212102082560.html#...

His Wikipedia page states that "During his time at U of T, Pasternak served as a nutrition and exercise scientist at Department of National Defence's Defence and Civil Institute for Environmental Medicine."
[...]
What sort of stuff is researched at DRDC?
"Human systems integration."
"Social and psychological factors that affect the resolution of conflict."
"Psychology of malicious intent."
"Social and cultural factors influencing behavior."
Literal psyops.

peltier3• 3 years ago

Eternal Vigilance Is the Price of Liberty.

Once said by a brave abolitionist.

avidphantasm• 3 years ago

This is why Democrats and traditional Republicans secretly love having narrow majorities. It lets them shove down our throats otherwise unsavory policies in the name of keeping the lights on.

2OEH8eoCRo0• 3 years ago

https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographi...

Section 702 is a key provision of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 that permits the government to conduct targeted surveillance of foreign persons located outside the United States, with the compelled assistance of electronic communication service providers, to acquire foreign intelligence information.

As a US citizen, why wouldn't I want this reauthorized?

wmf• 3 years ago

If you believe that's what it actually does, go for it. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/fisa...

rockskon• 3 years ago

Because the intelligence community has interpreted it to allow them to collect enormous amounts of U.S. persons communications and have analysts parse it and read it to make a determination on its foreign intelligence relevance.

Or if you're hot, some teenage intelligence analyst will make a copy of that nude you sent to your spouse to save for his personal spank bank.

It's all for national security you see. All without a warrant. Because intentionally collecting information they know will be predominantly on U.S. persons is a-okay as long as one or two drops in that ocean of U.S. persons communication is of foreign nationals communicating.

local_crmdgeon• 3 years ago

I wish they would get a border deal done. That's what the GOP base wants, and quietly what a lot of Dems want too. This is just nonsense.

RecycledEle• 3 years ago

If you think anyone in the US Government cares about your privacy, you are nuts.

Reauthorizing mass surveillance shouldn't be tied to funding the government

Related Stories