what do Americans think about the NSA scandal

[Kevin]

And the Lurker Lounge! Maybe you missed that part of the leak. The NSA approached me years ago and put software on this server to monitor the hippies, communists, Tea Party activists, conspiracy theorists, and fringe elements this site attracts.

Why do you think I changed my username on here? I new you were in on it and I had to throw them off my trail!

[Jester]

More likely, I would say, that totalitarianism is the de facto lazy model of governance. It requires the least maintenance to be a sheep, and to let others fight over being the shepherds. It does not require your electorate to be educated. We are all too ready to surrender the responsibility of decision making to good orators, and sloganeering.

This seems overly pessimistic, looking at a broad historical context. Democracy, not totalitarianism, has spread through the world. Totalitarian states are hard to maintain, and do not seem to last. Far from being lazy, they require huge resource inputs to maintain. They are as fragile as they are oppressive. As Borges said of Nazi Germany, in the end, Hitler's was a dream you could die for, but not one you could live for. Sloganeering does not lead to enduring results.

If you believe in entropy, then unless there is a consistent effort to renew your democratic institutions, all roads lead to serfdom.

To a man with a hammer, everything is a nail? Hayek's prediction turned out to be fabulously wrong. (It remains a fascinating argument, but the evidence all points the other way.) Democracies seldom regress, once established, whereas dictatorships and totalitarian governments slowly die out. People do renew democracies. Welfare states have become less, not more, socialistic, let alone "serflike". (Indeed, the key to much Scandinavian re-distributive policy is that they *encourage* mobility and human capital development.)

It could all change. History is complicated. But that would be a hypothesis, not a law of physics.

-Jester

[eppie]

Democracies seldom regress,
-Jester

Regress in what way? Freedom? Wealth? Human rights? Tax burden? Government power?
And over what time scale do you mean?

[shoju]

I think Bolty made a fantastic point. The outrage / surprise factor in all of this is incredibly telling of someone's investment / understanding / familiarity with technology-ish stuff

To me, this was "yeah, I figured as much"

To my wife, it was "HOLY CRAP HOW IN THE WORLD DID THEY DO THIS? THAT'S NOT RIGHT!"

And then I explained to her just how incredibly simple what they did was, and she was surprised at my lack of outrage.

[eppie]

I think Bolty made a fantastic point. The outrage / surprise factor in all of this is incredibly telling of someone's investment / understanding / familiarity with technology-ish stuff

To me, this was "yeah, I figured as much"

To my wife, it was "HOLY CRAP HOW IN THE WORLD DID THEY DO THIS? THAT'S NOT RIGHT!"

And then I explained to her just how incredibly simple what they did was, and she was surprised at my lack of outrage.

It is also pretty simple to nuke a big city.....doesn't mean they should do it.

If people don't agree they should let the government know this by voting for the other guys.
Question is....do people care enough?

[shoju]

There is a difference between what they have done, and nuking a city.

Someone is going to notice the city.
Unless someone blows the whistle, who is going to notice the rest?

Personally? I'm not appalled. I'm not outraged. I'm not even shocked. To think that it wasn't happening is naive IMO. Do I like it? No. I don't like that employers try to snoop on employee lives either, but it happens as well. Technology has the power to be terrible. And sometimes, it's used in just that way.

[kandrathe]

To a man with a hammer, everything is a nail? Hayek's prediction turned out to be fabulously wrong. (It remains a fascinating argument, but the evidence all points the other way.) Democracies seldom regress, once established, whereas dictatorships and totalitarian governments slowly die out. People do renew democracies. Welfare states have become less, not more, socialistic, let alone "serflike". (Indeed, the key to much Scandinavian re-distributive policy is that they *encourage* mobility and human capital development.)

I know we differ somewhat on the definition of "serfdom". I wasn't specifically referencing Hayek, his predictions, or methods. It was more of an observation we've made here many times that an ignorant, distracted, uninformed, and otherwise apathetic electorate is likely to jump on the latest band wagon, and vote away liberties based upon passions, rather than relying on their principles. Our elections are Hollywood, our candidates are photogenic, and they, like us, have no principles. The only plan I see in governance is pacification.

Generally, the gist is that I'm just tired of people ignorantly tolerating "security theater" because it gives them warm fuzziness. We are paying people to strip search us when we travel, and busy building zeta byte server farms in Utah to store the collected drivel of the net, and this is why we can't have nice roads, better schools and retirement.

For me, the bottom line is; It is an indignity to be continuously treated as a criminal by my government, and a double indignity that I'm paying them for the privilege.

[Jester]

I know we differ somewhat on the definition of "serfdom".

Probably? I'm going with the definition of someone who is bound to the land, and owes either corvee labour or quit rent, to either a landlord or to the state.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/serf

Got another definition?

It was more of an observation we've made here many times that an ignorant, distracted, uninformed, and otherwise apathetic electorate is likely to jump on the latest band wagon, and vote away liberties based upon passions, rather than relying on their principles. Our elections are Hollywood, our candidates are photogenic, and they, like us, have no principles. The only plan I see in governance is pacification.

A bit of democratic bandwagon-jumping is not the same as an inevitable degeneration into totalitarianism. Indignity is bad and stupidity is stupid. But totalitarianism has killed tens of millions.

Generally, the gist is that I'm just tired of people ignorantly tolerating "security theater" because it gives them warm fuzziness. We are paying people to strip search us when we travel, and busy building zeta byte server farms in Utah to store the collected drivel of the net, and this is why we can't have nice roads, better schools and retirement.

I agree with the first bit. I don't see what it has to do with retirement, roads, and schools. What % of the budget goes to the NSA? Very little. A small tax increase, or a redirection of the unbelievably large military budget, would have a much larger impact than eliminating security theatre.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

The concept of democracy vs. totalitarianism is problematic, because it is essentially a false dichotomy. Class based societies, by their very essence, are undemocratic. It doesn't matter so much if resources are controlled and allocated by the state, or by a small number of private individuals who control capital and use the state apparatus to act on their behalf in protecting and expanding said private capital. In both circumstances, classes exist and therefore by default it cannot be democratic, certainly not in the genuine sense of the word (which is very different from the concept of 'bourgeois' democracy). Now, class systems with private ownership tend to be more efficient at maintaining and running their economies and protecting the given social order, but this by no means makes the society a democracy relative to another class society that uses statism, in which that society decays faster. Not in the big picture of things anyway. The problem with the dichotomy is that it refers only to political systems, and not to the existing class relationships which the basis of society is structured around.

[kandrathe]

I agree with the first bit. I don't see what it has to do with retirement, roads, and schools. What % of the budget goes to the NSA? Very little. A small tax increase, or a redirection of the unbelievably large military budget, would have a much larger impact than eliminating security theatre.

Well, 10 billion here (NSA) and 7.38 billion there (TSA) and pretty soon we're talking real money.

Certainly, we could cut our military spending in half and hardly notice any lack of defense of the USA. Perhaps, we would need to stop defending someone else country though.

A bit of democratic bandwagon-jumping is not the same as an inevitable degeneration into totalitarianism.

A bit?



But yes, the first only enables the second. They are not the same thing. What is (maybe not) surprising is the panoply of politicians (even ones on intelligence oversight committees) who had no idea of the extent of US foreign/domestic spying.

Indignity is bad and stupidity is stupid. But totalitarianism has killed tens of millions.

Totalitarianism of brute force? No. Totalitarianism by public abdication of power, yes. The US is careful to not use its totalitarian power killing lots of US citizens. I'm sure that ALL totalitarian regimes didn't begin with re-education camps. That is an artifact of crushing the political dissent once you have a lock on power. The primary guiding "principle" of the US brand of governance is founded upon “consent of the governed” -- however, our government celebrates the power garnered by the apathy of the electorate, such this CIA report on Germany and France --> "Public Apathy Enables Leaders To Ignore Voters..." The Bush brand was all used up, so try our new Obama brand tyranny. It's Leftier!

Source: http://www.salon.com/2010/03/27/wikileaks/

[Mavfin]

Democracies seldom regress,
-Jester

Regress in what way? Freedom? Wealth? Human rights? Tax burden? Government power?
And over what time scale do you mean?

In the middle of all this sensational news, my freedom hasn't really change at all. I still do all the things I've done for the last 20-30 years. Is it out of hand? Somewhat. Is it all Obama's fault? No. Neither party has a monopoly on idiocy. One party wants to take away the guns, the other party wants to peek in our bedrooms to make sure we're having 'approved' kinds of sexual relations, it seems. Neither is a good thing. Both are grabs for control, thinly-veiled.

Also, I work for a fairly well-known retail company (well-known in the US) in their IT security department. (Yes, new job) NONE of this surprises me at all. I just hooked up a million-dollar rack of equipment today that lets us store *all* the traffic that comes in and out of our corporate headquarters, including the store traffic from all over the US, and the web/ecommerce traffic for a large hunting/fishing/boat company with a 'fishy' name.

If my company (a retail company, remember, not an IT specialist) can do it for about a million, the government can suck up tons more data for a couple billion, don't you think?

--Mav

[kandrathe]

If my company (a retail company, remember, not an IT specialist) can do it for about a million, the government can suck up tons more data for a couple billion, don't you think?

I actually think technology IS a part of the good solution for the terrorism issue, however, it needs to be implemented differently, and more by the service provider (airlines, for example).

Our local carrier, was Northwest (now absorbed into Delta) -- and, they had a piece of software called CAPPS that correctly identified 9 of the 19 WTC hijackers for additional screening (which didn't occur). Instead of A) fixing the problem in actually using the technology you have B) making the technology better -- they instead prevented even flight crew from wielding so much as a corkscrew. When the Shoe bomber struck, they made us take off our shoes. Whereas, the real problem Richard Reid introduced was that the first non-metal bombs were getting past metal detectors. But, rather than long queues of shoe-less passengers, how about building better bomb chemical sniffers?

How about instead of 55,000 TSA agents groping everyone, we instead implement a program where people are pre-screened days or weeks in advance. Yeah, if you walk up and buy a ticket the same day, you are going to get extra scrutiny.

People now voluntarily go though Global Entry and I've heard it's great. Why not just scale it back to a reasonable level for domestic flights? And how about having the flight crew, many of whom are former military pilots, also be trained in the use of side arms to defend the passengers?

The problem with both the TSA and NSA approach is that once you implement the umpteen billion Big Brother system, the only fish you'll catch are false positive innocent civilians bringing a crockpot home for a Christmas present or complete idiot wannabe extremists. This is why OBL was hard to catch -- he was not in his Pakistan bunker house broadcasting his location on 4square, or tweeting on trending hashtags. He and their network use trusted couriers, stolen cell phones for a few calls, or cash bought phone cards. They speak in riddles, such as the 911 chatter was "It's game day." Or, like from Top Secret :-) "Who do you favor in the Virginia Slims?" With the obvious response, "In women's tennis I always root against the heterosexuals."

[Jester]

Regress in what way? Freedom? Wealth? Human rights? Tax burden? Government power?
And over what time scale do you mean?

Into non-democracies. And over any time scale you please, from about 1600 onwards.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

In 1914, Portugal became the third democratic republic in Europe, after France and Switzerland. By the end of WWI, the principle of democratic republicanism seemed triumphant. Then, again with the end of World War II, and once more, with the collapse of the Soviet Empire in the late 1980s and early 1990s. You'd think that universal and global democracy has finally come into its own.

But, really, it's not so rosey. The Great Democracy Meltdown BY JOSHUA KURLANTZICK resonated with me.

[Jester]

In 1914, Portugal became the third democratic republic in Europe, after France and Switzerland. By the end of WWI, the principle of democratic republicanism seemed triumphant. Then, again with the end of World War II, and once more, with the collapse of the Soviet Empire in the late 1980s and early 1990s. You'd think that universal and global democracy has finally come into its own.

But, really, it's not so rosey. The Great Democracy Meltdown BY JOSHUA KURLANTZICK resonated with me.

History isn't over, and the trend towards democracy is just that - a trend. Countries that have democracy tend to stay that way, and the longer they do, the harder it is to dislodge. Countries that are only marginally or newly democratic are much more vulnerable. There was a large over-reaction to the democratization of the 1990s, with "end of history" optimists painting far too rosy a picture of what had taken place.

But the trend is positive, and I don't see it being reversed in the long run. History may prove that tragically wrong. Certainly, the world of Europe looked very civilized in 1913, just before thirty years of horror.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Venezuela is a recent example of how tenuous democracy can be; freedoms are lost, being dominated by a personality cult, and where all checks and balances are subverted to the will of a de facto dictator. Or, Egypt, who is moving towards becoming a new Iranian style theocracy.

[kandrathe]

I would add that now more than ever, it is time we revisit Madison's Federalist no. 51

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flas...transcript

It outlines the formation of our government to be divided and checked such that factions would be less able to usurp power.

[cheezz]

I firmly believe this crap was happening before Obama, to whatever degree then current technology allowed,

I have proof of that. I moved to my present location about 9.5 years ago and got a new phone number. I decided to pay to be unlisted, since no one had my number. (I highly recommend that, by the way.)
When you're unlisted, your number shows up as 'private' on caller ID.

About 7 or 8 years ago, I called the IRS. Based on some things a coworker had said, I thought that I might be able to redo some deductions and re-file my tax return to drop me into a lower tax bracket. I asked them my questions and they confirmed my theory, even explaining how to do it. They reran the numbers and told me exactly how much less my taxable income would be.

As soon as I got off the phone, I realized two things-

1. They looked up my tax return even though I did not give them ANY information that could identify me.

2. That could only happen if Windstream, the company I was paying for privacy, sold me out to Uncle Sam.

I didn't get overly excited about it, yet to this day I don't think there are any laws on the book which allow for such blatant breach of contract.

[shoju]

Technically, Windstream didn't even have to sell you out.

An unlisted number, just means that your number isn't published PUBLICLY. Meaning, that your number isn't sold to companies, it isn't available in the public domain. As the IRS is part of the US Government, they aren't part of the public domain. And since Caller ID has been a standard feature for most since the 1990's, it's not illogical to think that the USG has better Caller ID, that removes the blocking restrictions of an unpublished number.

It is a little creepy, when you first think about it, but what it comes down to, is that the system that they used to get your number was probably never devised with the idea of it being "invasive". It was probably designed, and implemented under the idea that it was meant to stop people from being stupid and blocking their number and calling a Govt agency with malicious intent (either terribly real, or farcical in nature) , and hiding behind the guise of a blocked / unpublished number.

Does that make it right? Probably not, but it is part of the system that we live within.

[FireIceTalon]

I firmly believe this crap was happening before Obama, to whatever degree then current technology allowed,

I have proof of that. I moved to my present location about 9.5 years ago and got a new phone number. I decided to pay to be unlisted, since no one had my number. (I highly recommend that, by the way.)
When you're unlisted, your number shows up as 'private' on caller ID.

About 7 or 8 years ago, I called the IRS. Based on some things a coworker had said, I thought that I might be able to redo some deductions and re-file my tax return to drop me into a lower tax bracket. I asked them my questions and they confirmed my theory, even explaining how to do it. They reran the numbers and told me exactly how much less my taxable income would be.

As soon as I got off the phone, I realized two things-

1. They looked up my tax return even though I did not give them ANY information that could identify me.

2. That could only happen if Windstream, the company I was paying for privacy, sold me out to Uncle Sam.

I didn't get overly excited about it, yet to this day I don't think there are any laws on the book which allow for such blatant breach of contract.

If the law doesn't exist, that means it is legal to do - whether it is morally or ethically incorrect or not hardly matters. But even if such a rule did exist, that hardly matters either - rules can, have been, and will be bent or changed when the state sees fit to do so. The Patriot Act was a huge violation of the consitituion (now as a Marxist, I'm hardly a constitutionalist, but that is irrelevant to my point), and yet our lovely bourgeois state apparatus had no qualms in passing it. The NSA scandal is just an extension of the Patriot Act.

Pseudo-democracy looks sweet and tasty on the outside, but is in essence, rotten to the core.