Americans Don't Care About Domestic Spying ?

S1mmo+61 writes "Salon is analyzing a Time Magazine article today, a piece that essentially claims Americans do not care about the domestic spying. The analysis of the Time magazine piece (which is longer than the article itself) is interesting, if only as a quick history of domestic spying in the last eight years. 'Time claims that "nobody cares" about the Government's increased spying powers and that "polling consistently supports that conclusion." They don't cite a single poll because that assertion is blatantly false. Just this weekend, a new poll released by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University proves that exactly the opposite is true. That poll shows that the percentage of Americans who believe the Federal Government is "very secretive" has doubled in the last two years alone (to 44%)'"

Retort

I'd write an insightful and scathing retort, in which the abundance of witticisms and the razor-sharp logic would decisively destroy the opposing position... but I don't know who might be reading this.

Re:Retort

We don't need to read your retort citizen. Knowing your recently confessed ability of writing one made us extract it from your brain.

Please wait patiently for our transport services to go pick you up.

Err, where did you live exactly?

Re:Retort

i thought our calls were being monitored or recorded for quality purposes.

Re:Retort

'Time claims that "nobody cares" about the Government's increased spying powers and that "polling consistently supports that conclusion." They don't cite a single poll because that assertion is blatantly false. Just this weekend, a new poll released by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University proves that exactly the opposite is true. That poll shows that the percentage of Americans who believe the Federal Government is "very secretive" has doubled in the last two years alone (to 44%)'"

I have no idea what the truth is on this matter, but the fact that "nobody cares" is not refuted by "the percentage of Americans who believe the Federal Government is 'very secretive' has doubled... to 44%." Simply put, it's entirely possible more people believe the government is more secretive--but they simply don't care.

It's not in any way shocking to learn that people are apathetic. If you ask them whether they want a secretive government, most people will say no. But if you use an objective metric it's very easy to conclude that those same people really don't care that strongly one way or the other.

I actually agree with the article.

Talk to most people about domestic spying or the abuses of the Patriot Act, and they say something like, "Well, if you're not doing something bad, who cares if the government is watching?"

I think that's a completely shortsighted and borderline insane viewpoint, but it's the one I most frequently encounter with most Americans.

Re:I actually agree with the article.

People go to great lengths to post everything conceivable about themselves on facebook or other sites these days. Pictures of folks breaking laws are as hard to find as porn. Occasionally you hear of attempts at prosecution for these self incriminatory, self published bits of evidence of illegal activity, but mostly you see under-age kids drinking and taking drugs and nothing is done.

Nothing.

So, you think it's "shortsighted and borderline insane" to believe no-one cares? There's no evidence that there should be a reason to care.

Re:I actually agree with the article.

Well, they won't care, until down the line it prevents them from getting a job. Or perhaps the government uses that information to disparage a future MLK before they even get a chance to get going. But of course the government never watched people like MLK, never probed into his life, and never, ever tried to undermine what he was doing. Because our government is good.

Re:I actually agree with the article.

Talk to most people about domestic spying or the abuses of the Patriot Act, and they say something like, "Well, if you're not doing something bad, who cares if the government is watching?"

Not in the bars I drink at!

Re:I actually agree with the article.

If this weren't /., I'd ask you for details of your sex life, making sure not to imply anything illegal. I'd ask for details of your finances. I'd ask what you liked reading as a guilty pleasure (not counting /.).

After all, if you're doing nothing bad, why would you be reluctant for people to discuss your bathroom habits?

Statistics

I'm not sure how I like how the summary contrasts "Do you like domestic spying?" with "Do you think federal government is very secretive?". You can clearly think the government is very secretive and still not care about the spying. That isn't to say that people do or do not care, I just don't like the summary's cheap attempt at swaying people.

Re:Statistics

I thought the summary did a pretty good job of trying not to sway anyone. You know -- when summary said the article didn't cite a relevent poll, and then the summary itself didn't cite a relevent poll.

It is all about how you ask the question

If you want a certain answer on a poll, if you ask the question in the correct way, you can usually get the answer that you want. Like: Does it bother you that the US govt increased domestic spying to keep you safe from the terrorists? Rather than: Does it bother you that the US govt increased domestic spying is keeping track of everything that you do? The first one will get a more positive answer against domestic spying than the second one, and I would bet the polls questions being used are heavily loaded to get the answer the poll taker wants.

Americans DO care

I've posted this before, but here's a survey that shows Americans are against Warrantless Wiretaps, Blanket Warrants, And Immunity For
Telecom Companies.

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/mellmansurvey_jan2008.pdf [aclu.org] [aclu.org]

Polls will give you any answer you want

The problem with polls is that it is all about the way the questions are phrased: e.g. a survey on Captial Punishment may ask:
  "Do you agree that it is OK to mistakenly execute an innocent person?"
alternatively they could ask:
  "Should serial killers remain a burden on the tax payer for the entirity of their natural lives?"

People also habitually exagerate and lie when responding to surveys, and I know professional pollsters should be able to weed this out but they have often failed. A survey on food habits asked people to keep a record of all ingredients used over a period of many weeks. To make the lives of the participants easier, if a ready prepared meal was eaten then they could just keep the packaging. The survey found that the consumption of ready meals was much higher than any one ever thought...

Re:Polls will give you any answer you want

Only blatantly dishonest ones.

"Do you agree that it is OK to mistakenly execute an innocent person?"
alternatively they could ask:
    "Should serial killers remain a burden on the tax payer for the entirity of their natural lives?"

Both are blatantly dishonest questions. That's why you need to see the raw data to make a determination of whether it's a legitimate scientific poll that seeks to desciver, or whether it's a PR sham. The honest way of asking the question would be "do you believe murderers should be executed?"

A good poll asks the same question in different ways, and the researcher studying the results can get a far better picture. All three versions would be asked, plus one or two more, and a lot of other questions that may or may not even have anything at all to do with what you're studying.

Re:Polls will give you any answer you want

With apologies for the blatant plagiarism

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"

Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."

Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."

Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"

Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."

Bernard Woolley: "How?"

Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."

Wag the Dog

Is it that Americans don't care about privacy, or that the mass media is intentionally keeping the issue out of the limelight?

When the first vote came up to congress on 13-Feb-2008, the only thing covered on every news channel was the baseball steroids scandal. There was no mention of the congressional debate or vote.
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/151-Wag-The-Dog.html [hackerfactor.com]

When the revised bill came up to congress on 14-March-2008, it was not covered by the mass media. Instead, they repeatedly covered a "captured Al Qaeda leader"... who isn't a leader, wasn't captured recently, and isn't even missed by Al Qaeda.
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/164-No-Respect.html [hackerfactor.com]

If more people knew about the domestic spying bill, more people would be mad. And if more people knew about the government's manipulation of the mass media, more people would be furious.

"Conventional wisdom" is almost always bullshit

I wonder how many Americans actually know that the CIA has absolutely no legal jurisdiction to spy on the American people. In order for it to spy on the American people, it has to break a whole host of laws.

The FBI, one of the most thuggish law enforcement agencies in the United States, however, has quite a lot of ability to spy on you.

The truth is, the people likely to be spying on you, are the people who should scare you because they are law enforcement, not spooks.

I love the shock on others' faces when they say "I have nothing to hide," and I respond, there is no innocence in the sight of an evil man with power. This is especially amusing when I point it out to other Christians, generally who support Bush and "strong-on-this-or-that" policies. There is nothing worse than an evil man with unchecked power because when his attention turns to you, he will, by nature, try to turn every good you have done into an evil thing in order to enjoy his power.

Editor Bias

Talk about a biased summary:

They don't cite a single poll because that assertion is blatantly false

Can't we be left to make up our own minds on the validity of their assertion. This isn't Fox News is it?

What Should We Expect?

First, RTFA. The summary picks the least useful poll in the entire article as its example of the otherwise very strong support the article gives for the author's position.

Reading the popular media, you might get the impression that the people don't care that our government is at war with our country. But then, that may just be the media pushing its preference for a stable tapestry on which to paint transient images of sex scandals. Those people who supposedly don't care have also been giving tens of millions of dollars a month, in individual amounts betraying the fact that they are not members of the ruling class and in numbers demonstrating an extraordinarily broad base, to one presidential candidate who does not represent business as usual.

If you look to establishment journalism for serious critique of the establishment, should you really be surprised if what you find is not truth, but spurious defense?

Ugh. I can't stand this kind of journalism.

"Hi! I'm a Mac." "And I'm a PC."

You've all heard that one. --A very pure example of one of the most insidious and powerful advertising techniques in the biz. It's not about this feature over that feature. It's not even about the perception that one is cool and the other not. Nope.

The true intent of such advertising is never stated or obvious. What is the true intent?

To program people with regard to how they identify themselves to themselves. It's not, "Hi! I USE a Mac." --Which is powerful enough, especially when the human brain is lulled into low revs on the EEG meter as a direct result of gazing at a flickering CRT, Television viewing instantly puts every person into a clinically measurable hypnotic state where suggestion becomes defacto reality to the personality. Even when you know intellectually that owning a PC is no different than owning a can opener, that part of your brain is short circuited and a deeper part of your personality is affected, no matter how strong your personal resolve, by the emotional knowledge that you are not young and hip in whatever way is being provided as the benchmark. (In this case, by a Mac user who uses faux love and respect to deliver demoralizing comments and knife jabs. The latest in a long stream of sick tactics in the game of social power.)

What has this got to do with Time Magazine?

The article in question doesn't report so much as it instructs.

It tells us the abuse and it tells us that we do not care. Humans are social creatures; on an instinctive level we need to belong to the group, and so we will generally adopt whatever behavior is prevailing just to remain in the tribe, to stay part or the pack. Time Magazine is perhaps the top selling magazine in the U.S. Everybody knows this on some level; if Time speaks, it does so as an important voice of our tribe. So when it tells us what we think, on a deep level, we listen and for those who don't actively learn how this kind of programming works, we very often obey.

Abuser to the victim: "I'm going to rape you until you rupture, and you're not going to complain. You're even going to defend me against potential rescuers."

Stockholm Syndrom; When separated from the rest of the world for even a short time, fear and the instinctive desire to survive, causes people to automatically try to learn the rules of the tribe, (in this case the culture of hostages and power keepers), and fit in so that they are not rejected by the tribe leaders. (i.e., shot in the head.) So when the rescuers did arrive, they were actively fought by the hostages themselves. Stupid, but that's the human machine, and advertisers and media conglomerates know this fact well.

If Time Magazine wanted to serve humanity, it would not tell us what we think with endless polls and such. It would tell us what is happening in the world and would remain unbiased at all times. You know. Responsible journalism. Instead we get the popular kid telling us what all the cool people think.

-FL

Both the article and it's criticism are correct

The issue here is that both the article and it's criticism start with an incorrect premise. That is that the TSA is actually "Domestic Spying".

For the original article, the reason people don't mind "Domestic surveillance" is because they see right through the slanted polls.

If I may geek-out for a moment, it's rather like the episode of Star Trek TNG where Data thought a small repair robot had developed sentience. Nobody believed him and they tested the robot by setting up a situation where if the robot didn't flee the area, it would be destroyed. Of course, the test was a fake-out. When the robot didn't flee when it ostensibly should have to save it's own life, everybody concluded that it wasn't sentient. What Data discovered was that the robot SAW RIGHT THROUGH the test, realized it was a fake-out, and kept working.

When you ask most people about the "Domestic Spying Program" most people know you are talking about the Terrorist Surveillance Act. Since they disagree with the premise that it is "domestic spying", they answer that they have no problems with it. Thus you get an article like the Time's article.

However, if you ask a more nebulous question such as "Should the Government be spying on it's own citizens?" You will inevitably get an opposite result. OF COURSE people don't want to be spied upon by their government. However, they DO NOT agree with the false premise that the TSA is "Domestic spying".

I'm not going to get into the reasons why the premise is wrong, I've no patience for the Bush Derangement Syndrome of the tinfoil hat wearers that comprise part of the Slashdot community. I just thought I'd take a moment to clarify the apparent dichotomy of the results here.

The problem isn't that we're all being watched,

its that we don't know by whom or why.

The lack of transparency is at the heart of any problem we have with surveilance.

Re:Those who fail to learn the lessons of history.

"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it." -- (Don't remember who said it).

That was George Santayana [wikipedia.org].

It's called propaganda, folks. "Tell a lie long and enough and loud enough and sooner or later people will believe you." -- P.T. Barnum, I think.

Actually, that was Joseph Goebbels [thinkexist.com].

Re:some people don't

Huh, what do you know. I didn't Godwin the conversation.

We need a new law that replaces Nazi analogies with Soviet analogies. "Godwin's Law 2: This time it's Commies"