Americans Don't Care About Domestic Spying ? 485
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Retort (Score:5, Funny)
Please wait patiently for our transport services to go pick you up.
Err, where did you live exactly?
Re:Retort (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Retort (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Retort (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Retort (Score:5, Interesting)
She would not agree and even went so far as to say that all porn should be filtered on the Internet. She was of the impression that filtering content from the internet was for the greater good of society. She would not budge.
I got frustrated. She can not be the only person that thinks that way. If you believe that, then it is likely that you believe that spying on the public to catch "bad guys" is good as well. After all, "I'm not doing anything wrong, so go ahead".
Part of freedom is freedom to break the law. After you have broken the law, you should lose some of your freedoms, but until you do, you should be assumed to be as pure as an angel.
Re:Retort (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a black and white world. And in that world, the government, too, was pure and good. They defended our freedom against the evil Communists. Sure, there were things like McCarthy, but that was long ago and, lo and behold, he was found to be taking it too far and was removed. The system works. It's all fine and good.
That's how she grew up. That's what she learned and observed throughout her life. That her government was good, that the laws her government made were good, that they were here to protect and to serve her. The goals of the people and the goals of the government were (more or less) the same.
This generation grows up in a world where the difference between people and governments grows by the day. In attitude, in goals, in outlook on the world. We "young people" (ok, I'm not necessarily young anymore, but humor me) tend to take a more critical view on our governments and their actions, we do not trust them intrinsically, especially those of us who have been exposed to the internet and the various regulations around it. We see a discrepancy between our goals and the laws our governments make. We see our governments making more and more laws pandering to the corporations and their goal of more profit, not for but against the people the government is supposed to represent.
We grow up in a very different world. Your mom is used to a government that observes her goals, we're used to one that blocks us in our attemt to reach ours. That's the big difference. Your mom maybe could not imagine her government passing a law that is not for the good of her, you on the other hand maybe can't imagine it passing one that is good for you. She's looking for the good a law brings, you're looking for how you get ripped off this time to line the pockets of someone.
I don't say that things changed, I doubt it has been different under Kennedy, Nixon or Carter. But the view of things and the way people look at them changed dramatically in the last 50 years. The government isn't the good Uncle Sam anymore. It's turned into the bad Big Brother.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you realize that you've just damned your argument?
So what you're saying is that "your generation" perceives the government as being the bad Big Brother. Ironically you don't seem to realize this meta point as you slide immedia
Re:Retort (Score:5, Interesting)
People tend to hate their government if A. their standard of living is bad and declining or the B. repressive measures impact them directly. If America's standard of living continues to decline American attitude towards their government will change. Ranting about peoples indifference wont change it, putting them in the poor house will. People also tend to be indifferent to spying unless and until it directly impacts them (i.e the get arrested for something).
Widespread spying has an extremely corrosive effect on good government but most people don't realize that or are to indifferent to care. As with Nixon and Hoover it almost inevitably is used to find dirt on people. In the case of politicians that dirt is then used against them to make them vote the way the people who have the dirt on them want them to vote, or to drive them out of office. Spying is almost inevitably used to destroy Democracy, that is why its bad. In the case of vocal opponents and protesters its used to silence them and lock them up. Widespread spying is a great way to find little indiscretions like drug use, infidelity, sexual indiscretions and tax evasion.
You need to look no further than Eliot Spitzer. He was caught by the fact that there is now widespread spying on EVERYONE's bank accounts. Any transaction over $10,000 in your account is reported to the government. ANY transaction some bank employee decides is a little fishy can be reported through a SAR(Suspicious Activity Report). The fact Spitzer was destroyed by something as innocuous as flings with a prostitute, almost certainly came about only because of spying on his bank accounts. All politicians are especially closely monitored. It is quite possible some powerful people decided to destroy Spitzer because of his crusade against the thieves on Wall Street who have been quite obviously stealing this country in to poverty. You have to wonder if Spitzer had his money in a bank where the bankers decided to retaliate for his crusades against Wall Street.
Mission Impossible & The Untouchables (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing to me that we find it entertaining to watch agents of US government work to overthrow foreign governments by any criminal means handy. If another nation did that to us, we'd immediately label they as renegade nation and now-a-days, terrorists ( the all-purpose bogeyman ).
These agents never had moral qualms. Afterall, they were the good guys, so any means is well justified. But I wonder how Eliot Ness would feel visting the liquor stores of today, would he thought his effort was worth while?
The only TV program of that era to challenge the validity of the spying appartus was: The Prisoner - still a landmark today.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We Millenials (along with the boomers) are much more comfortable with and trusting of the 'Good Government'
Your view is probably the better one to have, but the attitudes of Gen-X are mostly limited to them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not even sure "more secretive" has anything to do with domestic spying. It could be simply that most people don't much care that the government does secret things, but still don't want the government to spy on them.
You could argue that the two go together, in that if the government wasn't secretive, they couldn't spy on us. But think about your neighbor -- you probably really don't care what they do
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
The summary chose a poor poll to quote, there were a number of better ones that actually back up Salon's argument
"By a 76-19 percent margin, American voters say the government should continue monitoring phone calls or e-mail between suspected terrorists in other countries and people in the U.S., according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. But voters say 55-42 percent that the government should get court orders for this surveillance."
and
"Red states, where President George W. Bush's ma
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Americans are more concerned about the economy, at this point in time. I don't have to take a poll to know this. Just like I don't have to take a poll to know that Britney Spears and Nascar are still much more interesting to the average American then
Re:Retort (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody cares until its their business being snooped.
So the lesson here is use an emotional metric. Ask them why they spent three hours on the phone with their mistress/lover discussing whether or not "this feels wrong", or, why they felt a need to buy a 50 count box of Preparation H at the Kroger on the corner of West and Spring the other day, or, why they felt a need to withdraw $1000 dollars from their checking account on a Friday night at around 11:53 P.M. and who was that woman standing next to them at the ATM on 5th and Pine?
Ask these kinds of questions, explaining that all the information came from readily available sources, and I guarantee you'll see some outrage.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, no one with a real insight into the situation has actually made reference to anything diff
Re:Retort (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll go one better. I have a poll--perhaps unscientific in that its participants were self-selected, but the sample size is orders of magnitude larger than all the other polls put together--that says Americans indeed do not give a rats patootie about domestic spying and if they do care, it's in support of it for the sake of security.
It's the 2004 election.
I actually agree with the article. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Many Americans Don't Care (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be easier if all of us were like that. But many of us do care. And many of us know that violence is not a good answer. Violence is only an answer like a tourniquet is a treatment -- it is a desperate measure and the situation is probably already a tragedy if you have to use it.
Re:I actually agree with the article. (Score:5, Informative)
Not in the bars I drink at!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From their childhood.
As children we are told, over and over, that there are "bad people" and "good people". Bad people do bad things, and good people do good things. If you're good you can't do bad things, and if you're bad you can't do good things. It's all very simple. It's also quite obviously completely wrong.
The trouble is, secretly in their heads, a lot of people never, ever, get over this viewpoint. Ever.
Criminals are bad. Terrori
Re:I actually agree with the article. (Score:5, Insightful)
At which point, you believe that you can be a "good person" even if you do bad things -- and thus, you should be exempt from all of the things done to "bad people". At which point, you're not above using bad tactics to keep yourself looking like a good person...
And of course, good people are allowed to do bad things openly, if they do them to bad people.
I would imagine that most politicians fall into this category, which is why it's so dangerous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I actually agree with the article. (Score:4, Insightful)
where from? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me make it easy for you: "24". Certainly, it's not the only place, but it's a good example. There, we learn that regardless of what we're told, everything is being watched and monitored, whether for our safety, or our oppression. But the cause does not matter. What matters is that we're repeatedly hammered with the concept that for better or worse, there is nothing we can do to prevent our government from abusing its power. In the media,
Re:I actually agree with the article. (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, I hear that on occasion too. I simply remind them that freedom is nothing more than a state of mind. Yes, it's a dangerous state of mind in some places on this Earth, but it's nothing more than a state of mind nonetheless. Each bar that is put in place like domestic spying, arrest without due process, cameras EVERYwhere, cops pulling over people without probable cause, etc... builds the prison a little more, and forces me to feel less free, and that's the tragedy. This, coming from the country that's supposed to be spreading this sort of "freedom" around the world? Yikes...
No, if you understand the power of freedom on the human will, things like this should make you cringe, even if you aren't doing anything "wrong".
Re:I actually agree with the article. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem that most humans have is they don't understand the difference between good and evil and legal and illegal.
As the overly but not enough quoted Cardinal Richelieu stated "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."
This basically means, the everyday Joe goes about his business based on his set of morals and simply thinks "If its good or 'not evil' I won't be arrested for it".
However, I'd wager if I followed the around all day with a video camera and then had a team of people watch it for the slightest infraction we'd find at least one or two things to fine them for or if we are lucky have them arrested. And when the person stands before the judge they will of course say "But I've always done this! My parents did this! How can this be wrong? I didn't even know it was illegal!" and then the judge will reply "Ignorance of the law is no excuse! Guilty!"
So if you ever get into an argument with someone about this, ask them to write everything they did that day on a piece of paper including the most private details (including things as mundane how much toilet paper they used and how many times they flushed the toilet). Now they might get the point right then and there that thats no one elese's business, but if they do write everything down look for something that could get them arrested or at least fined such as speeding, copyright violation, or violating water laws (for those that live in drought areas in the south... hence why I mentioned the toilet) and even if they cursed under their breath at the driver of another car (death threat).
There are so many things you could get arrested for that most people aren't aware that they are breaking the law on a daily basis and if there were 24/7 monitoring life would be unpleasant for them.
From a personal prospective law and justice was always intended to punish those who took things to an extreme. When speeding laws were passed it was never intended to instantly fine everyone who went one mile per hour over the limit nor were it to arrested anyone who said something ill tempered at someone else. It was for those who always went to far (as in going 20 miles over the limit and those who wrote the letters and stalked other people).
But the way that most laws were written was so that judges could make the call. Unfortunately, it didn't specifically say that people who weren't in the extremes were not to be punished. It was never considered that technology would allow all crimes to be caught instantly with the new obtrusive technologies.
So pretty much it will get to the point where the government knows everyone is a criminal and will just selectively haul people away at any given moment regardless of justice and more for either personal or political reasons.
Re:I actually agree with the article. (Score:4, Insightful)
Who said what you do isn't wrong? Just because it is not wrong yet? You don't mind registering every weapon you have, because you're allowed to have it? Who says that you are? Your constitution? Yeah, it says "right to bear arms", but does it say what kind? Who said you may have automatic rifles? Who said you may have assault rifles? Who said you may have shotguns? Who said anything about any gun besides muzzle loaders? That's an "arm", you have the right to have that muzzle loader, now hand over everything else!
I know you have one! It's registered!
Would you mind registering your TV set? Why not, it ain't illegal to have one. While we're at it, register that sat receiver too. Hey, what's the big deal, it's legal to have one! Where does it say you have the right to receive foreign news? Freedom of speech? Sure, say what you want, who said anything about your right to listen to what you wanted? So report to our local office with your sat receiver to have it modified to comply with the new "clean airwaves" bill.
I know you have one! It's registered!
The problem with "having nothing to hide" is that laws can and do change. And currently, they don't change for the better, or for more liberty.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What if Huckabee needed his own scapegoat?
What if he decided that the LDS church needed to be "watched"?
Suddenly a little over a milli
Re:I actually agree with the article. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I actually agree with the article. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I actually agree with the article. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I actually agree with the article. (Score:5, Insightful)
The same holds true for drugs. "Your honor, I have never used marijuana. I don't know where that came from, but I know it wasn't in my car before they inspected it." "Officer, where did you find this?" "In their trunk." Who will the judge believe?
Officers DO have immense power. They can/do make people's lives hell. I had one officer threaten (nay, downright YELL) to drag me out of my car, impound it, take me downtown, and suspend my license for making what he called a double lane change on a crowded highway. It was 4am and I was coming home from work. I made two lane changes (apparently within 3 seconds of each other according to the ticket.) I was one of two cars on that road and he was looking for me to respond in a harsh manner, just so he could do as he said with force.
Another incident I had was when I was out with my friends. I had the top down, driving legally and I merged in front of a patrol car. He pulls me over, comes up and asks for my info and when I ask what I was pulled over for he says, "Just stay in your car. I'll be right back." He goes back to his car and does who knows what for a half hour (seriously, we were on our way to a movie and ended up missing it because we were late) then comes back up, hands me my license and tells me to drive carefully. To this day, I have no idea why he pulled me over and did that. Sure, maybe I could have taken him to court... lost a day of work, income, and challenged the state. But to what end? I didn't even know his name or car number. I had a blaring light in my mirror so I couldn't see behind me.
The mere fact that they can pull you over and delay your day is over-powering enough, IMO.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The first incident is pretty bad. I've seen cops acting like that and it's pretty easy to believe that's how it actually happened. But it's hard to judge the second story without more information. It's possible they were searching for a car that looked like yours or searching for a man that fit your description. It really sucks, but unless you have a reason to believe they are harassing you or this is standard procedure in your city, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the police.
In the city I live t
Missing the point... (Score:4, Insightful)
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But just out of wondering... why hasn't anyone mentioned Godwin's law? I'd love to point out that it does not apply in this case, for the simple reason that government spying on its citizens was one of the characteristic marks of the Nazis. Oh, and so was propaganda.
And the soviets, too. (Hayak, Road to Serfdom).
And the British, and now the Americans (also Hayak, but forecast).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fourth amendment to the Constitution is taking as big a beating (
Re:I actually agree with the article. (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, suppose you decide to protest against the War in Iraq. All of a sudden you go from "mundane nobody" to "troublemaker." Your entire life could be examined and your secrets found. Everyone has one. Perhaps you speed while driving. Perhaps you had an affair a few years back. Perhaps you're just a lousy tipper at restaurants. They'll dig up your deepest, darkest secrets and either expose them to discredit you/ruin your life or threaten you with disclosure to control you. You've done nothing illegal but your political views run counter to the way the folks in power want things to be.
Or perhaps you're not very political, but you happen to be going through a messy divorce and your ex-wife's father works in the Justice Department. He quietly has you tracked to gather dirt on you and then uses that dirt to discredit you/ruin you/control you. This is an abuse of power, sure, but who is the public going to believe: A patriotic member of the Administration that is keeping us safe from terrorists, or a speeding, philandering, bad tipper who might be a person-of-interest in a new terror plot*?
If you plan to live your life completely at the will of whomever is in power and only support what they support and only do what they want you to do when they want you to do it, then you don't have anything to worry about. However, if that's to be the future of America, I hope that Those In Charge won't mind if we have a quiet burial ceremony for the poor, forgotten Constitution and Bill of Rights.
* Five months later to be quietly acquitted when it turns out that your only connection was that your dry cleaner's nephew once visited Pakistan. The accusation did the job, though, and stuck in the public mind.
Re:I actually agree with the article. (Score:5, Interesting)
You always did.
However, I find it interesting you didn't include your real name, address, and phone number, DL#, SSN, etc.
Who do you work for? Can we get that address as well, and your boss's and coworker's names?
Married/Single? Can we get your wife's maiden name, and your kids' names?
I saw posts in your history that were both "pro-nuclear" and denigrating to environmentalists... we'll make sure the info gets passed on to the ELF and Green Peace.
You also had a story about interactions with the police, hopefully with the above info nobody lets the "dick" cop know you're spreading one-sided denigrating information about him.
You had a post critical of preferential network treatment... which means they are using some of your private information to make decisions about you, why are you worried about it in such a small place, but not in general?
I also notice your reputation outside of SlashDot isn't all that good either... "The last I saw, UbuntuDupe's karma was so bad that he posts at -1", "UbuntuDupe would have been torn to shreds in some other community support forums (for good reason)", etc. Guess I shouldn't even bother responding =-)
If you were applying for a job under me, how comfortable would you be letting me link your real identity to your online one? With your reputation for trollishness, I wouldn't want you in my org. Or more specifically, our legal department wouldn't want you, as you'd be far too much of a proven liability to our image.
Would the gov't want any of these for nefarious purposes? technically no.
But, the gov't is full of people, and you never know when one of those people will decide to use your information improperly. (They may not be targeting you, your data just might have been randomly picked... then again, maybe someone up there thinks you're a troll and need some punishin')
Re:I actually agree with the article. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I actually agree with the article. (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone posted below, the reason that people are so gung-ho on surveillance is that there is this notion of good people vs bad people that is started in childhood, and which never really goes away. Not to mention that everyone thinks that only bad people (however they are defined) have bad things happen to them as a result of something as neutral as surveillance.
Statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Completely agreed. The summary is crap. However, if you RTFA, the conclusion is very well supported.
Re:Statistics (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dear Citizen,
You have recently misspelt a common word in your exchange with other citizens. Please note that the adjective meaning "having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand" is spelt as "relevant", not "relevent".
Please do not reply as this is an automated message. If you would wish to unsubscribe from this free service, you may appeal here [mailto].
Thank you.
Brought to you by the Grammar-Nazis Department of Federal Agency of Domestic Surveillance (FADS). Powered by Microsoft Spelling and
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, a servey of American slashdotters would show a different picture.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now, if you're asking if we're a random sampling that's representative of the nation at large - Not remotely.
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Those who fail to learn the lessons of history. (Score:5, Informative)
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:Those who fail to learn the lessons of history. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Because people inevitable fail to learn the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat it endlessly."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It is all about how you ask the question (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
some people don't (Score:2)
Re:some people don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that it will make one difference to someone who thinks like that, the next time this comes up, ask them if they agreed with the former Soviet Union spying on its citizens, listening in on phone conversations and having a network of spies to find out who might have subversive ideas.
If they say no, ask them why it's not ok for them to do it but it's ok for the U.S. to do it. Sit back and watch them stammer as they try to find an excuse to justify their position.
Huh, what do you know. I didn't Godwin the conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:some people don't (Score:5, Funny)
We need a new law that replaces Nazi analogies with Soviet analogies. "Godwin's Law 2: This time it's Commies"
Re: (Score:2)
heh. (Score:3, Funny)
thanks heavens I live in the UK where government spying on the populace is strictly for... oh wait.
Americans DO care (Score:5, Informative)
Telecom Companies.
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/mellmansurvey_jan2008.pdf [aclu.org] [aclu.org]
Better question: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They make more money that way. There are some journalistic ethics left, for whatever good they do, but those with them don't run the news.
Polls will give you any answer you want (Score:5, Interesting)
"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 (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with executing murderers. I do not, however, have sufficient faith in the legal system to automatically equate conviction with guilt. Until even unreasonable doubt is removed you should err on the side of caution.
Re:Polls will give you any answer you want (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Stop the Petty Arguements (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue is that there isn't an overwhelming backlash from this expansion of surveillance power.
The sad part is that America is losing it's democracy without realizing it.
When FDR tried to pack the supreme court the United States Congress saw it for what it really was; the undermining of the checks and balances instituted to prevent abuse of power.
Today, I think, with great sadness if the same thing happened it would hardly be so adamantly opposed. Whichever party the President belongs to would simply support it to further their agenda.
What is there to care about? (Score:2, Informative)
Just because a tree COULD fall in the woods doesn't mean folks should go around holding their hands over their ears to prevent themselves from hearing it.
Can you hear me now?
Lots. (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the course of U.S. government since its inception?
The whole point of blackmail is that it exists in the shadows. The stage production of justice is a silly thing to point at when trying to downplay the impact of domestic spying, because the whole point of that kind of leverage is that both the abuser and the victim fight in their own ways to keep it out of the justic
Wag the Dog (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
odious in the extreme (Score:4, Informative)
I mostly liked Greenwald's response, but he does seem to tilt slightly by Calabresi's points. I think that will make it difficult for his article to be persuasive to those not already persuaded. However, he does link this excellent piece in the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-sanchez16mar16,0,4039194.story [latimes.com]
That might be more approachable to most.
I'd also like to add a bit of insight from Molly Ivins, paraphrased. She said that moderates sometimes fret that when they give the government increased spying powers that they'll end up spying on the girl scouts. But this is wrong: they don't end up spying on the girl scouts, they don't end up making a mistake, they ALREADY ARE. Gotta keep tabs on those nonviolent Quakers, etc. It's not "what if" the government abuses its authority, it's by how much.
Did anybody read the second link by Greenwald? (Score:2, Interesting)
He basically says that Time lied . Yep. So, in other words most Americans care about the Bush administration's illegal wiretaps and Time is making up data to support an opposite conclusion.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Where's the opposition? (Score:2)
As for the poll that was mentioned in the Slashdot summary that claims the direct opposite:
[..]shows that the percentage of Americans who believe the Federal Government is "very secretive" has doubled in the last two years alone (to 44%)
How is this direct proof of the opposite? And how can we know that the poll was conducted in an unbiased manner?
There is little evidence that [the average] American cares about these issues. We rarely see any protests
More people vote for "dancing with stars" than (Score:3, Insightful)
For the most part, the millenials (those born after 1980) don't care much about politics, and those who do mainly have skewed, false information.
Did anyone see the california train derailment that happened in cali? I would have never known about it if my brother, who ordered something from newegg tracked his shipping details and it said "train derailment" and called and told me.
The millenials don't care about things unless it jumps up and smacks them in the face. Its sad, really.
Re:More people vote for "dancing with stars" than (Score:4, Interesting)
The downside is that the Millenials don't really care. They're more amused than outraged. They think you can't change it, because the system is too far gone, too corrupt, whatever.
Also, it's not "cool" to be all that involved. It's okay to have an opinion that so-and-so is an idiot, but to get really pissed off, go to rallies, and be a real-life activist loses the cool-points you garnered as a laid-back, amusingly cynical do-nothing.
It's hard to be a concerned American right now. We're realizing that American's don't actually have an innate moral sense. The indifference to wiretapping is the least alarming of the current apathies. Wasn't torture wrong, just last week or so? What happened to that?
Now there are entire movie franchises (Saw, Hostel) where our best and brightest go to watch torture FOR AMUSEMENT. For you Jack Bauer fans (torturer par excellance) there is even a guide to Christian living written in the context of that show--Jack Baeur is Having a Bad Day, or something like that.
I have to explain to my kids why I won't rent them these movies, and how they have influenced military members serving at Abu Ghraib, etc. I miss the days when the "moral issue" consisted of explaining to your daughter why she shouldn't show her boobs to the world. Now our culture is to the point where we have to "have a dialog" about torture. Thank you, John Yoo.
Editor Bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't we be left to make up our own minds on the validity of their assertion. This isn't Fox News is it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
international phone calls will be tapped. (Score:2)
I guess that got to be too inconvenient, hence the recent controversies.
Foreign governments are going to spy regardless of any possible law or supreme court decisi
What Should We Expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Forefather said it best... (Score:2)
Security deserve Neither - Benjamin Franklin.
seems obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
1) The media likes to call it "Domestic Spying" but the truth is that the authority only covers calls where one party is outside the US. In that case, calling it a "Domestic Spy Program" is deceptive.
2) Americans understand (even if the eggheads in the media do not) that the US is at war. And during war time the US policy needs to be nimble enough to combat a faceless enemy. In a world where terrorist cells operate almost completely autonomous, you can't say "Well we can't listen to this conversation because we don't have a warrant. We'll get a warrant for the next one." There may not be a next one. Buildings could just start dropping from the sky.
3) As far as abuses of the patriot act go, you really need to look at this in a historical context. In WW2, Roosevelt interned 120K Japanese-Americans out of fear that they might try to sabotage US efforts against Japan. In June 1942, 8 German saboteurs were caught trying to enter the US to sabotage the US efforts against Germany. By July 8th, All eight were sentenced to death by a military tribunal. By August they all smelled a little too much like burnt toast. Lincoln is famous for his rape of the constitution. After the civil war, 2nd amendment rights in the south were abbreviated, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, etc.
So you see, this is the nature of war. I will be more concerned about these programs if they exist long after American boots have left the middle east. In the meantime, I want my uncle and brother to be as safe as possible over there.
Re:seems obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
"The media likes to call it "Domestic Spying" but the truth is that the authority only covers calls where one party is outside the US. In that case, calling it a "Domestic Spy Program" is deceptive."
How is it deceptive? There are large numbers of US citizens who place calls outside the US on a regular basis. I just called a business in Canada this morning, and thus placed myself at the risk of being spied upon.
"Americans understand (even if the eggheads in the media do not) that the US is at war. And during war time the US policy needs to be nimble enough to combat a faceless enemy. In a world where terrorist cells operate almost completely autonomous, you can't say "Well we can't listen to this conversation because we don't have a warrant. We'll get a warrant for the next one." There may not be a next one."
"As far as abuses of the patriot act go, you really need to look at this in a historical context. In WW2, Roosevelt interned 120K Japanese-Americans out of fear that they might try to sabotage US efforts against Japan. In June 1942, 8 German saboteurs were caught trying to enter the US to sabotage the US efforts against Germany. By July 8th, All eight were sentenced to death by a military tribunal. By August they all smelled a little too much like burnt toast. Lincoln is famous for his rape of the constitution. After the civil war, 2nd amendment rights in the south were abbreviated, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, etc."
"Well all those OTHER people were speeding, Officer, so why are you writing ME a ticket?"
"So you see, this is the nature of war. I will be more concerned about these programs if they exist long after American boots have left the middle east. In the meantime, I want my uncle and brother to be as safe as possible over there."
How is turning the US into a police state going to keep your uncle and brother safe on the other side of the world?
Ugh. I can't stand this kind of journalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not that the American people are stupid, as peoples go. It's that we're as vulnerable to fuzzy thinking and misinformation as anybody else.
The problem isn't that there is proof that the Executive branch has been spying on Americans -- at least if we're not counting the by now well documented fact of FBI use of national security letters; or the fact that NSA domestic surveillance
No contradiction here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm, exactly the opposite would be: "Americans do care about domestic spying". Is that what the supposed counter-argument asserts? No, it is not:
Believing, that the government is secretive, does not equate to being bothered by it — plenty of people think, the government should be more secretive in its fight against our enemies (whether they are right is besides the point).
And 44% — 22% a year ago? — is still less than a half...
*Time* Warner is Spying on You (Score:3, Informative)
All this handwaving by Bush, his Republican Congressional minority (that was the majority that successfully hid these crimes for years of their joint reign), and the media corporations that all colluded to criminally spy on us are just more proof that they're guilty of those massive crimes. They're not covered by the existing laws that would have given them immunity from liability, if only they had even the slightest respect for the law. Instead they just did whatever they wanted, for the money and power it brings. And they plan to invade privacy as a top priority [slashdot.org] , which they've planned for quite a while [slashdot.org].
Of course the corporations spying on you will lie to you about whether you care that they're spying on you. It's up to you: if you don't care that they're also lying to you about it to protect their own ass (and their ongoing, expanding criminal enterprise), then it's your fault, too.
Spying. Lying. Living. (Score:3, Insightful)
One might argue that since the terrorists (presumably under the "freedom" days) are already among us, that there's no good way of identifying them in order to stop their activities.
We live in a world where many people do not know their neighbors, nor do they even have the desire to know their neighbors. We have taught our children now from youth that all strangers are DANGER. Is it any wonder that terrorist groups can operate effectively without fear of discovery? In addition to "stranger danger", we've also adopted things like "don't ask, don't tell" and "mind your own business" to the point of where neighborhoods are no longer controlled by the populace (we no longer even desire to "tar and feather" and "have em' ride the rail" out of town.. not that I'm advocating mass witch hunting either). Now we fully expect our own gov't or police to be the sole entity in determining who is "ok" and who is "not". And when those gov't/policing entities fail us, we sue them.
And we WONDER why we don't have the freedoms we used to? We don't have those freedoms because we have acted irresponsibly with regards to our duties as citizens to train our children to do what is right and honorable. Instead we set up examples of lewd living, cheating, piracy and CLAIM that we want "privacy" mainly to protect the deeds we have done that aren't "right" or "honorable". Sigh...
To make matters worse, to combine irresponsible living with no policing just continues moral degradation and chaos.
Want to go back to a "freer" time? Time to teach again what is right and wrong and THEN live it out! Not with justice... for no one would survive but with grace and mercy so that everyone can understand that the desire is for everyone to work together to do what is right. For those that are unteachable and have caused much harm to society.... time for them to "hit the rails!"
Anyone who believes that the "fix" is to stop the current policies needs to understand that building back responsible human behavior is NOT an easy or quick task. Policing must continue until the populace takes back ownership and their own responsibility for policing themselves.
The problem isn't that we're all being watched, (Score:5, Interesting)
The lack of transparency is at the heart of any problem we have with surveilance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, I think the federal government is *very* secretive, and I greatly dislike domestic spying... but the two are not mutually inclusive. It's far from "Poll B proves Assertion A is a blatantly false."
RTFA. The summary is crap. The article supports it's position very well.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, which is why I enjoy pollsters calling me so much. Assuming my four kids aren't screaming in the background (which makes life miserable for the pollster anyway) I like to break down the question and make sure I get exactly what they are getting at before answering. It drives most of them nuts. =)
Re: (Score:2)