Slashdot Mirror
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%)'"
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.
"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it." -- (Don't remember who said it).
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.
My blog
It doesn't matter whether or not "most" people care or don't care.
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.
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?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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 justice system.
McCarthy had dirt on almost everybody of any influence, and he certainly knew the value of it. Nothing has changed, except the expansion of the existing system. Despite the spin being layered on this issue, the true battle has little to do with the specter of abusive public arrests by cops using illegal wiretaps.
-FL
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin
they do the president. The media, which at one point was probably controlled by liberals has now shifted into some sort of... monster. Republicans don't control it - Murdoch does... that guy is probably one of the many possible anti-christs but I digress :P
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.
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.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Yes, there's a gem of an idea that's lodged itself firmly in the American mindset. But where did Americans learn such a distorted premise from originally? I'm sure it couldn't have been the media in its sycophantic and passive treatment of politics over the last several decades.
The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
Can't we be left to make up our own minds on the validity of their assertion. This isn't Fox News is it?
The point is not whether some random "they" person cares. Who's to say that one of those "they" people is your Significant Other's creepy ex who decides to make your life hell/embarass you both or have some other agenda to make your life difficult. It's easy enough if that Significant Other happens to be a police officer right now. They have immense power, they can run your plates, find out where you live, follow you around. But wait, you say, they should surely get in trouble for that, yes, they should, do they always, no. Besides, you have nothing to hide. Face it, we all have some things we would like to keep private, and they can always make you a bad guy.
I got nuthin
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.
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.
but I may as well point this out. I think the reasons Most Americans don't care is because they understand the program beyond what it is being called.
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.
First they came for the Jews
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
I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
The point is, it's none of their fucking business. Why should I have to be pro-active in asserting my right to privacy (assuming I've got that right to assert?) If I want to call Aunt Tille in Tulsa to wish her a happy birthday, why is that the government's business? More to the point, if I decide to donate to an organization that the government doesn't like (assuming they're not involved in illegal activity), again, not their business.
The fourth amendment to the Constitution is taking as big a beating (if not bigger) as the first these days. We might find evidence of illegal/terroristic activity, but to date that's never been a very convincing argument for invading Americans' privacy (at least without at least the APPEARANCE of due process. Pesty thing, that whole 'due process' thing. Fortunately, we've been able to get around it so long as the people we're holding without trial are brown.) The whole point of the fourth amendment is that the government must make its case to a neutral party before it invades someone's privacy. If my choices are between living in a state that performs such fascist behaviors (such as spying on whoever the fuck it wants in the name of 'national security') or rolling the dice that I or someone I know might conceivably die in a terrorist attack, I'll take the latter every time. As I understand it, the odds of that happening are roughly the same as winning the Powerball. It's not a huge risk; it's definitely not worth doing the terrorists' work for them, which is what we're doing by stripping away the civil rights of law-abiding Americans. We can't even look at the results to determine if the benefits of these actions are worth it, because the government won't tell us what they've found. "Trust us, it's working, after all, we haven't had an attack since 9/11, have we?" (Someone needs to educate the average American about the concept of 'correlation != 'causation'.)
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
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
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.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
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...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you have curtains on your windows?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
"Well, if you're not doing something bad, who cares if the government is watching?"
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".
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
You ask where Americans learn such a distorted premise of privacy?
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, we are repeatedly treated to scenes of torture and humiliation of "innocent till proven guilty" people, at the hands of law enforcement. As a whole, these images promote habituation to ongoing abuses of our civil rights... not through fear or ignorance... but rather apathy.
Of course, media does not bear the sole blame, nor actually does it bear the bulk of it. You know who bears the blame? US!
We are the ones who are the chief architects of our own oppression and the nearly inevitable even greater oppression of our children. Why you ask? Because we are too busy, or don't care enough, to educate our children, both in terms of general education to develop their innate intelligence, and specifically historical knowledge that is absolutely required for them to even realize when their rights are being violated. Our current generation has grown complacent, arrogant, and stupid... and their parents largely don't seem to care. Sadly, the small, isolated, pockets of parents that actually do their job, to push their offspring to develop, matter little, as they drown in the sea of materialistic arrogance.
"Well, if you're not doing something bad, who cares if the government is watching?"
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.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
No, "they" don't care about the mundane details of your life... until the way you live your life in some way threatens "them."
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.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
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 all day... but I bet you still don't want them staring at your windows all day.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Many Americans don't care about their government's interventionist policies, until the resentment turns into violence, and then their only response is more violence. Many Americans don't care that their public primary educational system is a joke among modern industrialized nations, until the ignorance gives rise to crime and violence, and then their only response is more violence. (More police, harsher sentences.)
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.
Your mom is the prime example of the person believing in the "good government". That's not belittling her, don't get me wrong, that's how she grew up. She grew up in a world separated in two parts, the Soviet Regimes in the east and the Free World in the west. She saw and observed that she, indeed, lived in the "good" part. And despite all propaganda, even the people on the other side believed that she lived in the "good" part while they got the "bad" part.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Where it gets really dangerous is when you still divide people into "bad people" and "good people", even though you start to realize that good people can do bad things, and vice versa.
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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I just have one question for you. If you walk up to a Judge and tell him/her that you did not do a double lane change illegally, and the officer says you did. Who will they believe?
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.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
And that's the tricky part in it all. Who cares about spying if you don't do anything wrong?
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's an interesting premise to consider that going back to the past (the days of "freedom") might end up with another 911 terrorist attack.
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.
We're not "civilized" or "advanced" in any sense of the word, as a race. We're just one step up (if that!) from the rest of the animals on this planet, and as a race my point is proven over and over every single day that passes. Come back to me in about another 1,000 to 10,000 years and try that "advanced" and "civilized" bit, perhaps someone will be able to make an argument to make it stick -- but not today.
Something of a disconnect in this is one side, the side that thinks the spying is bad, is attempting to convince people that the spying is done on any and everyone. If you call you mom to get grandma's pot pie recipe, your being listened to. Then there is the other side, the side that actually permit the spying. They claim you are only being spied on if you are connected with a terrorist in some way shape or form.
Now, no one with a real insight into the situation has actually made reference to anything different then a connection to terrorism or terrorist. We have listened to people claiming to protect civil liberties demand that terrorist and people who took up arms against our troops get a trial in US courts where the argument against that claimed it would expose intelligence gained from them and cause those gains to be ineffective in the future. Yet, the Civil liberties side claims that someone being held for fighting and killing our troops or conducting attacks against civilians is inherently privileged to our constitutional protections as if they were elevated above the slime they are. And when you finally get right down to it, you find all these people making personal insults to the president of the United State and other leaders who have backed these policies.
What we really have is the alarm side ruining it's credibility with individual citizens thinking that the positions of the civil liberty alarmists are insane. They are actually making the case for people to not believe them or to think they are somehow too extreme to be right. As far as I know, your only being monitored if and only if you are connected to a terrorist, terrorist organization, or someone who is connected to them. To me, that means i'm not being monitored, just the people who are connected to people wanting to kill innocent people. I would suspect that many others agree with me which is why we see them as not caring. When you get past the tricky labeling of "domestic" spying, you really see that it isn't so domestic. It is entirely possible for the vast majority of people to look past what the extremist and Bush Bashers are claiming and look at the official accounts and happenings and come to a completely different conclusion. Especially when all the critical claims against the spying is backed up with bashing on either the government or Bush himself.
So to put it more bluntly, you have people who are demonizing the domestic spying program and bashing the government and Bush on a personal level which appears their their position is more personal hatred blowing something out of portion when you have the government and Bush claiming this is to get terrorist and people helping them and their faults in this logic are what is being repeatedly bashed by the less creditable other side. It is understandable that the general public chooses not to believe the opposition and sides with their government on the necessity of it. And as the articles pointed out, the so called abuses comes from incompetence, not malicious behavior which reinforces their position that it is ok.
She also grew up watching these PR programs for the CIA and FBI.
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.
I did RTVFLA. It used single points of data from various polls. This poll had this question and 55% said yes and this other poll asked another question and 60% said no. Poll numbers change over time and the mob is a fickle bunch that can turn on a dime.
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 any supposed loss of rights.
If you want to argue that more Americans should be concerned, that's a different argument.
I care about domestic spying. As a matter of fact, this is nothing new. Our government and and especially American corporations are criminal. The fact the Islamacists are upset with us tells us something. The Jihadists have reason to be upset with us. Besides the superior race propaganda there is some logic to them in their stupidity. They don't understand why our government permits corporations to commit felony after misdemeanor and just pay a fine or some other simple penalty as just an every day cost of doing business. All three need deprogramming and some very serious penalties instituted against the leadership of all. It may be hundreds of thousands dead for the cost doing business, but whatever it is, it's still a war crime because we went to Iraq on a mistaken pretense. GWB wanted to be a war president like his daddy. A lot of you turd bosom buddies are going read this and say he's another damn liberal retard. To which I say partisanship has nothing to do with this.