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.
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
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
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.
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
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?"
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.
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.
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.