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%)'"

18 of 485 comments (clear)

  1. I actually agree with the article. by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

    1. Re:I actually agree with the article. by taskiss · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      Nothing.

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

      --
      - real hackers don't have sigs -
    2. Re:I actually agree with the article. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But where did Americans learn such a distorted premise from originally?
      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. Terrorists are bad. Therefore they cannot do good things and deserve to be punished. By contrast, "we" are good. We don't do bad things. Therefore, this law will not affect us. We have nothing "bad" to hide because we are "good". I assure you that many, many, people of quite advanced years and experience think like this.

      There's also an element of Schadenfreude to it all. Secretly a lot of people really enjoy seeing others punished and/or humiliated. I don't mean from a sense of justice. I mean they actually enjoy watching/hearing about "bad" humans getting "punished", ostracized, or especially maltreated by "good" people, i.e. authority figures. A lot of people support waterboarding because it is torture, and for no other reason. The same element that sells celebrity gossip magazines is behind it too. I suspect many people support these laws in the hope neighbors they dislike will have embarrassing private details discovered and published.

      We are told that we live in an "advanced", "civilized" society, where people have abandoned brutal, cruel, petty and bigoted ways of life. That's a crock. The only thing that has happened is that it has become taboo to support such things in public life.
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    3. Re:I actually agree with the article. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The interesting - and often overlooked - corollary to this is, if you did nothing bad, why is anyone coming to check on you in the first place? And no, I don't care for anyone to verify this. If I'm supposed to take someone at their word on whether the surveillance is legitimate, I expect them to take me at my word that their surveillance is unnecessary.

      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.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:I actually agree with the article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >Now do I have the right not to give a shit about the Patriot Act?

      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')

  2. The problem isn't that we're all being watched, by crovira · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  3. Polls will give you any answer you want by khakipuce · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

    --
    Art is the mathematics of emotion
    1. Re:Polls will give you any answer you want by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 5, Interesting

      With apologies for the blatant plagiarism

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

      Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

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

      Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

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

      Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

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

      Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

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

      Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

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

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

      Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"

      Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

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

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

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

      Bernard Woolley: "How?"

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

      Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

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

      Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

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

      Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

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

      Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

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

      Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

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

      --
      Wanted : A Signature.
  4. Wag the Dog by drneal · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Is it that Americans don't care about privacy, or that the mass media is intentionally keeping the issue out of the limelight?


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

    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

    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.

  5. "Conventional wisdom" is almost always bullshit by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

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

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

  6. Re:Those who fail to learn the lessons of history. by fredrated · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think if he were to come up with something today, it would be more along the lines of

    "Because people inevitable fail to learn the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat it endlessly."

  7. What Should We Expect? by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

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

  8. Re:Retort by snowraver1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I actually had a similar confersation with my mom last night. I was arguing that on the Internet nothing should be blocked/censored, even child porn. We should be setting an example for countries like China. I'm not saying that child porn should be legal, downloaders and uploaders still need to be prosecuted, but to treat everyone like a criminal and just block access is, in itself, criminal.

    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.

    --
    Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
  9. Re:More people vote for "dancing with stars" than by misanthrope101 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Actually the Millenials (weird name, btw) are often better-informed than we think. Watching The Daily Show and the Colbert Report exclusively gives you a better knowledge of what is actually happening than does CNN and Fox News.

    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.

  10. Re:Retort by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    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.

    --

    I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  11. Re:Retort by mcmonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    'Time claims that "nobody cares" about the Government's increased spying powers and that "polling consistently supports that conclusion." They don't cite a single poll because that assertion is blatantly false. Just this weekend, a new poll released by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University proves that exactly the opposite is true. That poll shows that the percentage of Americans who believe the Federal Government is "very secretive" has doubled in the last two years alone (to 44%)'"
    I have no idea what the truth is on this matter, but the fact that "nobody cares" is not refuted by "the percentage of Americans who believe the Federal Government is 'very secretive' has doubled... to 44%." Simply put, it's entirely possible more people believe the government is more secretive--but they simply don't care.
    I'm glad I'm not the only one to pick that up. Would that qualify as a strawman argument?

    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.

  12. Re:Retort by lawn.ninja · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I find that I hit the same walls with family and friends about this issue as well. The problem is that nothing really bad has been done with the info yet. Historically it takes something really bad to wake an American from their Mc Donald's induced coma. Yes, I am American, but I am increasingly ashamed of the people living in my country that also refer to themselves as Americans. I truely believe that we are well on our way to a police state. It took about 4 years of planning and 2 of execution to for Hitler to sieze power, a few more to turn his country into a police state. the same goes for Stalin. All of them did it with the bullshit bravado of "national pride". Most people think I'm crazy, I imagine that this would also be the same contingent that believes sacrificing liberty for safety is something worth doing. When all they really give up is liberty; as safety is a relative term and can never be truely achieved in the way they preach. The only thing to do is to continue to talk to family and friends about this in the hopes that they see what is happening before it is "too late". I honestly think the tipping point has already been passed though, and we are screwed. I think the day is coming that all Americans are going to be faced with a tough decision, one that can only be made once you realize that the life we had no longer exists. I think protesting and questioning our government is important and everyone should take part, while we are still allowed. It will take something bad before people wake up, it will take their neighbors being arrested.

  13. Re:Retort by demachina · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the 40's until recently the United States was a booming country, everyone was getting richer, the standard of living was great and improving. The U.S. benefited greatly from the fact the rest of the world has been flattened by World War II. People tend to be generally happy with their government when they are prosperous. Look no further than today's Russia where people LOVE Putin because their income is skyrocketing partially thanks to the huge influx of oil and gas revenue, even though he is for all practical purposes a ruthless thug, and returning Russia to a one party state.

    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.

    --
    @de_machina