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%)'"

Comments

Wag the Dog

[drneal]

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.

Re:I actually agree with the article.

[taskiss]

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

Nothing.

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

Re:Polls will give you any answer you want

[Insipid Trunculance]

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."

Re:I actually agree with the article.

[Anonymous Coward]

>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')

Re:Retort

[demachina]

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.