Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Americans Don't Care About Domestic Spying ?

Posted by Zonk on from the you're-blocking-the-view-of-the-big-game dept.

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%)'"

15 of 485 comments (clear)

  1. Retort by GWLlosa · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd write an insightful and scathing retort, in which the abundance of witticisms and the razor-sharp logic would decisively destroy the opposing position... but I don't know who might be reading this.

    1. Re:Retort by Beefaroni · · Score: 5, Funny

      i thought our calls were being monitored or recorded for quality purposes.

    2. Re:Retort by letxa2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      '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.

      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.

    3. Re:Retort by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    4. 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
  2. Statistics by BaphometLaVey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. It is all about how you ask the question by rahmrh · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you want a certain answer on a poll, if you ask the question in the correct way, you can usually get the answer that you want. Like: Does it bother you that the US govt increased domestic spying to keep you safe from the terrorists? Rather than: Does it bother you that the US govt increased domestic spying is keeping track of everything that you do? The first one will get a more positive answer against domestic spying than the second one, and I would bet the polls questions being used are heavily loaded to get the answer the poll taker wants.

  4. Americans DO care by BirdDoggy · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've posted this before, but here's a survey that shows Americans are against Warrantless Wiretaps, Blanket Warrants, And Immunity For
    Telecom Companies.

    http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/mellmansurvey_jan2008.pdf [aclu.org]

  5. 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.

  6. 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 -
  7. Re:I actually agree with the article. by plague3106 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. 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.
  9. Ugh. I can't stand this kind of journalism. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Hi! I'm a Mac." "And I'm a PC."


    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

  10. Re:Polls will give you any answer you want by ibwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The honest way of asking the question would be "do you believe murderers should be executed?" No the honest way of asking that question is "do you believe that people convicted of murder should be executed?"

    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.
  11. 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')