Slashdot Mirror
Majority of Americans Say NSA Phone Tracking Is OK To Fight Terrorism
An anonymous reader writes "While the tech media has gone wild the past few days with the reports of the NSA tracking Verizon cell usage and creating the PRISM system to peer into our online lives, a new study by Pew Research suggests that most U.S. citizens think it's okay. 62 percent of Americans say losing some personal privacy is acceptable as long as its used to fight terrorism, and 56 percent are okay with the NSA tracking phone calls. Online tracking is fair less popular however, with only 45 percent approving of the practice. The data also shows that the youth are far more opposed to curtailing privacy to fight terror, which could mean trouble for politicians planning to continue these programs in the coming years."
That the majority of the public are short term thinking morons?
It doesn't matter whether or not all that has been claimed of PRISM is true, they are happy to give up privacy and freedoms if it "helps fight terrorism"
The majority of Americans (1) don't understand the extent of the surveillance, and (2) don't understand why privacy is so important.
I totally believe this poll.
This article says that 70% of Americans don't know what the constitution is: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368482/How-ignorant-Americans-An-alarming-number-U-S-citizens-dont-know-basic-facts-country.html
Fer christ sake, more people die from nose hair complications than terrorism, what have we come to?
Just calling to see how that new-fangled "liberty" thing is working out for you?
Oh, you don't give a shit anymore?
I believe the poll results, but only for one reason. Because the responses were framed in the context of "to fight terrorism." Most mindless sheep would say that it is ok to sacrifice anything, to prevent terrorism.
That's not the problem. The problem is what the government can/will do with the information when the political climate is favorable to the party in charge. Say for example, pull every phone call and e-mail from a political opponent to conduct opposition research. Or find out who has a gun in their house, and enact nationwide confiscation. Or scan their e-mails for keywords to indicate someone's political beliefs, and investigating or auditing those people because they disagree with the political party in charge.
That is the danger. Not terrorism from outside, from terrorism conducted by our own government.
sudo make me a sandwich
1004 people gives an error in determining the percentage response for the larger pool of "everyone in the USA" of 3.2%. Therefore a gap of more than 9.6% is statistically significant and reliable to indicate that there IS a gap and the majority accept tracking.
You would need to show that the sampling was biased toward those liable to accept or the wording was partisan and leading if you wish to call this study bullshit.
"I have nothing to hide" needs to die. And goverment actions are exactly the reason:
Did judes have anything to hide from goverment before Nazis came to power?
Nope. Yet they suffered greatly because of goverment knowledge of their ethnicity.
Was being communist or friend of one crime in US before red scare?
Nope. But then red scare came and whowledge of who is fiend with who destroyed careers and lives.
Was Alan Turing doing anything wrong?
Nope. But he was still brutalized and died as a result after nature of his sexuality was revealed.
Was ownership of land of factories crime?
Nope. But then commies came to power on many countries and people were shited to prisons, prison colonies or executed outright.
In history, many people thought that their religion, political orientiation, sexual orientation, friendships and relationships, ownerships or opinions. ... that none of it would ever be issue because they are not doing anything wrong or illegal or even mean.
And they were wrong. And died because of it.
Laws change. Society changes. Rules change. People in power change. Things can be taken out of context, or put into another.
You might be completelly fine one day, and monster another.
And if list of "monsters" can be gotten as easily as simple database querry, it is best not to be part of it. And to not have any such database.
-- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
The article that you link to in the Daily Mail panders to a peculiar kind of 'stupid american' stereotype that we Brits cling to when we want to feel better about the end of empire and the decline of our military and industrial might. You could replace the questions with ones of similar obscurity from British history and get a similar set of responses from a random selection of British folk. Try going out onto any street in the UK and asking the yokels about the 1689 Bill of Rights. Or get them to point to the location of the Battle of Trafalgar / Waterloo / Balaclava on a map.
The average guy on the street is just as ignorant everywhere in the world.
Well, did it?
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
When it comes to rights, you can't use public opinion polls. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the majority. Phone tracking is not a threat to most people. The government has no reason to be concerned with them. But the few who are a concern have the right to live their lives without unnecessary oversight from the government.
"I believe the poll results"
Well I don't. The kleptocracy that can invade everyone's privacy at will can easily sway statistics as well.
Eisenhower's nightmare has come true. The monster that was created against the foes of both World Wars has turned against the society that created it. It's become the reason for its own existence.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
-- philosopher George Carlin
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
According to that PewResearch article, 56% are in favor ofr un-Constitutional, unwarranted and illegal spying, and 41% against*.
That initially sounds pretty damning, but in triuth it is a pretty slim majority, considering how these polls are typically rigged. It's a useful number that politicians can point to, but I'd wager that it doesn't accurately reflect what most people feel about the situation. Those polls have leading questions that almost force you to agree with whatever the pollsters (or their employers) are supporting, and leave no room for dissenting opinions (for example, sure somebody might support telephone monitoring if it were used to stop a terrorist attack, but do the pollsters ask if the querents mind if that information is used for /anything else/?)
If there were a single-question poll made of the US public ("Are you in favor of the US government monitoring every communication you and every other American makes?") I think the results would be quite different.
* presumably the remaining 3% want monitoring for some, miniature American flags for others).
I thought I'd never type the above words, but on this morning's Today Show, Bill O'Reilly was on and talking about Snowden and the NSA spying. He said that if Snowden is right and the NSA is spying on everyone then Snowden is a hero and the NSA is wrong. If Snowden is lying, then, then what he did was very wrong. O'Reilly went on to say that it is not acceptable to spy on everyone just to catch a few terrorists (if this is even effective... there's no transparency at all so we don't know) and there should be measures in place to ensure that they only collect data on people they need to spy on (e.g. suspects).
Do you see what you've done, Obama and NSA? You've got me agreeing with Bill O'Reilly! Surely, this is one of the signs of the apocalypse!
(In all seriousness, I'm sure O'Reilly supported programs like this under Bush and is only opposed to them now because Obama's doing it. I'm also sure that, had I listened to the interview a bit more I'd have disagreed with him on something - or he toned down his rhetoric for the Today Show audience. Still agreeing with him for as long as I did was scary.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
People are slow to learn from History, a government spying on its people if allowed will be abused, governments will use patriotism against you and even get your children to spy for them as was done by Germany during WWII. Researching and storing information on people is dangerous too as Germany used their own and captured census data in invaded countries with IBM Hollerith machines to sort the Jews from the general population, round them up and send them to the death camps. These are far from the only examples.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Why do you think they called it the "Patriot Act" and congress voted for it unread? Almost unaminously at that.
That isn't even the immediate problem. Those are simply potential problems that will occur when the system is inevitably misused.
The immediate and very real problem is the Steve Jackson Games problem. Since they are using the overly broad data that they collect to look for connections that may or may not exist, everyone is in danger of being violated in the name of fighting terrorism just because someone they have had contact with has had contact with someone that is on a list.
Hope you don't 'look' gay...
I look fabulous, thank you very much.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I disagree, I think the sheep willing to give up anything to prevent terrorism IS the larger issue. It ensures that politicians will always be there to make that deal with them. Getting elected by playing to people's paranoia is much easier than getting elected by leading people to actually improve the country.
Politician A: We need to fix the budget. We are spending a ridiculous amount of money on national defense, way too much for how much we're raising in tax revenue...
Politician B: OMG DID YOU HEAR THAT?!?! He wants to RAISE TAXES and CUT THE MILITARY! At a time when terrorists are threatening your children!!!
Politician A should win, but politician B will. That's already going on on a massive scale, while the possibility you present doesn't seem to be happening as much right now. And our grandchildren will be paying it off.