Slashdot Mirror
Most Americans Think Courts Are Failing To Limit Government Surveillance
Nerval's Lobster writes "More than half of Americans believe that the federal courts have failed to limit the U.S. government's collection of personal information via phone records and the Internet, according to a new survey from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. But that's nothing compared to the 70 percent who believe that the government 'uses this data for purposes other than investigating terrorism,' according to the organization's summary of its survey. Another 63 percent of respondents indicated they thought the government is collecting information about the content of their communications. The Pew Research Center surveyed 1,480 adults over the course of five days in July. 'The public's views of the government's anti-terrorism efforts are complex, and many who believe the reach of the government's data collection program is expansive still approve of the effort overall,' the organization's summary added. 'In every case, however, those who view the government's data collection as far-reaching are less likely to approve of the program than those who do not.' Some 47 percent of those surveyed approved of the government's collection of phone and Internet data, while 50 percent disapproved. Among those who thought the government is reading their personal email or listening to their phone calls, some 40 percent approved of the data collection, even as 58 percent disapproved. There's much more, including how opinions of government surveillance break across political party lines on the Pew Research Center's Website."
Iz me.....Nazi-katz,
But the behind the scenes NSA checks delayed my posting
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
We are talking about the largest, most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire (with military bases in some 150 countries) that has ever existed. Of course there is no meaningful "oversight" -- they wouldn't have succeeded (in creating the most lucrative business in world history) if there was.
Courts apply laws written by governments. In the best case.
In the worst case, courts are directly managed by governments.
So, you really think that a government would give its powers up in favor of the people?
I don't think so.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Most americans are also unaware of the responsibilities of each branch of government. Having no apparent power over the officials in the two branches of government where people are elected, they've resorted to asking the one branch of government that isn't for help. Ironic, don't you think, that in a "free and democratic" society, the voting process is held in such low esteem that people have abandoned all hope in it being able to stop the government? Except it isn't ironic. It's depressing. So, where are the Europeans and the UN when you need them? One of the largest countries on Earth is going off the rails in a big way and sooner or later, this train wreck will visit you as well. All our economies are interconnected, as are our societies now thanks to the internet.
Or, perhaps, your silence just confirms what we already knew but didn't want to believe: The United States is becoming just like every other country out there... a paper democracy, but the real power is held by the royalty. And maybe you're glad that this irritating individualist society with a large middle class and plenty of opportunity for everyone to advance is coming to an end... because it was so very embarassing. But who knows, or cares, really, what they're thinking...
People have lost hope in democracy. So what do we place our hope for the future in now?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
.. said the head of the NSA, TSA, and IRS. "After all, Trayvon could have been me."
Among those who thought the government is reading their personal email or listening to their phone calls, some 40 percent approved of the data collection, even as 58 percent disapproved
So the 40 percent are low-grade morons, unaware or unable to grasp what it is they're giving up?
Because if you asked how many of them thought there were secret FEMA camps, plans for a race war, or other such coercive actions, you'd come up with a significant portion of the numbers.
I still know people who think Obama is waiting for the right moment to seize power, they were truly convinced the Zimmerman verdict would be the impetus for riots.
Just two months ago people would have lumped 'NSA spying on everybody' in with your list.
I recently wrote a long post about the subject:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4016327&cid=44388965
As a nation, we need to come to terms with what our country has become.
After re-reading it, I would only change a few things: our goon squad isn't the most oppressive by any stretch, but it is the most well-armed. And while I believe that America is in reality a fascist totalitarian state, it's important to remember that there is no central plan that makes it so. It is the combined effect of corruption, institutional failures, and political apathy that make it effectively a fascist totalitarian state.
That's good, because it's less easy for any one individual to take over the entire system. But it's also bad because it can hide in plain sight.
A nation of little fascists...and... E pluribus unum...magnus
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
that even vaguely limits them, and that they are as likely to pay attention to the rule of law or any principals other than self-interest as they are to grow halos. The only bright spot in this scenario is that they will be fighting the CIA and Homeland Security to become the next KGB, and produce our next home grown Putin.
Cheers everyone, to the logical conclusion of the government Americans started voting for with Reagan.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
The NSA knows who they surveyed and they will be addressing comments individually!
IANAA (American) but I can't help but think that "70%" is of the people surveryed and however they get to extrapolate to the rest of the country is, well, put it this way, I find it hard to believe 70% of people actually care. If they do, you could ask the same survey pool if they thought the government could be trusted on and you'd likely get the same answer. The same is true in Europe, most people (I don't mean people who shout loudly about it) just don't care. I've been digging into privacy whilst exploring cryptographic protocols and when I talk to people about if they think it's a good idea or not, I have literally been gobsmacked at the number of people who say "I have nothing to hide" and don't care about surveilance and monitoring.
I am in fact convinced that we need to build a better argument around your privacy being a right and it being the default position. The rather apocolyptic stories about dictatorships gone by (the it'll never happen here syndrome) don't help. The extremety of "why not have a camera and mic in every room of your house", doesn't work, as it's too extreme, and people just dismiss it without stopping to think about the fact that privacy is a variable thing but that it should *theirs* to give away, not simpy defaulted to off until they don't like it.
Here's the text of the 'survey' questions and results from TFA...it is instructive on many levels:
It is an astoundingly awful survey.
Just look at how they question what survey respondents thing the government is doing with the data being collected. There are two options:
1. 'Only for anti-terror' and 2. 'Also other purposes'
It is obviously worded with bias. If the respondent thinks that the government does **anything** other than one very specific thing they will have to chose #2...that's not a logical breakdown of a binary choice and it implicitly acknowledges that there are other than a binary option in the text of the question (use of the plural for 'purposes'...).
I'd wager 90% of the surveys reported on the news are of this level of scientific rigor...
Thank you Dave Raggett
The nation's founders were always skeptical of giving this much power and authority to a central government. Unfortunately, for a very long time, the people trusted the government more than any government should be trusted. To maintain a free society, it's imperative that the people always be wary of increases in the scope, size, and permanence of any and all government programs. And when there is too much government to keep track of, it's far too big for that to be possible.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Looks like public pressure is going to end overreaching US gov spy programs before a Supreme Court challenge much the same way mccarthysm was ended by public pressure.
I would have too, except I knew that they were already doing it under Bush, so I didn't expect Obama to change that.
produce our next home grown Putin
You mean like our own CIA man turned president?
I am officially gone from
Every single time you vote for someone who wants to make "somone else" pay "their fair share", YOU ARE FUNDING THIS SHIT!!!!!!
I read that summary 5 times and I still have no idea what it says. It's every bit as convoluted as the government's arguments to justify what they are doing.
Essentially, the only reason most American's do not realize they are living in a police state is because most American's are decent folk and indoctrinated to submit to authority. As such, very few American's ever conflict with the state on a level to feel the police state.
I'm guessing this is just a troll but I'll bite anyway. A blanket assertion that all americans are too dumb to realize what a police state is followed by the assertion that we are all a bunch of sheep who are too docile to do anything about it? Not sure this person has met a lot of americans if they really think that and I'm quite sure this person has NO idea what life in an actual police state is like. I have friends who have actually live in genuine, certified police states and I've spoken to some of them at length about it. Whatever problems we have here in the US, there is NO valid comparison to be made. I do not live in fear of going to jail for off hand criticisms of our elected leaders. I do not fear that those currently in power will not leave office peacefully if they lose elections. I do not fear for a military coup. I do not think our courts as an institution are toothless or corrupt. The US has its problems but being a police state isn't one of them.
We actually understand what is going on, know our government is misbehaving and many of us are working actively to bring it back into line. This isn't our first rodeo with a government that has stepped out of line. That's what governments naturally try to do and correcting that tendency often takes time. You don't have to get out the ammo box to solve every problem. Usually the soap, ballot and jury boxes are quite sufficient.
One of the raisons d'etre (arguably the raison d'etre) of the judicial branch is as a checksum of current laws against the constitution regardless of the opinion of the majority. So even if less than 1% of Americans thought this, it shouldn't (in theory) make a damn bit of difference. Of course the likelihood of a law being tested for constitutionality does depend on public perception.
But I learned a long time that the world don't play fair, and the courts are merely another means of expressing this fact. Am I the only one who finds it disturbing that so many critical decisions by the Supreme Court have been 5-4 splits? So these really really important issues pretty much come down to a coin toss.
Courts? Justice? Rule of Law? Please, you're killing me here.
They are doing exactly as they are told.
70% of americans are failing to understand that what they see in movies is not real.
why do these stupid surveys only ever ask 1500 people? is that the minimum number set?
Most Americans believe that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, the moon landings were faked, aliens are visiting the earth, Saddam had WMDs, and professional baseball is exciting.
What is the relevance of these survey results to real politics?
Darn those activist courts, they have not business interfering in what the other 2 branches are doing.
Hasn't that been the conservative mantra since the 50s and 60s?
And now after years after getting what they've been asking for, the courts are giving it to them?
Surprise. Surprise. Surprise.
It's only a problem now because a Democrat is taking full advantage of what the Republicans have spent years getting into place.
Most Americans Think Courts Are Failing...
The "to limit government surveillance" was an unneeded specification. They're failing, period :P
In 2008/2012, there were close to 40 candidates initially running President.
I live in Pennsylvania, by the time the primaries arrived Pennsylvanians had a choice of voting for:
2008 - Clinton/Obama on the Democrat ticket, or McCain on the Republican ticket - where were the other dozens of choices?
2012 - Obama on the Democrat ticket, or Romney on the Republican ticket - where were the other dozens of choices?
***
My point, we only THINK we had an election. What we were given was a choice to vote for one of two candidates selected by the American politburo. These party laws, ballot laws, 2,000 signatures for a Democrat or Republican to be on a ballot, 20,000 for a 3rd party.
They're designed to allow us to feel like we have an influence via our vote. But they hide the illusion of reality, that we're living in a dream world NEO. We don't have a vote.
--
Heck, Ron Paul followers elected (legally) numerous convention "delegates". But then the Republican party refused to give them entrance credentials, even though they had legally been elected.
This is the mask that hides the truth.
From the outside the differences sure look miniscule, and the fact that you [generic you] perceive them to be so big appears to be a big part of the problem.
Something along the lines of having issues with spotting the forest for all the trees... and 'divide and conquer'...
"most Americans", I didn't say all...
There is in fact a growing number who are coming to similar conclusions. That something is seriously wrong with the path America is on, and the behaviors of our government.
But even still, a great many in America feel "Well if I'm not doing anything wrong, what do I have to worry about?"
But
***
I have friends and relatives who have lived as well. And you know what most of them say, America is far better than Russia, and other states. And no, we're no N. Korea for sure.
But those who live through, exclaim they're seeing it again. Those who have left, exclaim that we're starting to do many of the same things.
"We actually understand what is going on, know our government is misbehaving and many of us are working actively to bring it back into line."
Yes, I and you, and probably 20% of Americans fall into this category. And hopefully it will continue to grow.
***
But what are you arguments for the fact that we're NOT living in a police state? versus that we're just subservient to said state?
One also has to remember that a just because something isn't to the fullest extreme, does not negate it from being what it is.
A Big Mac may not be as unhealthy as a giant Fat Burger. But it's still unhealthy.
We may not be a police state on par with Russia, N. Korea, etc. But how does one argue we are not a police state when we are under 100% monitoring, our police have the authority act, detain, seize property on a whim.
???
Our courts have failed to do a lot of things. The entire legal system needs a good swift kick in the seat of the pants.
Your Constitutional rights ARE AN ILLUSION! If you doubt it, then just try and exercise them in a way the Mr. Obama and his cronies would not like, and you will see for yourself, how they ignore their oath of office, infringe on your rights because they don't like it, or because they were "ordered to", just like the Nazi's of Nuermburg.
The courts do not stand behind the law, and so the courts no longer have the weight of law.
"'Overall view of the program' Approve=50% Disapprove=44% don't know=6%"
I don't care if it is scientific or not, but THIS is downright scarry.
And note that George Washington could have become King George after British surrendered. However, he resigned his commission (gave up his sword and power) to preside over the new country that had two other branches of government. When Obama became president, executive branch had significant power as formed over the years plus a huge boost by Cheney architecture that further built the executive branch to an imperial power, powers that Obama was reluctant to give up.
mfwright@batnet.com
When I was raised we called America, "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave." Calling ourselves something that echoed "Fatherland," or "Motherland" would have met revulsion. Those were appellations for Nazis and Communists. We despised the KGM, Stasi, and SS for their total surveillance. Being stopped to show your papers on a public road was THE test for whether you lived in a totalitarian state. Now we have the NSA violating the highest law of our land at will, and the TSA making random stops on our highways demanding drivers submit to searches and checks of their papers. Americans are still quite heavily armed for a civlian population, and we still do have means to information that circumvent government and official media. We will see if Americans still have enough moxy, enough self-awareness as a free people to rise up and re-assert their freedom, or if they will submit to tyranny and take the whole world down with them. But either way, it will not happen without a great deal of blood.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Maybe a Surveillance State is a better term for the USA and UK, where everything is monitored in the interest of National Curiosity.
The big problem with a Surveillance State is entropy, leading to the collection of bad/false data, which causes innocents to be harassed and prosecuted in a Kafkaesque way.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
The Cheney architecture was just the latest in a long list of such activities. FDR's government grew the executive power immensely as well.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
The proof of the overreach is that the *Foreign* Intelligence Surveillance Court (and Act) is used to approve *Domestic* surveillance. That is so totally obviously not what its intended purpose was, that the whole thing is rather quite hillarious to foreigners.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
That alone is a headline and a shocking one at that
... Government Surveillance
Most Americans would be right
You think not? (and remember, those are just the raids known to be "botched")
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
24% of people know the US government is breaking laws.
20% of people don't care what the US government is doing.
47% think the US government can do no wrong.
Hope and change is achieving many things.
Oh. You mean the way they ban pot and various other recreational drugs. The way they tell you how many windows your home has to have (and where.) The way they monitor your bank account, your communications, your travel. The way they shoot your family pets. And your family. The way they lie about the government's goals. The way they step all over the document that gives them the right to exist -- our constitution. Yep, I agree. It's not the soda bans in a few cities that made this land into the corporate oligarchy is it today; it's a whole bunch of other things. All of which are well in play.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Read the history of Echelon. They were already doing it under _FDR_.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
With secret courts, secret evidence, secret people involved behind it, and secret lists involved, surveillance can't be limited from outside the secret system, and the secret system won't limit itself.
I've spoken to about 10 people about all the recent NSA stuff. Most hadn't heard of the NSA "issues" and none of them cared that the NSA was collecting information on everyone. A few didn't care if NSA flat out recorded all conversations. Who did they poll?
What people think is true and what is actually true have nothing to do with one another.
Traffic on phones etc. these days goes by packets, and it is quite questionable that the metadata only can be captured without getting data also.
The simplest and fastest way to handle the packets is to capture them. Editing them to capture only headers and call setups would be
so much slower and more involved that I doubt it could be done, and much more doubt that it is being done.
Capturing metadata only was simple with old style phone networks, but not any more. Since there is wide belief that the USG claims are true
they are only saving metadata, these considerations need some attention.
Eisenhower undermined McCarthy, quietly and effectively, to get rid of him. Public pressure be hanged: it was that member of the public. Time to give credit where credit is due.
I heard a Texas police dispatcher say that when a judge orders a person's police records expunged, that the police never do it. So it probably will be with courts trying to stop any data collection. Our US government has become nothing more than a criminal enterprise. You need to find ways to try to protect yourselves.
n/t
...it was, in fact, congress who technically are "failing to limit government surveillance." Though I'm quite surprised, and dare I say impressed, by the response:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/new-congressional-coalition-emerges-against-nsa-surveillance-20130726
Granted the fact that congress can't actually agree on something is probably not a surprise, but that narrow of a vote? I had literally assumed up until now that they would vote..something like... But the actual vote counted in at 205 in favor, 217 against. There were only slightly more paid NSA lackeys than actual politicians in congress.
My opinion of the fine men and women in congress is, to paraphrase Bill Hicks, was that they were more or less all "suckers of Satan's cock." That narrow of a vote seems to suggest there really -is- an internal rift over this surveillance dragnet. It's not going to go away, but at least it's not going to disappear from the limelight any time soon, that's surely making someone feel very uncomfortable in their fresh, new Utah offices...
If so many people believe this, why aren't they upset about it? Where are the protests? The marches? etc?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I'll give you 1:10 odds you have to have jokes explained to you often
Thank you Dave Raggett
If they wanted to know that, they should have asked. Question could read any number of ways.
Of course, the data this will yield isn't very usable. It *only* measure attitude in a moment in time, and asks information of the user 'how does a distant government entity use your data?' that they most likely have no way to accurately answer.
Also, asking 'Do you trust x?' doesn't yield very usable results either, especially on questions of 'government'...there is a sizable portion of Americans who would always answer 'no' to any question like that no matter what the context.
Thank you Dave Raggett
It would surely cause confusion ;)
First, the big assumption is that the survey respondent knows that the system can only be used for 'anti-terror'!
2. 'anti-terror' is an ill-defined concept. If the survey administrators wanted usable data, they should have used a different term. Ex: Lets say the next Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is at work as you read this. When do his activities become 'anti-terror' and therefore under this system's eye?
Of course there is an answer, but it is a complicated answer that involves links to US Code, the Patriot Act, etc etc...things that you **absoutely** cannot expect your survey respondent to know.
Third, a specific/general binary like that invites the user to ponder any **legal** means that would fall under the 'Also for other purposes' choice, which just causes more confusion.
Thank you Dave Raggett
You're only coming to those conclusions now?? I've seen this coming for more than 10 years now. Ever since a few months after 9/11, certainly by the time the war in Iraq had started, it was abundantly clear that America was going down the path of totalitarianism. I don't willingly visit your country anymore. I don't plan to come back until this trend is reversed and you stop trampling citizens' rights in the name of "fighting terrorism". The U.S. is now a country where armed guards can stop you and demand identification in nearly 1/3rd of the country. Where "the Homeland" and "national security" are more important than "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave". It has become everything we used to mock about eastern nations behind the iron curtain in my Cold War childhood.
Frankly, the U.S. government is far more dangerous than any group of terrorists could ever aspire to be. And you guys are letting it have the run of the place. So pleased with your bread and circuses, you're letting the freedoms your forefathers fought and died for be chipped away with barely a whimper of protest. Your children are not going to thank you for this; a few decades from now they're going to wake up and discover they are completely fucked.
Often people associate revolutions with war or continues protesting by countless of people, but it doesn't have to lead to war or protesting for a revolution to occur. Creating a shift in power within a developed nation is much more harder to do with protesting, etc. then it is to do in a less developed country because in less developed countries the people in charge are never truly in charge – a good example of this would be the recent power shifts in the middle-east.
Simply put, you cannot fight fire with fire, protesting and anything of the likes will never work in nations like the U.S. or most European or Asian countries. You cannot overthrow a government that is deeply and heavily embedded and has created layers upon layers of protection between itself and the people they are getting the power from, otherwise people would be tearing them down like hot cakes. I like to think of developed countries as both a blessing and a curse, a blessing because it creates much progress and a curse because of problems that we have today.
Now to the solution.
Like with anyone in power you determine what gives them that power and you cut it away from them and watch them wither away. When you look at any government there are only two factors that give it power but only one which is critical in nature, money or more precisely your Tax dollars. If you cut away the supply of money any government won't be able to function. This does not come without a price. The whole country may fall into disarray for a while, but eventually and quite quickly the people in power won't be in power any longer. This passive tactic would work with any country large or small, when the money stops coming in the higher-ups start falling. Most people are reluctant to put themselves or their families in any serious harm so this method is the best way to secure a future where we are not travelling 500-1000 years back into the past where liberties and justice were a laughable joke.
"When did the "police state" cancel the vote?"
Didn't need to, the system controls the election process. This is why, by the time the last two presidential elections came about. The primaries to select candidates were determined by the time most of the country got to vote. Sure we got a choice of Obama vs McCain/Romney. But that is akin to the Soviets getting to vote for the two candidates they were given in the Communist party.
"When did the "police state" shut down shutdown the newspapers, radio, and TV stations?"
When it monitored and harassed the Associated Press. When it terrorized whistle blowers. When it made it uncomfortable to speak out about real issues about our government.
And for the most part, it doesn't need to because nearly ALL of our media is owned and controlled by a handful of men. Any mainstream reporter going against the grain is simply let go and finds that no major outlet will hire them.
"but actually shut down the newspapers, radio, and TV stations?"
I do not believe the Nazis nor the Soviets ever did this. They simply maintained influence over. And if you think that's not the case. You're not reading enough.
"When did the "police state" stop you from traveling without an internal passport?"
When they made me license my vehicle, and when they monitored it's travels. No, they don't need to stop me. They have an automated system that allows them to accomplish the same thing sans the need to stop. It's called TECHNOLOGY.
"When did the "police state" dismantle all of the political opposition parties and jail the leadership?"
They haven't needed to jail the leadership. Because the laws are written to make it almost impossible for political opposition parties to gain a foothold in the elective process. When they do, as in the case of Ron Paul winning massive amounts of delegates. The system simply breaks the laws. Knowing it is too costly, and ineffective to pursue a challenge through the court system.
"When did the "police state" suspend habeas corpus?"
What need is there to suspend it? When you have so many laws and willing courts to convict people on. One can argue it was suspended when people are thrown in jail for growing and trading orchids. And trumped up charges. Or when ANYONE who objects is automatically charged and sentenced to resisting arrest.
Police states do not necessarily absolve the judicial process.
"When did the "police state" start punishing people for wanting to leave the country?"
See the ex-patriate acts and other laws that restrict the removal of wealth from America. And there are many more being proposed.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/senators-to-unveil-the-ex-patriot-act-to-respond-to-facebooks-saverins-tax-scheme/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-01/wealthy-americans-queue-to-give-up-passports-in-swiss-capital.html
"When did the "police state" close the churches?"
Well, let's look at Iran and elsewhere. Where mosques are part of the police state. The existence of, or persecution against, churches is not a criteria for a police state.
But there is talk of removing tax exempt status.
"When did the "police state" start imprisoning people for criticizing the president? When did the "police state" start having people fired from their jobs for not supporting the government?"
What jobs?
"When did the "police state" stop using jury trials?"
Is Bradley Manning receiving a jury trial? Do we even know? It's secret....
"When did the "police state" start banning books?"
I think you assume that for a police state to exist, all requirements of past police states must exist.
But how about forbidding the U.S. military forces from viewing the UK News site th
Most Californians were against GMOs and supported labelling. Polls showed 70% support. Ballot measure failed. How do you have 70%+ support and the measure fail - FRAUD.
***
And many have voted but, what good is it when you are given a choice of two candidates, and both are for what you're against. You start picking the most minor minutia to differentiate the two (pro-life, race, good looks, etc)
And here I thought you were going to correct the usage of the word "Americans"
Most "Americans" live outside the USA.
What kind of pompous country takes the name for residents in the whole hemisphere and gives it to themselves? Oh ya, the USA.
Do we even have to play the think card anymore? There have been SOOOOO many articles within the past couple months where anyone who isn't a blatant denier or completely out of it KNOWS the government is collecting data on you, etc. The extent is the thinking part, not whether or not data collection is going on.