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."

11 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Hai Amerikanz, I can haz pazwords... by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, there are times Godwin's law should be applied. And when your government is reading your mail (email, phone calls, social media). and monitoring your travel (street camers, license plate scanners on police cruisers), and your police are being militarized.

    Exhibit 1: Listening to your communication
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354590/greenwald-nsa-has-trillions-e-mails-and-phone-calls-betsy-woodruff

    Exhibit 2: Monitoring your travel
    http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/07/28/18740565.php

    Exhibit 3: Militarization of police
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/bradlockwood/2011/11/30/the-militarizing-of-local-police/
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4203345

    ***

    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.

    The deranged genocide of millions is NOT a requirement for a police state. While Hitler and Stalin killed millions, much of the Soviet Republics police state history was not under the auspices of genocide. A police state, by necessity does not need to be a deranged murderous state, in order to be a police state.

    So yes, with all of that happening. I think we've reached high time to be justified in enacting Godwin's Law.

  2. "Don't be suspicious of your fellow Americans" by jigawatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .. said the head of the NSA, TSA, and IRS. "After all, Trayvon could have been me."

  3. Spot On by deanklear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Spot On by interval1066 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I came to fully realize this is now a police state when they started using the word "Homeland"... last time terms like that were used to describe one's own country was the Nazi "Fatherland"...

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:Spot On by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Realize that if we allowed firearms on planes, 9/11 would've never happened, the patriot act would've never happened, hundreds of thousands of people wouldn't have died in the decade long wars to follow.

      Wrong. 9/11 happened because people believed from past experience that the best way to handle a plane hijacking is to let the hijacker fly the plane to Cuba and everyone will stay safe and get a flight back home afterwards. After 9/11, no one will ever allow a hijacker to fly the plane to wherever he wants anymore. The passengers will turn into a mob rather than passive hostages because they will believe they are about to die. It is not possible for terrorists to pull off another 9/11 style attack, guns or no (especially since they now lock the cockpit doors and won't open for anything).

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
  4. Trolling all americans by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Trolling all americans by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I do not live in fear of going to jail for off hand criticisms of our elected leaders

      That's because authority in the US is so powerfully entrenched that no amount of satire can hope to damage it. If someone makes fun of the party in power, what are people going to do? Vote for the other party?

      I do not fear that those currently in power will not leave office peacefully if they lose elections.

      Those truly in power in the US are not elected. Whether a Democrat or a Republican is in office, the true power is held by the ultra rich. No party that threatens the rich can ever attain power in the US.

      I do not fear for a military coup.

      Of course not. Why would the military overthrow a government that is completely controlled by the military industrial complex?

      I do not think our courts as an institution are toothless or corrupt

      Then why does every amendment except the third have exemptions you can drive a dump truck through? If you don't think courts as an institution are toothless or corrupt, you're simply not paying attention.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Trolling all americans by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like or hate the Tea Party movement they showed a good example of 1/6th of the American people getting fed up and changing the structure of a political party on multiple issues.

      No, they showed a good example of an astroturfed movement that tricked people into giving the ultra-rich even more wealth and power than they had before.

      Ultra rich people get attacked by the United States all the time. Ask Bill Gates about his relationship with the Clinton administration

      Before the trial, Microsoft gave no donations to politicians. Today they give millions of dollars. Despite being found guilty, Microsoft suffered no practical consequences. What happened to Microsoft was punishment for them not paying their dues for the service the US government provides to rich corporations.

      And if you mean that no party that threatens the structure of wealth distribution could attain power, such a thing happened under FDR.

      Most of what I'm talking about has been going on for 30-40 years. Starting with Nixon and really ramping up with Reagan. FDR was almost 70 years ago, a whole other world.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  5. How is hitting the ballots effective? by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Fatherland, Motherland, Homeland by Phoenix666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  7. Foreign/Domestic Intelligence Surveillance Act by flyingfsck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!