Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Why Isn't There More Public Outrage About NSA Revelations?

Nerval's Lobster writes "This morning we discussed news that the National Security Agency (NSA) has siphoned up millions of online address books and contact lists. The Post drew its information from top-secret documents provided by government whistleblower Edward Snowden, who spent the summer feeding information about the NSA to a variety of news outlets. Snowden's documents (as outlined in The Guardian, Spiegel Online and other venues) have detailed a massive NSA program that's siphoning all sorts of personal information from a variety of sources — and yet the public seems to have greeted each new revelation with weakening outrage. Whereas the initial news reports about NSA splying in June kicked off a firestorm of controversy and discussion (aggravated by the drama of Snowden seeking asylum in pretty much any country that would have him), the unveiling of the NSA's Great Contact-List Caper has ranked below the news stories such as the government shutdown, negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, and invites for Apple's upcoming iPad event on aggregators such as Google News; it also didn't make much of a blip on Twitter and other online forums. There's the very real possibility that Americans, despite the assurances of government officials, are being monitored in a way that potentially violates their privacy. Surely that's an issue that concerns a great many individuals; and yet, as time goes by, it seems as if people are choosing to focus on other things. Are we suffering from 'surveillance fatigue?'"

21 of 610 comments (clear)

  1. Deep down.. by Daemonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..we've all suspected it was true a long time ago. Honestly I think the bigger surprise was that the surveillance wasn't worse. There have been people who've sworn for years that every time you lick a stamp the Post Office sequences your DNA....

    1. Re:Deep down.. by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's kind of it. We've known about secret closets in AT&T offices for ages, and we have known about NSA- microsoft cooperation for a long time. We've know since what, the 1990 that they were one of the biggest buyers of supercomputing tech etc.

      The only thing snowden has really meaningfully (meaningful to the public anyway) revealed is who exactly is in on it, and you could reasonably figure that out with the minimum of brain power before.

      Besides that, what does anyone think all this money going to agencies is for if not for spying? Particularly the NSA as a sigint organization, electronic eavesdropping is their whole reason d'etre. You may not like what they're doing, but for the amount of money they're getting I'd expect them to be trying to build the tools to wiretap everything. You may think they shouldn't be doing that - and fair enough, they probably shouldn't, but at least 10 billion dollars a year is a lot of money for an organization that specializes in spying on electronic communications and doesn't run its own submarines or human intelligence.

    2. Re:Deep down.. by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real revelation was how much of it was going on domestically, before 9/11 the NSA was basically barred from operating domestically, with the interpretation of a few provisions in the Patriot Act they went from almost no domestic footprint to dragneting most domestic communications.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Deep down.. by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...before 9/11 the NSA was basically barred from operating domestically...

      That's assuming they ever abide by any rules... I would lay odds that was never the case. Hell, the Constitution wasn't seven years old when the Aliens and Sedition Act was imposed. What have we learned? That we repeat mistakes totally unawares. Then we "unlearn" it during the next hysterical "crisis".

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Deep down.. by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People tend to be highly motivated towards new freedoms, until they gain a lot of wealth, and then that wealth must be protected. The "Give me your tired, your poor, your hungry yearning to be free" becomes islands of getting ahead, realizing the "American Dream", and wealth creation.

      Then comes the defense of wealth, as in: don't tax it and let those loafers have it. Watch out for those (commies, seditionists, traitors, and the nebulous definition of terrorists).

      We don't really repeat mistakes, as there's always been a large contingent that will protect wealth at all possible costs-- and defend their methods of creating it. I don't deny anyone a reasonable profit, but what's reasonable depends on which side of have's/have-nots you might rest on.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    5. Re:Deep down.. by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but after Al Qaeda showed everyone how infiltration can really be done,

      Except that isn't true.

      Every one of the 9/11 terrorists fit a profile that should have sounded alarm bells at the border.
      Finding guys like that is easy if you are looking and it doesn't require reading every grandmothers email, or recording
      every phone call or feeling every crotch.

      Russian operatives were far more successful, some escaping detection for multiple decades.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:Deep down.. by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We don't really repeat mistakes, as there's always been a large contingent that will protect wealth at all possible costs-- and defend their methods of creating it. I don't deny anyone a reasonable profit, but what's reasonable depends on which side of have's/have-nots you might rest on.

      Small problem; wealth inequity in this country has never been this bad, not by a long shot. We've had a middle class since the post-industrial labor reforms of the 1930s. Prior to that, it was a clusterfuck as we moved from an agricultural to industrial society, which is to be expected. However, we don't have one anymore; we have the poor, and the super rich. The line separating those two is getting thinner every year.

      So no, it is no longer a question of which "side" you're on. If you think this is still about politics, you haven't been keeping up. And to bring this home; This is the reason why nobody gives a fuck about the NSA.

      They're too damn busy trying to stay alive to care about something as esoteric as civil liberties. When you're starving, you don't care about freedom -- you care about bread. And anyone who has some is your friend. Make the people starve, and they'll tolerate any amount of tyranny... so long as the tyrant keeps giving out bread crumbs.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    7. Re:Deep down.. by cavreader · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "wealth inequity in this country has never been this bad, not by a long shot"

      This is not really accurate. Study the late 19th century and early 20th century where every major industry was a monopoly ruled by just a few people siphoning off the profits for themselves. At the time there was no such thing as workers rights or a mandatory minimum wage and certainly nothing about prohibiting monopolies. Banks operated without any form of oversight from the government. Protectionism and tariffs on imports combined with the Foreign Policy of the day helped usher in the Great Depression. All the outrage today about the governments surveillance programs and accusations of rights violations are nothing when compared against past actions. Two of the best Presidents in US history blatantly and knowingly ignored the constitution when they perceived the country was in danger and they could not trust the Legislators to make the right decisions. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned journalists publishing any thing negative about how the Union and Lincoln was handling the civil war. He actually tried to argue that they were disclosing secret information that could potentially be used by the Confederates. Sound familiar? FDR blatantly ignored Congress as well as the majority of US citizens when he came up with ways to bypass the Neutrality Act with the lend lease program and the gradual expansion of the area the US claimed as territorial waters to try and protect shipping to Europe during WW2. Congress passed a law forbidding the government from using wire taps when FDR wanted to monitor suspected Nazi agents operating in the US. The day Congress voted to prohibit this FDR wrote a Presidential order and delivered to the Justice Department telling them to ignore the law passed in Congress and proceed with the taps. The only reason these two presidents were not impeached was because they were both successful in the end.

    8. Re:Deep down.. by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Every one of the 9/11 terrorists fit a profile that should have sounded alarm bells at the border. Finding guys like that is easy if you are looking and it doesn't require reading every grandmothers email, or recording every phone call or feeling every crotch.

      It was more than should have sounded alarms, they did get noticed, they did sound alarms. The flight school learning-to-fly but not learning-to-land was seen and not properly acted upon. Their casing the airports and dress rehearsals were observed and some even commented on them.

      Subsequent terror attacks against the US were not thwarted by high technology, even with all of the high technology and invasiveness that has followed. Those that were detected in advance were done so because someone in the public reported it, those that were tried and failed did so because of problems of the terrorists' makings, and those that succeeded (like Boston) happened in part because high technology failed to do its job and find those who would do us ill.

      High tech solutions have failed. Failed. It's a shame that the weary nature of our current culture isn't causing something more to be done about it. Halting the government because of health care that affects a fairly small portion of the populace? That's stupid compared to what we're not caring about.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    9. Re:Deep down.. by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you are all over thinking things. The answer is much more simple: The media. The modern news media are an outrage manufacturing network. When they want us to be outraged about something we are. This is the answer to all questions that start with "Why aren't the public more outraged about X". Every time I hear of some new atrocity or idiocy I wonder this for a second. Then I wonder for a second why the media doesn't cover it. But the answer to that is just as easy: there is no longer any vested interest in the news media in having a well informed public. In a system where most interactions are based on greed, there is only a vested interest in ignorance.

  2. we would care but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People would care but... hey! Did you hear what Miley did?

    Seriously, it's too abstract and invisible. Being online and virtual, you don't SEE that your mail was steamed open and re-sealed. You don't SEE that someone watches where you go. You don't SEE that someone is standing there listening to your phone call to your wife.

    Out of sight, out of mind.

    1. Re:we would care but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People hate being watched because they might accidentally do something embarrassing or harmful. And, people have good reason to fear potential abuses of all the monitoring...punishing them for doing perfectly legitimate things.

      Be that as it may.....the basic human reaction to being watched is to behave. There may also be reactions of rage against the watcher....but usually people just become more self-conscious and behave better.

      And....people know this intuitively.

      The argument about having nothing to hide is flawed in many ways. But it is also very intuitive and popular.

      So, I think the bottom line is....most Americans at their core don't mind being spied on. In return they get better behavior over everyone else, and know that their own behavior is good (and lost as a needle in a haystack anyway), so they just don't mind.

      And so.....the spying will continue.

  3. Surveillance fatigue? by fhic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not at all. I think we've just all come to the realization that there's not a damn thing we can do about it. The people who are supposed to be looking out for us are acting like petulant teenagers. The "hope and change" guy hasn't done anything but make the problem worse. The guys in charge of the whole thing just lie about it and nothing is done. What's the answer, other than ignore the new revelations?

  4. I wonder if some americans are just too exhausted by KimiDalamori · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Speaking as one person at a full time job that regularly requires in excess of 60 hours a week, and as a friend to others who work 2 crappy minimum wage jobs at similar hours, it seems like a lot of people these days work themselves to the point where they're just too tired to rabble-rouse politically.

    --
    Lagito ergo expectabo
  5. Most people do not know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was wondering about the lack of concern and so I started asking friends and family about their views on the NSA scandal. None of my non-techie friends/family had heard of it. The local news doesn't carry it, many main stream outlets don't pay it more than a passing mention and they don't visit tech websites, so they were all in the dark about the issue. The fact of the matter is that unless you're a tech-minded person you probably either do not know about the NSA controversy or you don't understand the implications.

  6. Outrage Fatigue: by Hartree · · Score: 5, Funny

    With the internet to remind me of everything else I should be violently outraged about (global warming, abortion, Kony, Miley Cyrus twerking), it's hard to fit time in to be outraged about this.

    I think maybe I can pencil it in for Thursday at 3am. Does that work for you?

  7. To answer your question... by Pollux · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Two words: Government shutdown.

    And while that -is- the answer, there's a deeper meaning here. NSA spying is yesterday's news. People only care about today's news, and they only care about it for as long as it remains news. As soon as the shutdown is yesterday's news, we'll get angry about something else. Our nation's vane hubris keeps our minds tied to the present, leading our general populace to share little concern for the past.

    What the NSA is doing is terrible, but the raping of our nation's economy by private financial interests is still far worse. Even more atrocious was starting a war with a foreign nation on false pretenses. But that's all behind us now. Let's get out there and raise our Don't Tread on Me flags against ObamaCare; we live in a democracy, and dammit, if we don't raise up our voice for what's wrong, we're not doing our patriotic duty.

    (And if you don't understand the irony of that last sentence, then please don't leave a comment.)

  8. Because it doesn't affect them by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The TV still works, the computer still works, McDonald's still serves swill, and the boss is still harping for more work to be done.

    As long as day-to-day life isn't affected, the average consumer cares far more about Miley Cyrus twerking than they do about oppressive surveillance.

    Hell, how long has the TSA been invasively harassing people for the sake of security, and they put up with that, so why not put up with something that has no obvious impact on life?

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  9. Re:Misdirection by SerenelyHotPest · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think it's easy to show that Julian Assange is a prima donna, but I hesitate to describe Edward Snowden as one. He isn't crying for more attention or more political power; he just wants to make sure he's safe from targeting of political adversaries. He hasn't offered a lot of commentary besides explaining his reasons. Whether he is or not, though, I don't think it matters all that much. What can be shown--and does matter--is that the media interested in maintaining the status quo wants to make the revelations about Edward Snowden. Turn it into identity politics and relatively few people will care about the underlying issues, then you can destroy Edward Snowden's credibility and cast the issue as irrelevant.

  10. Re:Outrage doesn't do shit by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That and privacy activists have been screaming bloody murder over every little thing

    What you describe as "every little thing" probably isn't so little at all. You cannot compromise on fundamental freedoms.

    --
    Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
  11. Why +5 insightful? Here's one thought .... by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are a lot of people out there (some of my good friends included in this) who simply feel we're rapidly accelerating down a slope to a really bad place, and we've picked up too much speed to where you can say, "Oh, don't worry... We can still put on the brakes and slow this down gradually, until it comes to a peaceful stop."

    Life in America *is* good by most standards, and it's great by selected others. But that's part of the reason for the apathy. It's tough to get people too worked up about loss of individual freedoms or rights, or an eventual economic collapse when right now, they're still enjoying what's clearly a "first world existence".

    Problem is, the powers in charge know this too. As this continues, you'll see them juggle money and debt all around, doing whatever gymnastics it takes to ensure our poor still qualify for assistance programs, and to ensure everyone who serves in our military continues to get benefits and "special treatment" in various ways. They know a sure path to failure is angering the poor masses enough so they're motivated to riot, or to put a crimp in the supply of people willing to take orders to fight the "enemy" (whoever the govt. claims that happens to be at a given time), as part of the military.

    The "literal crazy person" you refer to who advocates revolution (with mass murder and a long period of violence -- though decades is perhaps questionable) is quite possibly just a "long term thinker", who unlike the majority, is willing to give up a comfortable lifestyle if it means securing 200 more years of a fair, just political system and nation for future generations.

    I'll be honest.... Despite all the problems I see looming on the horizon, I've been able to get by well enough for myself and for my family so I'm at least keeping my head barely above the waters of "middle class life". I'm not in any hurry to throw it all away for a life of hardship. But I also have a growing fear that time is running out to turn this thing around. I'm not sure my kids won't grow up cursing our whole generation, saying "Why didn't you fight this tyranny while you still could!?"

    There's that saying about the 3 boxes used to change things; the soapbox, the ballot box and the ammo box. I'm on the virtual soapbox all the time, at least online, trying to talk sense into those who will listen about where we're going wrong and where we might be able to fix it. The ballot box feels pretty ineffective to me, as of late, with the corruption rampant throughout the political system. (What good is your vote if your only selections have the same fundamental flaws?) I *really* hope we don't have to crack open that ammo box.