Greenwald Advises Market-Based Solution To Mass Surveillance

Nicola Hahn writes In his latest Intercept piece Glenn Greenwald considers the recent defeat of the Senate's USA Freedom Act. He remarks that governments "don't walk around trying to figure out how to limit their own power." Instead of appealing to an allegedly irrelevant Congress Greenwald advocates utilizing the power of consumer demand to address the failings of cyber security. Specifically he argues that companies care about their bottom line and that the trend of customers refusing to tolerate insecure products will force companies to protect user privacy, implement encryption, etc. All told Greenwald's argument is very telling: that society can rely on corporate interests for protection. Is it true that representative government is a lost cause and that lawmakers would never knowingly yield authority? There are people who think that advising citizens to devolve into consumers is a dubious proposition.

Comments

House reps are always campaigning, have small dist

[raymorris]

Representatives in the House are elected every two years, and their districts are small enough that the number of politically active people is limited, especially in midterms. By politically active I mean people who directly affect the local. vote, not those of us who only post on Slashdot.

With a few hundred people who attend town hall meetings and debates, post on that rep's Facebook wall, call into the local radio station when the rep is on etc, a dozen or so active citizens might well swing a representative's vote, especially if their arguments are thoughtful and well-reasoned. (Just saying "abolish the NSA" leaves one wide open to the rebuttal "who then will keep on eye on China, Russia, and actual terrorists like ISIS? ")

So the House is completely doable. It just requires a few people _in_each_district_ who care enough to study and understand beyond the headlines, then put in a few hours of time.

  A president would have to think twice about vetoing a reasonable bill that protects our privacy. Obama put pressure on congresscritters in his party to neuter the bill, but if we get a _good_ one through Congress I think any president is likely to sign it.

That just leaves the Senate. The Senate is slower to act and harder to change their course. They run statewide, so a dozen activists won't do. I don't know if we can get a good bill through the Senate. However, those dozen activists per district, if they each bring a friend, or they promote it via Facebook and such, can add up to quite a few people across the state. The problem with Facebook and similar PR directed toward less active and informed people is that congressional representatives can vote for a crappy, neutered version of the bill and the masses will never know thw difference. That makes it tough - not many people know what the current draft of a bill actually says, they just know the headline they read 8 weeks ago about a completely different version.

Re:House reps are always campaigning, have small d

[NotSanguine]

With a few hundred people who attend town hall meetings and debates, post on that rep's Facebook wall, call into the local radio station when the rep is on etc, a dozen or so active citizens might well swing a representative's vote,

That's so cute that you believe that! The average congressional campaign cost USD$1.2 million this year. Money talks and it's corporations and other monied interests that are doing the talking, not "concerned citizens." Sure your congressperson will pat you on the head and say "I work hard to make sure our district gets what it needs! I work for you." But the truth is they work for those who pay their way.

You must think things work as they did back in 1946 when this was written. Sorry champ. Those days are long gone.