PRISM - Where are all the protests?

[Xdeser2]

I agree

The death certificate of the Republic has been signed, and few people even batted an eye

As George Carlin Said: "...They?ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear."

Okay, maybe im not THAT cynical, but the fact the NSA is making Orwell look like an optimist and no one seems to give a shit astonishes me to no end.

 

[Tanakh]

-snip-

No, they are not. Left wingers seem to be against all kind of profiling, right wings are against profiling for anti tax groups, discrimination against christians or straight white males, profiling for gun owners or sellers (or even registering them); they are however almost universally in favour to profile non white young persons both to enforce immigration laws, enforce (outdated) drug laws or prevent terrorism.

I am happy that you have an universally acceptable clear difference when is right to profile. We both seem to agree that profiling the groups more likely to break the rule you are aiming to enforce is more efficient, care to share the clear difference?

And we are discussing a social science issue, of course there's a lot of shakiness on everything about it.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

It is mostly because so much of the American population is apathetic to things that don't immediately impact their lives. Even worse, is a lot of them actually defend this kind of thing. More and more scare tactics and terror mongering are used to get the American public to practically beg for having more rights taken away so that they can have more 'security'.
It is pretty outrageous and sorta blows my mind but I am in the minority I suppose. Most people I know are fine with losing rights so that they can feel safe from all the big scary terrorists that lurk in every corner.

SNIP.

I agree with that. There are a lot of gray areas in there, definitely. I work for a police department and even on that level, there are a lot of upsides and downsides to both views. I guess when it comes to terrorism type stuff, I feel like once we just treat everyone like potential suspects; we all lose. That's mostly why I get irked at rights being violated.

 

[Amir Kondori]

I am honestly completely taken aback by this. America is basically the only nation in the world that considers freedom a huge part of its national identity, so much so that they've named themselves "the land of the free".

And then PRISM happened. A secret police secretly spying on probably hundreds of millions of people from the US, its allies and the rest of the world under a president who made freedom, privacy and transparency a huge point of his campaign and on top of that, the FREAKING DIRECTOR of the NSA lies right in the face of congress UNDER OATH and walks away without any punishment whatsoever.

The American reaction to this? A freaking petition to the white house. No protests, no significant calls for Obama to step down and call for early elections, nothing. Not even any major rallies in defense of the guy who gave up a life of wealth and safety to warn the American people, risking his life and going up against the biggest superpower in the world in the process. There were literally bigger rallies in Hong Kong. Yes. China did more to support a guy who did nothing for them than the Americans, for whom he sacrificed almost everything.

I mean, Sweden, "The land of the midnight sun", not "The land of the free" had massive protests outside the Riskdag (our version of congress, basically) when the government considered doing an incredibly light version of this, and in that case they actually told us beforehand. So, what's going on here?

We have a lot of idiots here who think "well if you got nothing to hide what does it matter?"

Of course just ask to see their bank records and all of a sudden everything gets awkward...

 

[Therumancer]

-snip-

No, they are not. Left wingers seem to be against all kind of profiling, right wings are against profiling for anti tax groups, discrimination against christians or straight white males, profiling for gun owners or sellers (or even registering them); they are however almost universally in favour to profile non white young persons both to enforce immigration laws, enforce (outdated) drug laws or prevent terrorism.

I am happy that you have an universally acceptable clear difference when is right to profile. We both seem to agree that profiling the groups more likely to break the rule you are aiming to enforce is more efficient, care to share the clear difference?

And we are discussing a social science issue, of course there's a lot of shakiness on everything about it.

A profile involves more than one variable. Simply being black, or whatever does not in of itself make a profile it involves other things as well, a list of variables to which a person conforms to the vast majority. There are negative stereotypes of whites, Christians, etc... which nobody objects much to either. Militia members, neo-nazis, and others are all profiles where being white is usually involved.

When it comes to issues like gun control, that's a different issue as the right to be armed is guaranteed by the constitution. The right exists specifically so people will not be powerless against the government. In short in the case of a popular uprising even if the government could get the military involved it would wind up having to destroy the country (and wind up with nothing) to put down an armed populance. In a general sense a bunch of citizens with assault rifles and pistols are not going to take down a military with jets and tanks and such, but at the same time if the military ever did use those weapons (as opposed to fighting gun to gun) they would level the country. Something like New York City loses all value if the government is forced to level it to deal with rebels. Likewise it acts as a balance against unjust laws, because at the end of the day some cop still has to go out there and enforce the law. When the people are armed this causes the law enforcer on the street to evaluate whether it's worth potentially getting their head blown off to make some politician happy. As a result a lot of oppressive "vanity laws" wind up going no where (and occasionally get mentioned on lists of "stupid laws that actually exist"). You don't generally have to worry about squads of police arresting people for any stupid thing, or involved in things akin to the Hollywood version of facist crackdowns, because beyond a point an armed populance is going to start shooting back and everyone knows it.... a lot can be said on the subject but there is a lot to it. The basic issue here is that the right to be armed is a cornerstone of American society and something that does a lot of good just by existing.

In general when it comes to a profile it comes down to what the profile is about, and what kind of behavior it's related to. What's more the idea of profiling is simply used for probable cause when something happens or security becomes an issue, not as the cause for an arrest. In general profiling is going to lead to things like certain people like Muslims being searched by Airline security, but not nessicarily being arrest or detained unless something is found. Typically complaints about profiling occur after people have been caught committing crimes, someone fits the profile of a criminal, the police investigate them, find drugs/illegal guns/etc... and then the profiling defense is used for a guilty person to get away by claiming it was an unreasonable search. Something I find stupid since profiles are by definition reasonable, being assembled from data gathered over a long period of time.

 

[Therumancer]

It is mostly because so much of the American population is apathetic to things that don't immediately impact their lives. Even worse, is a lot of them actually defend this kind of thing. More and more scare tactics and terror mongering are used to get the American public to practically beg for having more rights taken away so that they can have more 'security'.
It is pretty outrageous and sorta blows my mind but I am in the minority I suppose. Most people I know are fine with losing rights so that they can feel safe from all the big scary terrorists that lurk in every corner.

SNIP.

I agree with that. There are a lot of gray areas in there, definitely. I work for a police department and even on that level, there are a lot of upsides and downsides to both views. I guess when it comes to terrorism type stuff, I feel like once we just treat everyone like potential suspects; we all lose. That's mostly why I get irked at rights being violated.

Well, my basic attitude is that profiling is a way to deal with that as I explained. As we deal with things now we pretty much treat everyone at your typical airline like a potential terror suspect to make a show out of being fair, when we are concerned specifically about Muslims at least at the moment. Hence my defense of singling out the Muslims who fit the terrorist profiles, and other security risks, search them, and don't for example harass the actor who played Chewbacca over his lightsaber cane (it made the news) due to some obtuse policy.

At the end of the day I feel it comes down to profiling being a valid tool, and something that should not be seen to violate any rights. A profile being a reasonable cause to conduct a search or investigation. Sure, it's going to suck really bad for a few people, but overall is going to benefit a lot more people by getting rid of the current siege mentality where we're basically infringing on everyone to make a symbolic point.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Dont give a shit. Dont care. Im sure they are spying on you in another 100 ways still. Just not worth worrying about.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

Everybody and their dog knew for DECADES that US was spying on every other country and it's own citizens using every way possible. That's why I for example don't use social networks and never will. Honestly, you really, actually was surprised that PRISM existed? Well, general public did not know how US government called it, but everybody knew they were doing it.
Also lol freedom in USA? Are you mad? Don't delude yourself. It's one of the worst countries when it comes to freedom, although for example North Korea is hundred times worse.

 

[Lightknight]

We already knew they were doing it and the majority of people in surveys on the subject don't care. As Conan said, men thinks it makes us safe and women are just happy a man is finally listening to them.

 

[Agayek]

Also lol freedom in USA? Are you mad? Don't delude yourself. It's one of the worst countries when it comes to freedom.

Hey now, that is quite clearly not true. American citizens are free to do nearly anything they please.

Provided it is something the masses approve of and/or does not threaten their lifestyle, religion, or currently-held opinions.

To paraphrase Henry Ford: 'You can do whatever you want, so long as it's what you are told to'.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

People just don't care anymore. They've gotten so used to being treated as guilty until proven innocent that the're apathetic to it now. And a lot of people put every detail of themselves online anyway, so they've gotten used to everyone knowing everything about them. That horrifies me. I honestly think that if it continues down this path, someday America's gonna go full-on North Korea.

 

[Saxnot]

Well, to be fair to those teenagers, politicians ARE retarded, and it's really difficult to choose a political party in America when the two primary parties are the democrats, a bunch of spineless cowards who lie to you and spy on you, and the republicans, a bunch of bible thumping inbred jackasses who lie to you and spy on you.

I mean, you could go third party, but considering a third party candidate has about as much chance of getting elected president as me finishing those genetically engineered flying pigs I've been breeding, I'd say their apathy is not unwarranted.

See, you're giving people my age too much credit; the people I'm talking about think politicians are retarded because they themselves don't understand anything about politics.

I mean, people in my class legitimately still believe that we should (depending on the left/right affiliation):

A. Drop a shitload of nukes on the Middle East (nowhere specific, just the whole Middle East)
-or-
B. Just stop having any structure or diplomacy and run free through the meadows.

That's cause your classmates are 15 years old. they'll learn. or not, in which case they will become tea party members.

 

[lemby117]

ACORN: a government funded assistance program was caught on-tape offering advice to a guy playing as a pimp wanting to set up a house for under-aged prostitutes. He made it clear that's what he intended to do, and they were giving him advice on what to put on his tax forms and such. Little to no media coverage.

This was a hoax set up by an opponent of the program. It resulted in the program being shut down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy

OT: I want to do something about it but I don't know what I can do aside from petitioning the government but we cant even get a man cleared for release from Guantanamo home, they are hardly going to imprison themselves and let Snowden off the hook.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

And then PRISM happened. A secret police secretly spying on probably hundreds of millions of people from the US, its allies and the rest of the world under a president who made freedom, privacy and transparency a huge point of his campaign and on top of that, the FREAKING DIRECTOR of the NSA lies right in the face of congress UNDER OATH and walks away without any punishment whatsoever.

Congress would have to actually want to throw the guys to the wolves since they would be the group responsible for any punitive action in this case.

The American reaction to this? A freaking petition to the white house. No protests, no significant calls for Obama to step down and call for early elections, nothing.

There would not be an early election. Joe Biden would become the new president and John Boehner would be the new VP.

Not even any major rallies in defense of the guy who gave up a life of wealth and safety to warn the American people, risking his life and going up against the biggest superpower in the world in the process.

There are a number of reasons. Not everyone, for example, thinks that what the NSA did was wrong. In spite of violating various parts of the intelligence oversight procedures (not the least of which is that the only Intelligence Agency allowed to collect on American Citizens is the FBI) and the variable perspective that blowing the whistle was morally correct the reality is he was in flagrant violation of federal law. As a result, you have a fairly divisive issue as this is an excellent example where doing something morally justified required a breach of law, an issue that is oft debated.

 

[Dangit2019]

That's cause your classmates are 15 years old. they'll learn. or not, in which case they will become tea party members.

I don't know why that made me laugh as much as it did.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

It is mostly because so much of the American population is apathetic to things that don't immediately impact their lives. Even worse, is a lot of them actually defend this kind of thing. More and more scare tactics and terror mongering are used to get the American public to practically beg for having more rights taken away so that they can have more 'security'.
It is pretty outrageous and sorta blows my mind but I am in the minority I suppose. Most people I know are fine with losing rights so that they can feel safe from all the big scary terrorists that lurk in every corner.

SNIP.

I agree with that. There are a lot of gray areas in there, definitely. I work for a police department and even on that level, there are a lot of upsides and downsides to both views. I guess when it comes to terrorism type stuff, I feel like once we just treat everyone like potential suspects; we all lose. That's mostly why I get irked at rights being violated.

Well, my basic attitude is that profiling is a way to deal with that as I explained. As we deal with things now we pretty much treat everyone at your typical airline like a potential terror suspect to make a show out of being fair, when we are concerned specifically about Muslims at least at the moment. Hence my defense of singling out the Muslims who fit the terrorist profiles, and other security risks, search them, and don't for example harass the actor who played Chewbacca over his lightsaber cane (it made the news) due to some obtuse policy.

At the end of the day I feel it comes down to profiling being a valid tool, and something that should not be seen to violate any rights. A profile being a reasonable cause to conduct a search or investigation. Sure, it's going to suck really bad for a few people, but overall is going to benefit a lot more people by getting rid of the current siege mentality where we're basically infringing on everyone to make a symbolic point.

Racial profiling is iffy too though. I know quite a few people who look like muslims but well, aren't. They get crap constantly because of it. Just like the majority of muslims are law abiding but treated like terrorists all the same. While it might lower the hassle for many, I don't know if I can condone it.

 

[Tanakh]

-snip-

I see, well, there is little point in us talking, at least for me. But I greatly appreciate your answer, it speaks volumes about you being a very well mannered person and probably a good human being, even if I think you are batshit crazy and I don't think I can rectify that.

Thanks

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

What's going on here is that people are becoming more and more indifferent to things happening around them because they live with a mentality that they live in their own little bubble.

I mean, how else don't do you explain the huge amount of teenagers who have their "Political Affiliation" status on Facebook as "lol politicians are retarted". It's fascinating really.

I think the trouble is we are comparing ourselves to our parents generation who came of age in the 60's and 70's. Then, politically and demographically all the conditions were in place for social activism. You had two world wars which drastically altered society- It changed how we view other races, our stance on colonialism and women for instance. And then right after the world wars you had the baby boomer's which meant that for a limited amount of time there were a lot of young people being raised in a post-war world which was very different to the pre-war world.

What i'm saying is that the mid-20th century was a time of historically unusual high levels of social activism, and the activism you see today is therefore inevitably going to pale in comparison.

This. So much this. The baby boomers came of age in a time of unprecedented prosperity. They were actually able to do stupid things like buy an old VW bus and drive across the country for a protest. My generation is coming of age in what we really should be calling the second world depression, but we're not because economists don't know their own asses from the holes in the ground they tell people to throw their money at. I would love to camp out in Washington DC (not on Wallstreet, like the Occupy movement) and tell them exactly what I want them to be doing (as opposed to vaguely complaining about the way things are, again like the Occupy movement.) But I'm too busy trying to figure out how to, first of all, get a job period, and second of all, how to get one that pays well enough to move out of my parents house. I am so pissed off about what my government is doing it's not even funny, but about the only thing I can do about it is ***** online and vote, neither of which makes as much difference as a good protest would.

Edit: And by the way, I have a friggin' Bachelor's degree. It's actually making it harder for me to find work, because there's no jobs in my field (which is education -- who knew there would be so little demand for History teachers? Especially when I started the degree at a time when there was a shortage of teachers across the board, and they were pretty much hiring anyone with a bachelor's degree regardless of what it was in), and I'm "overqualified" for entry level positions in things like retail.

 

[Reeve]

I don't agree with that ^ after all we have the Internet. We can transmit information at light speed. It's the most awesome tool for communication ever invented. Decades ago people could only get organised and stand up by either word of mouth or via talking to one person on a telephone. Whereas now one person can reach out to thousands of people from all over the world at once.

 

[Greyhamster]

Why should Americans care? They're only spying on those dirty foreigners. That's totally okay according to the NSA.

But yeah, it's weird and I don't get it. For that matter, why isn't the EU telling the NSA to get their dirty paws of my internet? D: