Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th Dec 2013 17:47 UTC
Legal

The giants of the tech industry are uniting to wage a campaign for sweeping reforms to the National Security Agency.

Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, LinkedIn and AOL are setting aside their business rivalries to demand that Congress and President Obama scale back the government's voracious surveillance.

These companies had little to no qualms about teaming up with the US government back when it was all done in relative secrecy, but now that it's out in the open, they're acting like heroes. This campaign would never have been launched if Snowden hadn't blown the whistle, which means the motive behind this new campaign is money - not morality.

Thread beginning with comment 578315
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 9th Dec 2013 19:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

The US electoral system is inherently broken, and voting is not going to change that. Should I lie and tell US citizens to vote A or B because it'll change anything, even though I know it won't?

I don't lie, I'm sorry. You may believe that the US electoral system is sound and that it properly reflects the will of the people, and that the people have control over that system - but you're one of the few.

It's not cynicism. It's based on observation. You know, science.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 9th Dec 2013 19:49 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

You're right, I don't buy it. And I'm sorry but I do believe its hyperbolic and cynical. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by jackastor on Mon 9th Dec 2013 20:00 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
jackastor Member since:
2009-05-05

As an American I approve this message.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by WorknMan on Mon 9th Dec 2013 20:01 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

As it was said by Rambo:

Are you bringing any weapons? Then you're not changing anything.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by Novan_Leon on Mon 9th Dec 2013 20:35 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
Novan_Leon Member since:
2005-12-07

How is the US electoral system broken?

The mainstream US populace is apathetic to things such as privacy and security (much less politics in general), and more focused on the latest episode of American Idol, Miley Cyrus shenanigans, and who-shot-who in the local news. The result is a political arena dominated by those who love politics for it's own rewards (prestige, power & influence, monetary compensation, etc.) rather than those who honestly want to serve their country. This is what happens to any nation that loses sight of the things that made them great in the first place.

Anyone who blames corporations for the mess we're in is missing the bigger picture. In other countries it may be different, but in the USA corporations only have as much power as the general US population gives them through their own ignorance and apathy. Unfortunately, right now that's the lion's share.

/end rant

Edited 2013-12-09 20:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by M.Onty on Mon 9th Dec 2013 21:17 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

Strongly agree.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by Drumhellar on Mon 9th Dec 2013 20:36 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

The US electoral system is inherently broken, and voting is not going to change that. Should I lie and tell US citizens to vote A or B because it'll change anything, even though I know it won't?


It's not accurate that voting for a different candidate wouldn't change anything. It's more accurate to say that voting for a different candidate would change everything.

Currently, opinions on NSA spying aren't split along party lines. Our political system has sadly been reduced to two parties.
Sure, NSA spying bugs you, and sadly your representative that you've been voting for in the past is in favor. You could vote for the other guy, and he would likely oppose spying during his time in Congress (if he is elected). Problem is, his position on every other issue is opposite yours.

If your chosen representative Congress votes for further deregulation of industry, abortion restrictions, less gun control, education vouchers and homeschooling support, etc, etc, but is in favor of NSA spying, and your only other candidate is opposed to NSA spying, but votes for more industry regulation, abortion rights, gun control, stronger public schools, etc etc...
What do you do? The other guy likely would fight earnestly against NSA spying, but, he's also fighting for a bunch of other stuff that you don't want.

This is the type of thing that American politicians are good at and actually do fight for, depending on their side. The problem is the dearth of candidates means it's nearly impossible to target one issue without sacrificing the other issues.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by sonnyrao on Tue 10th Dec 2013 01:15 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
sonnyrao Member since:
2011-07-18

I think in this case it does reflect the will of the people... they purposely chose what they thought was security over both freedom and privacy in the wake of 9/11. You can argue that they were mistaken and they didn't get any of these things, but that doesn't make the system inherently broken. If you're arguing a different point, please explain how it's broken and how that relates to this situation.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by lucas_maximus on Wed 11th Dec 2013 00:10 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Voting is broken. There is a reason why there is general apathy towards it.

Politics is a career these days much like any other career. In the past (in the UK) at least with many seats in the commons the case was that people that were successful and well known in their respective constituencies ended up being politicians instead of starting out as one.

Recently, In the UK people voted for Lib dems because you have to tactically vote, to keep the Tories out if you opposed them in the South of England. The lib dems ignored the very reason why they had so many votes and everyone got a coalition Government nobody wanted.
There is little point voting for anyone else, there is UKIP (friendly racists), BNP (racists) or Greenparty.

In Spain, many do not even question the Government. Last year a news reporter got sacked for asking question that Jeremy Paxman would consider a very easy set of opening questions. It was seen as rude by her employer. Some of the Spanish people I work with say that there is still a lot of Facist (Think General Franco) politicians ... I can only read basic Spanish, so I dunno how true this is, I have to rely on what I am told.

This is the attitude Paxman gave to his employer after being asked to read the weather:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMAt8ZXqtbc

What is the point in voting if the politicians don't understand you, don't understand your problems and fundamentally it comes down to a dissing contest on TV (just watch BBC Parliament).

The only place I seen any sense is from the House of Lords which was a joke 15 years ago, but many of the "Lords" have made their money and have no reason to actually have an Agenda to further it.

It may well work in the Netherlands, but I won't bother voting from now on even if I can, I don't see any value in the activity.

Edited 2013-12-11 00:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by zima on Sun 15th Dec 2013 10:28 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

fundamentally it comes down to a dissing contest on TV (just watch BBC Parliament).

I always do wonder what's with the "yeaaaaah" or "nooooo" chants in the British parliament...

Reply Parent Score: 2