> “We would not be doing our job if we didn’t seek ways to continuously improve the precision of signals intelligence activities [...]” said Vanee M. Vines, the agency spokeswoman.
Which leads directly to the annihilation of any form of privacy (total surveillance), given the exponential advances that technology embodies.
If our governments really think that this is what their voters/citizens want, then this subject should be put to a very explicit vote.
First up, I agree 100% with the idea that this sort of thing is systematically wiping out both freedom and the illusion of freedom. Of course we all know that over time it will close in getting worse and worse until we become little more than controlled cattle. However.....
Government has every right to think its what people want. Or, to put it another way, it is not what they don't want. The mass population simply doesn't care, since they know that it probably won't ever affect them. And if it does, well, the mass population won't care, they'll just see it as a bit of bad luck, happening to someone they don't know, who is not them, their family, friend or colleague.
What I don't see anywhere, US, here in the UK, or anywhere else is any form of mass objection. When you look at the numbers, protesters/population, petitioners/population, and so on, you'll see it is a small minority who actually care. As a politician, I'd be concerned about the mass population and their votes. Thats where the power is, not with a loud(ish) minority.
Im with you, I really am. I actually suffer minor anxiety symptoms as I read and think about this stuff. It really creeps me out. But the tragic fact is, the vast majority don't give a toss.
This will only change when majorities show signs of really caring about the issue.
Parent post is extremely clear in its meaning. You have taken half a thought, the entirety of which is a clear argument, and demanded explanation. It suggests either intellectual dishonesty or simple laziness in reading.
The shortest part of that statement that it would be reasonable to quote alone is: "Government has every right to think its what people want. Or, to put it another way, it is not what they don't want." You don't have to agree with this at all. But it is a single self-contained idea that can be comprehended and understood, before attempting to justify or refute it.
He didn't make that claim. He stated that apathy could be construed as people not being against something which is a valid notion. More importantly it can be key to getting programmes funded and extended ie if there is no large scale public disapproval then there is no risk to anyone's political career in signing off on something.
It's hard enough to get even Congress as a whole to care about issues normal people actually care about, but it's even worse if even Congress itself can't pass good laws because it's being hijacked by a few. For example, most of the House voted to pass the USA Freedom Act as is (which was pretty good originally), but the Rules Committee, comprised of a handful of people, stripped down almost all the good reforms in it, making it essentially useless, and potentially worse than if it had not existed:
Sometimes, it all falls onto one man, such as the Audit the Fed bill, which also got a huge majority in House, but Harry Reid refused to put it on the floor in Senate, or when Patrick Leahy single-handedly killed the recent patent reform bill.
All of this doesn't seem "democratic" at all to me.
We're not even talking direct democracy, here. The parent post is saying (for example) that a single Senator can prevent a bill from entering the Senate, even if said bill would get a majority of Senate votes.
If it was possible to get such bills put to a vote over the objections of singular individual representatives, then there would be less need for direct democracy.
Switzerland is not a direct democracy. No country is. Some have more democratic processes, at the extreme ends being Switzerland, Finland, and I suppose Germany, while at the other end, with least democratic processes being US among others. US has great constitution/rights, terrible democratic system.
Which leads directly to the annihilation of any form of privacy (total surveillance), given the exponential advances that technology embodies.
If our governments really think that this is what their voters/citizens want, then this subject should be put to a very explicit vote.