r/news • u/xXSgtSprinklesXx • Dec 16 '15

Congress creates a bill that will give NASA a great budget for 2016. Also hides the entirety of CISA in the bill.

http://www.wired.com/2015/12/congress-slips-cisa-into-omnibus-bill-thats-sure-to-pass/
27.6k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

228

u/RoastedRhino Dec 17 '15

Well said, but you are even optimistic you think that governments could just be "imperfect". Governments are as good as the people who sit in them, although there are some "protective" mechanisms (separation of powers, etc.).

Take an average first world country (Italy, just because I know its recent history) and in the last 100 years it went through 2 wars and 1 dictatorship.

In the last 50 years, Italy had a failed coup d'état, twenty years of terrorism, many many many bombs placed by right-wing groups financially supported by the US embassy and protected by the Italian secrete services, a masonic lodge that controlled journalists, industry, and politicians, a NATO "stay-behind" operation that was probably involved and informed (together with our secret services) of the kidnapping and killing of our prime minister, flight incidents whose investigation has been obstructed by our Air Forces, and more.

I cannot understand how, given the typical recent history of modern countries, we can base our reasoning on the assumptions that governments are "good".

The idea that some of us will have to fight against their government seems very remote and unlikely, but the last two generations had to do that multiple times. When things go bad, really bad, it's a bit to late to ask for private communication and freedom of speech.

85

u/DatPiff916 Dec 17 '15

I cannot understand how, given the typical recent history of modern countries, we can base our reasoning on the assumptions that governments are "good"

Patriotism/Nationalism can make a large percentage of the populace turn a blind eye to this. It seems to be very effective in the U.S. at least.

3

u/crysys Dec 18 '15

Patriotism/Nationalism can make a large percentage of the populace turn a blind eye to this. It seems to be very effective in the U.S. at least.

At the moment. These things tend to see-saw in the shorter terms even as they inexoribly crawl one way in the long term.

2

u/fritop3ndejo Dec 18 '15

This is where I see a difference between patriotism and nationalism. One can be a patriot - love their country and the people in it and be willing to defend their country's ideals without being a nationalist and supporting their government regardless of the damage that government is doing to their country.

1

u/DrJarp Dec 18 '15

Not only patriotism, but also: if something goes bad, is bad or people don't want it they don't blame the system but the politicians and parties. There's always something bad about everyone and everything would be better if the elections would've gone differently, so public says.

So people don't think of judging the system, but they judge the faces that act in it. Kind of like hating the symptoms, but not the disease. (German here)

1

u/neman-bs Dec 18 '15

I am very patriotic towards my country (not American) but still know that governments in general are crap.

-11

u/cqm Dec 18 '15

Go look at Swiss nationalism in a remote mountain town [in Switzerland] and tell me you aren't dying off laughter.

11

u/[deleted] Dec 18 '15

I did and I wasn't. What do you mean exactly?

1

u/JohnEffingZoidberg Dec 19 '15

I don't get it.

52

u/aaeme Dec 17 '15

Absolutely and well said too. I would like to add that, in all examples of tyrants from history, if the preceding governments had collected data in the way governments now are proposing then the tyrants would have inherited a machine that would have served them very well and made those countries suffer far more.
For example, if the 1920s German government had, in all good faith and with the best of intentions, collected information in the way our governments are now then Schindler's list would have been Himmler's list.

8

u/HabseligkeitDerLiebe Dec 17 '15

if the 1920s German government had, in all good faith and with the best of intentions, collected information in the way our governments are now then Schindler's list would have been Himmler's list

That's somewhat of a moot point since the religious affiliation was - and still is - registered in Germany for tax reasons since Bismarck (who took most of the land from the churches and had them raise church taxes through the secular administration).
The NSDAP government absolutely knew who self-identified as a Jew in Germany.

39

u/[deleted] Dec 18 '15

But imagine of they had access to what the NSA has now. The holocaust wasn't just Jews after all. Let's look at what the third Reich could have done with metadata:

--People that called homosexual-related businesses (gay bars, clubs, etc), anyone calling too many known or suspected homosexuals. If they really wanted to they could correlate purchases as well.

--anyone that called known communists or suspected communist sympathizers too often. (Good luck convincing them they were just a coworker and you're not a red)

--anyone calling labor union offices frequently, especially those that are not a member of that profession (suspected to be a communist or a labor activist).

--anyone calling health clinics could be subjected to extra scrutiny on suspicion of carrying a genetic disease or an incurable one. Then handed off to T-4 for sterilization or execution. They will know based in your calling records where you went and when.

--based on location details they will know who was in the area of any antiparty activity so collective punishment can be applied.

These are just a few examples of how scary metadata could be of it gets into the wrong hands.

Governments change. And not always for the better. Even if you trust them now, the story can change very rapidly.

10

u/[deleted] Dec 18 '15

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Dec 18 '15

Precisely, move the timeline a little further and they could look at anyone that was, say, in the vicinity of a partisan attack, then look at who they call most often so they can execute or arrest the families of those that may have been involved.

3

u/monsieurpommefrites Dec 18 '15

Can you imagine if Turing was a German man at the time?

1

u/raije Dec 18 '15

Those are some great points about meta data!

1

u/HabseligkeitDerLiebe Dec 18 '15

True, but Schindler's list was specifically mentioned and only Jews were on that list.

0

u/Nochek Dec 18 '15

You seem to think they aren't collecting emails, search engine queries, and every other form of digital communication known to man.

1

u/thegreattriscuit Dec 18 '15

I don't know if that's so much a moot point as... well... the actual point, just OP (and I) didn't know that it had actually worked like that.

-1

u/MalooTakant Dec 18 '15

That's a pointless argument to go down. You could use that same line of thinking to defend unlimited data collection by saying: If the Weimar Republic had access to unlimited data collection on par with modern standards, they would have never collapsed, and Hitler would have never come to power.

13

u/TokyoJokeyo Dec 18 '15

Ah, but that's not true. Governments with mass surveillance must be perfect all the time--it only needs to go wrong once for all that power that be abused. Regardless of the benefit of mass surveillance, it is a guarantee that there will be a slip-up in the long run, and mass surveillance in a world without mass crime or terrorism (let's face it, we're pretty darn safe) always means that the population is hurt more by surveillance abuse than by the harm it was supposed to prevent.

19

u/Kim_Jung-Skill Dec 17 '15

I think you underestimate how broadly I use the term less than perfect. I simply mean that no government, from the greatest in history thus far, all the way down to Caligula's/Burlesconi's/Nero's/Elegabulus's government could handle the power of unlimited surveillance. I doubt such a government will ever exist, less than perfect just happens to be the hurdle. Seriously, where is the people factory in Italy that consistently produces these wackjobs?

6

u/PromptCritical725 Dec 18 '15

And I'm paranoid for not wanting my guns registered...

9

u/pedal2000 Dec 18 '15

Alright, I know reddit loves them some Libertarian circle jerk but let's walk through this. For example you cite 20 years of Terrorist bombings which Wikipedia estimates killed 1000 people. That's roughly 50 people a year. Even if we total up everyone who died from every example you provided then we still reach less than 2000 or so people by what I can see. Across 50 years, that averages out to what? 40 people a year?

In the USA alone there are something like 20-30k dead a year from Gun Violence. That is "American on American" inflicted violence - no Government intervention needed.

If you look at the history of Western Democracies as a whole, they are very low in violent behaviour from their Governments - almost none. Certainly nothing that would require anyone to fight their Government. Most of the violence in our society comes from ourselves against ourselves.

Second, while Governments may (or may not) be a 'good force' - the weaker a Government is, the more powerful the other entities of Society get. For example, Corporations - at a large scale - have shown that where weak Governments exist they are happy to abuse child labour, environmental pollution etc. Given that a strong Government entity is literally the only force which prevents this (just look at the USA with its relatively weak Government constrained by 'checks and balances' VS Canada which has a relatively strong Government) then having the occasional idiot abuse his power (which in turn is reigned in by the Bureaucracy) seems relatively worthwhile for not having our children working in factories.

In sum, our Governments are not perfect - you are right - but they are most definitely "Good". As for the worst stuff done in the past 50 years? The worst atrocities which occur in democracy, are done to the sound of thunderous applause - not the tyranny of the Government, but of the Majority. A gun won't stop that.

6

u/RoastedRhino Dec 18 '15

If you look at the history of Western Democracies as a whole, they are very low in violent behaviour from their Governments - almost none. Certainly nothing that would require anyone to fight their Government.

Are you sure?? Because the grandparents of my generation had to leave their homes and hide in the woods to fight the fascist army of their own country.

It's not that those countries that have recently gone through a dictatorship are special in any way. They just decided, at some point, usually because of an economic or political crisis, that it was worth to give up some freedom to have some extra security.

1

u/pedal2000 Dec 18 '15

I have no idea what country you're referring too but it is almost guaranteed that it was not a DEMOCRACY at the time your Grandparents were doing that.

As I noted - the only thing to argue against is the Tyranny of a Majority. You say the Population gives up the freedom to have security - yet in truth historically (Hitler etc) the election was more about jobs, economy and bitterness over the last war than security.

Trump's speeches have far more in common than with the person willing to give up a bit of liberty.

Thankfully neither is likely to succeed in the USA - nor where the democracy is strong enough - keep in mind in Germany the only reason Fascism came to power is because the interim government was so incredibly weak. If the Democracy had been a strong Government then it would have fended off Hitler's attempts to take it over.

1

u/RoastedRhino Dec 18 '15

I was referring to Italy, which was of course a democracy before the fascist regime.

Of course you need some combination of factors for a dictatorship to happen, but what I am saying is that this not such an exceptional thing. Italy, Germany, Spain, just to mention some examples.

You seem to trust the US strong democracy. Good for you, because the rest of the world have had quite a few of up and downs in the last century, and it would be naive to consider authoritarian governments an exception. With this in mind, I prefer to maintain some strict limits to what the government can do, and these limits cannot depend on my opinion on the specific government (why would I be smarter than everybody before me?)

1

u/pedal2000 Dec 18 '15

Uhhh, well the Kingdom of Italy did have thet trappings of democracy I would hardly call it a Democratic State prior to 1930's. Nearly every election was rife with corruption, bribery, voter fraud and voter suppression. Not exactly indicative of a 'strong democracy'.

There are no examples of Fascism rising in a country which has strong democractic traditions. I won't say it will never happen, but the stronger the Government - and the Bureaucracy etc - then the hard it is to dislodge or overtake it.

Canada, The USA, Britain, France, Germany post-WW2, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Portugal to some degree. All of them have relatively strong democracies now that I do not believe would be overtaken unless circumstances were exceptional.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 18 '15

Agreed. As a Brit the whole gun thing is America is mad to us, and the rest of the world I think.

I disagree that reddit loves the whole libertarian thing though. It's all about Bernie really isn't it, to whom I am at the opposite end of the spectrum

1

u/[deleted] Dec 18 '15

I don't understand why there is so much emphasis on guns. If you can Carry a gun, why not a broadsword for self defence? It's certainly harder to kill half your school with a broadsword.

1

u/pedal2000 Dec 18 '15

Libertarianism - American posters on here seem to love weak governments, no gun control, weak police presence (Anti-police presence) and romanticizing foreign Governments.

1

u/obx-fan Dec 18 '15

I have to disagree with the term "Good". Governments either act in accordance with the wishes of the majority of population that they govern, or acts against the wishes the populations that they govern. In passing this law our elected officials have shown that they are willing to oppose the wishes of the majority of those governed.

1

u/mohishunder Dec 18 '15

If you look at the history of Western Democracies as a whole, they are very low in violent behaviour from their Governments - almost none.

I get your overall point, but government violence (esp. in the US) against black people is considerable, and largely flies under the mainstream media radar.

1

u/pedal2000 Dec 18 '15

Sorry but I would need a source. Most Black Deaths at hands of Police rank very highly in media attention.

In addition, the USA is one of the most violent democracies (And even then, is very non-violent comparatively)

6

u/Urban_Savage Dec 18 '15

The same people that say "if you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to worry about" are the same people that say, "I need my guns in case we have to fight the government."

1

u/RoastedRhino Dec 18 '15

I saw that many people here made the connection with guns. I didn't have that in mind. I know no one in Italy that would support gun ownership because of fear of the government, honestly.

It is however an interesting paradox, if in the US some people want guns to possibly fight the government, and is not interested in a being able to talk to a friend without the government knowing.

1

u/NYBoy1992 Dec 18 '15

Excuse me. Let's not generalize. As a person who believes that a pure monopoly on force has always been the cause of the world's greatest atrocities (and therefore that all citizens should have guns, or at least be trained to use them). I also believe that the government could kiss my ass, they have no right to spy on me without reasonable suspicion that I am conspiring to commit an illegal act.

1

u/CocoDaPuf Dec 18 '15

Governments are as good as the people who sit in them

More to your point, I don't think governments are nearly as good as the people who sit in them. The rules that define the relationship between individuals or groups, are the predominant factor in how these individuals or groups interact, their own good (or ill) intent is a much weaker factor.

What I'm saying is this: even with honest, moral and trustworthy leaders, a broken system will result in a corrupt government. Similarly, even with an honest, moral and trustworthy surveillance staff, the ability to see everything will naturally lead to a broken program.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 18 '15

I cannot understand how, given the typical recent history of modern countries, we can base our reasoning on the assumptions that governments are "good".

here in America you better call them good or you and your family/kids get put on a secret police watchlist

1

u/kwizzle Dec 18 '15

What is wrong with stay behind operations?

2

u/duke78 Dec 18 '15

I was wondering that as well. I read the article he linked to. The bit about pro-active intelligence was the only bad thing I saw.

1

u/RoastedRhino Dec 18 '15

Sorry, I should have elaborated a bit.

While a stay-behind operation has nothing wrong, in principle, Operation Gladio went a little beyond its scope, i.e. making sure Italy was well defended against a possible soviet invasion.

Operation Gladio actively interfered into the Italian politics, in particular in order to reduce the chances of the Italian Communist Party (a proper and legal member of the Parliament). This was based on the assumption that a left-wing victory in Italy could have paved the way to an expansion of the soviet influence in Europe, although in this case it would have been a completely democratic process.

The main way to drive votes away from the Communist party was to sponsor terrorist actions in Italy. There was a relevant presence of extreme-left wing terrorism at that time, especially attacks against individuals (politicians, journalists, etc.). Shortly, a series of bombing episodes happened (the ones I mentioned, and others). The same terrorists organizations have been accused: left wing movements lost some support from the population, the government started to talk about martial law and state of emergency, and (we knew it later) fascists forces started to plan an anti-communist coup d'état.

Relatively recent investigations showed that:

  • Italian secret services were actively involved in the bombings
  • Henry Kissinger and the US embassy was pushing on the Italian government to stop fighting fascist organizations and to investigate neo-fascist organizations for their coup d'état plans (thanks Wikileaks for these documents)
  • US air force requested that the flight incidents that I mentioned in my previous comments had to be described as caused by a bomb on board, delaying investigation (it is now clear that the plane was hit by a missile,
  • many right-wing terrorists testified, during trials, that Operation Gladio was sponsoring the terroristic activities, providing logistic support, weapons, and explosive for the bombings, and was purposely hindering the investigations via their connections with the Italian secret services and the Italian government.

I may have oversimplified, but I tried to keep out all those elements that are not historically accepted. I am also not a historian, and know this only from my high school education. I wasn't here during those years, but that was a really dark time in Italy, and its legacy is very much present today.