[comrade1]

First, I'm American. I've worked on NSA and DoD projects, and I've worked for PGP. I now live in Switzerland.

You only have to look at the consequences of the Snowden revelations. Nothing has really changed - some meaningless legislation was passed that moves the phone metadata recording to the phone companies from the NSA, but even then it's not clear that its stopped - the NSA data center in Utah where those conversations were recorded doesn't seem to be shutting down. I would bet the phone conversation, skype conversation, etc recording is still going on since it was never explicitly addressed anywhere in legislation.

And my comment about Americans being Authoritarian is nothing new - they've long considered to be Authoritarian.

[johncolanduoni]

> You only have to look at the consequences of the Snowden revelations. Nothing has really changed...

So your evidence that the public doesn't care about the revelations is that the government (who are the perpetrators of the spying) haven't changed their ways? Could it instead be because when selecting candidates to vote for (for the minority that do vote, which is a separate problem), Americans have prioritized other issues? Do you think that the survey I cited was methodologically unsound, or that people were simply lying?

How about the fact that private companies are responding by changing their platforms to be more resistant to such data collection even under warrant, and publicizing the fact? Why do you think they are doing that, if not to appease the public?

> And my comment about Americans being Authoritarian is nothing new - they've long considered to be Authoritarian.

By who? You? And whether or not the government is authoritarian, how does that imply the people like it?

[joering2]

> Could it instead be because when selecting candidates to vote for (for the minority that do vote, which is a separate problem), Americans have prioritized other issues?

Sure, so you basically admitted to his first point being right. That Americans don't care so much when it comes to their privacy.

> How about the fact that private companies are responding by changing their platforms to be more resistant to such data collection even under warrant, and publicizing the fact? Why do you think they are doing that, if not to appease the public?

Those are PR stunts. From companies like FB that are on record founded by CIA, and having same investors as companies such Palantir, I'm sure bunch of data exchange is happening behind the curtains.

> By who? You? And whether or not the government is authoritarian, how does that imply the people like it?

Unless you are really this dumb, or you just plain trolling, how about the last 20 years of America's political history, for a start?

[johncolanduoni]

> Sure, so you basically admitted to his first point being right. That Americans don't care so much when it comes to their privacy.

It means that they either don't care, or that they care about other issues more (foreign policy, economy, etc.). Even sticking to issues with technology, I am far more concerned about banning end-to-end encryption without key escrow than with legislation to ban wiretapping. The US government has a long history of doing illegal wiretapping anyway, so I think the better solution is for private companies and citizens to make it more difficult practically, not legally. Does that mean I don't care about privacy?

> Those are PR stunts.

Which is exactly my point. Why would they perform such stunts if the public at large didn't care about wiretapping, or if they mostly supported it?

> Unless you are really this dumb, or you just plain trolling

Thanks. That was a great rebuke to the way I personally insulted you and everyone else who has been a part of this conversation.

> how about the last 20 years of America's political history, for a start?

That is definitely evidence that America's government was and is authoritarian in many aspects, which I wholeheartedly agree is the case. It is also evidence that the voting segments of the population for the past 20 years (and further) have a similar bent. However, my issue with the original post is that he made a blanket statement about Americans in general. I don't think it's a great thing that the majority of Americans don't vote, but as a result this can only possible suggest the attitudes of a minority of Americans. That is why I prefer to judge what the public thinks about an issue by a poll, not by elected officials, or by anecdotal evidence (mine or anyone else's).

[jeremyjh]

If the public cared, this would be a campaign issue, and it really isn't.

[agarden]

Or maybe it is just that the segment of the public that is expected to vote doesn't care.

I don't vote, and I care about this issue. Why don't I vote? Mostly because the things I care about are not made campaign issues. That might be common.

[facetube]

You don't have to vote on every issue, candidate, or seat – there's no penalty for skipping questions. I do this routinely for issues where I either (a) don't feel qualified/informed enough, or (b) only a single candidate is available (writing in "no confidence").

If you care, please vote – even if it's just for the one guy who pledges to hold the NSA accountable for its actions.

[manish_gill]

The segment that doesn't care happens to be the majority. Which is exactly the point the original post made.

[grecy]

> So your evidence that the public doesn't care about the revelations is that the government

OP thinks that because the people are supposed to be in charge of the government. If the people really want to change something, they should be able to change it - i.e. see what happens in France when an elected leader tries to take away a single day of maternity leave or change benefits - literally millions of people rally in the streets, then that person gets voted out, almost immediately.

Now, if the people of the United States are not in control of their government, you have a whole 'nother issue to solve.