[mcjon77]

I can only give my perspective as a US citizen. The best way that I could explain it is with the phrase "out of sight, out of mind." Issues have much less of an impact if a person doesn't see and feel the direct consequences in their lives.

Lets take the Snowden case. He released tons of info regarding the US spying on it's own citizens, but how does that directly effect my life today? To put another way, how do I FEEL the day to day impact of these programs? The answer is simple, I don't.

I have no idea whether the NSA has a record of every website I have viewed. I have no idea if I have a file on some government server detailing my porn preferences based on my google searches. I don't know if the government knows of my relationship status based on listening in to my phone calls. Essentially, unless and until the government decides to use this information that they may (or may not) have to blackmail/arrest/detain/publicly humiliate me, it doesn't impact my life in a noticeable way

Now, lets compare that with the gun issue. When the federal/state/local government passes a gun law, if I am a gun owner I FEEL the impact of that law. If someone wants to buy an AR-15 and there is a threat of banning the weapon, that person feels the direct impact of the issue in his life. If someone wants to carry a concealed firearm in public (something completely legal in the vast majority of states, btw) but they live some place that does not permit it, they FEEL the impact of that law.

This is also why for people who don't own guns and have no interest in doing so, gun restrictions me nothing to them. Banning assault weapons have no negative impact on the lives of people who have no desire to own such firearms.

I am certainly not saying that the right to firearms is more important than the right to privacy from government surveillance. What I am saying is that it is FAR easier to find and organize people who have felt (or would feel) the real life impacts of gun restrictions, than those who have felt the impact of the NSA's surveillance program.

[atmosx]

> Lets take the Snowden case. He released tons of info regarding the US spying on it's own citizens, but how does that directly effect my life today? To put another way, how do I FEEL the day to day impact of these programs? The answer is simple, I don't.

That's a shame because you're in a position to understand what is at stake here. But you don't care and when you'll do, it will most likely too late.

This masterpiece was written by a pastor, Martin Niemöller for the raise of Nazi Germany:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.

IMHO this poem applies in every case were we are able to understand the repercussions of some actions, but we choose not to take action because.

By taking action I don't mean take on the streets and protest (that's good too of course), but the very least techies should do in my opinion is to create awareness about the dangers that high-tech, state-level surveillance can bring to a democratic society.

[lostcolony]

He was speaking from a hypothetical "I". As in, "this is the implicit rationale that many US citizens have", not "this is my own rationale". Not sure if you realized that given you're tailoring your reply to him, not to those people who act under that rationale.

[atmosx]

No, I did not. Thanks for pointing that out.

[lostcolony]

No worries.

[andruby]

Thanks for the poem. We all need to be reminded about this more often.

[shitgoose]

"... and there was no one left to speak for me"

it may sound terrible, but one shouldn't put one's life into hands of Socialist and Trade Unionists, who might "speak" for us. one should possess a firearm and be able to defend one's life and freedom.

[edwhitesell]

> Essentially, unless and until the government decides to use this information that they may (or may not) have to blackmail/arrest/detain/publicly humiliate me, it doesn't impact my life in a noticeable way

I think that's the crux of it for many people (myself included).

I don't support what the Patriot Act has become, though I do believe in what it "should be". In a perfect world, I really could care less if the government stored all of my data and everything about me. If it could only be used to prove/prosecute my status as a bad actor/terrorist.

Unfortunately, I don't believe the government can be trusted to limit scope in that way. Possibly more relevant, I don't believe all people who work for the government (and could/would/should have access to said information) will always act with my best interest in mind either. Ethics don't come easy to all people.

Also, it's always possible for my information, which I may otherwise choose to keep private, to be lost/stolen/hacked from wherever it resides. I would prefer that door not exist, rather than the keys being held by someone else who may or may not be trustworthy.

It _feels_ like a slippery slope to me. One that seemingly should never exist, based on constitutional rights, etc.

(Note: not trying to flame or troll anything mentioned here, just to discuss serious thoughts).

*EDIT: typo/spelling

[hellbanner]

Even your trust could be used against you. What if a "bad actor" is defined as someone who publically spreads hostility towards a change in government policy?

[edwhitesell]

Thanks for making my point. Even though I gather you understood what I was saying, you still found a hole in the words I used to state it. Trust alone isn't enough to support _any_ kind of mass surveillance.

[david_mitchell]

The best way that I could explain it is with the phrase "out of sight, out of mind." Issues have much less of an impact if a person doesn't see and feel the direct consequences in their lives.

This sounds like a general problem with modern democracy. Theres so much going on that none of us can keep up with it, including the people who work in politics full-time. The inevitable result is an inability to make intelligent decisions in our own interests. The wisdom of the crowd is all that saves us, except when it doesn't.

[geon]

> but they live some place that does not permit it, they FEEL the impact of that law.

How is that any diffrent from living in a country where you know you are under 24-7 surveillance? Unless you planned carry a concealed gun all the time, you'd hardly ever be affected - only on the occasions where you'd have otherwise carried.

[mcjon77]

It is not just knowing that you are under 24-7 surveillance, it is knowing that there will be CONSEQUENCES for "negative" behavior while under that 24-7 surveillance.

For example, if one takes the traditional image of the tyrannical government spying on its citizens (the East German Stasi comes to mind) the fear wasn't just that the government monitors would hear you say something anti-government while in private. The fear was that they would use that private conversation as a reason to imprison, torture, and/or execute you. You had to watch every word you say for fear of detention or death.

Many Americans do not believe that their government would or could use that information against them, especially since they are not terrorists (think of the old cop line "if you are innocent you have nothing to hide). The fact is that much of the information that is being collected by the government is ALREADY being collected by Google, Facebook, Yahoo and AT&T. Most Americans rightfully assume that google is keeping track of their searches, and that AT&T has records of who they call. Why would they trust some corporation with this data, but not their government? I don't necessarily agree with this thinking, but I understand it.

Until there are MULTIPLE reports of the U.S. government using that information against ordinary Americans, you are not going to see much traction on the issue.

> Unless you planned carry a concealed gun all the time, you'd hardly ever be affected - only on the occasions where you'd have otherwise carried.

This might sound strange to people who don't carry guns (particularly if you live in a country were civilian ownership is restricted), but for the people I know with concealed carry permits, many actually do carry all the time (at least everywhere they can legally). These folks don't carry their guns only on special occasions. One firearms instructor told me that he carries everyday because "if I knew the exact day that I would need my gun in public, I would just stay home instead." They treat carrying a gun like wearing a seat belt. You don't only wear your seat belt on the highway or in heavy traffic. As soon as you get in the car, you buckle up.