[kelnos]

> You paint a defeatist picture of the situation, which should be obvious not to be helpful in any way.

Recognizing obstacles to your goals is hardly unhelpful. GP is clearly pessimistic (and admits as much), but that doesn't change anything. If we (presumably in the "people wanting privacy" camp) want to win, we need to go down that first list and either decide why each of those sorts of people don't matter, or figure out how to counteract their political power.

"How is the former more powerful by necessity?" is a good question that deserves an answer, but I think you seem to have already decided, without evidence, that those people are not powerful, which I think is mere wishful thinking.

[Loquebantur]

You utilize power as a group via coordinated action targeting pressure points and leverage. Understanding how the system you want to influence actually works is a prerequisite surprisingly often omitted.

"Counteracting" individual groups as you propose is a nonsensical approach. It is reactive and at best a second order addendum.

How you read from my comment I was making any assumptions about these groups is your secret alone.

[kelnos]

> You utilize power as a group via coordinated action targeting pressure points and leverage.

Ok, sure...

> "Counteracting" individual groups as you propose is a nonsensical approach. It is reactive and at best a second order addendum. Understanding how the system you want to influence actually works...

I don't think you really understand how "the system you want to influence" works? Knocking down "the other side"'s argument is often an integral part of getting things done in politics. Certainly there are other ways, including trading favors and agreeing to support someone else's pet project for their support on yours. But that's not everything, and often is not sufficient.

Regarding coordinated action: I agree, but it turns out that's very hard to coordinate, especially when it comes to privacy issues, as most of the US electorate either doesn't care about privacy, or doesn't understand why they should care (seems they often fall victim to the whole "if I've done nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide" fallacy that the government always pushes). It's very hard to coordinate a group that at best thinks what you're talking about isn't important, and at worst has bought your opposition's propaganda efforts and thinks you're wrong.

> How you read from my comment I was making any assumptions about these groups is your secret alone.

Then what was the point of your post? OP was listing obstacles to getting this legislation passed. Some of them may not be relevant, but I don't think it's safe to blanket assume they all are. If you think they are indeed all irrelevant, then that's fair, but I'd disagree. If you think we don't need to care about those other groups, then I also disagree. If you don't hold either of those positions, then, again, what was the point of your post, and what did it have to do with what the OP was saying?

[mistermann]

> Regarding coordinated action: I agree, but it turns out that's very hard to coordinate, especially when it comes to privacy issues, as most of the US electorate either doesn't care about privacy, or doesn't understand why they should care (seems they often fall victim to the whole "if I've done nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide" fallacy that the government always pushes). It's very hard to coordinate a group that at best thinks what you're talking about isn't important, and at worst has bought your opposition's propaganda efforts and thinks you're wrong.

I tend to agree, but rarely discussed: why are things this way, as opposed to being better?

Would investigating that not be top priority in a corporation? Isn't it strange that when it comes to the literal system that (theoretically) oversees and coordinates ~everything, we seem to never wonder such things, as if governance is an immutable constant?