[CitrusFruits]

A lot of politicians are against surveillance too, they just get outnumbered. I think it's an unfair assumption to assume the parent comment is for surveillance legislation, especially if they're someone who frequents HN and are therefore more likely to be technically literate.

[aucisson_masque]

> A lot of politicians are against surveillance too, they just get outnumbered

Well, politicians do vote and make laws.

if the majority of them are for privacy, there is absolutely no reason for them to vote against it each time they are asked to.

Usually a law is passed when the majority of politicians vote for it...

[dagw]

if the majority of them are for privacy, there is absolutely no reason for them to vote against it

That's not how politics works. Most politicians belong to political parties, and sometimes you have to vote against your personal conviction and with your party, especially if you actually want to get stuff done long term. Compromising by voting with your party and against your convictions on one issue to ensure that you get their support on another issue you consider more important is what politics is all about.

[skeeter2020]

I'm not saying this person is FOR surveillance, I'm saying a visceral example of its impact - especially on those who make decisions around it that impact everyone - is a powerful piece of art. I suspect most surveillance debates are theoretical and making politicians feel potential impacts is a very valuable experience.