

Do Millennials Give A Damn About PRISM? - soupboy
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/06/18/do-millennials-give-a-damn-about-prism-ctd-2/

======
just2n
Polls that touch a wide audience should be taken with a grain of salt. When
you ask someone who doesn't really know what's going on "do you care?" their
response doesn't mean much. This is true of just about everything, and
transcends age. I would rather see polls like this come with an intensive
questionnaire to correlate knowledge about the recent revelations of an NSA
surveillance state with their answers.

For instance:

"Do you think PRISM is a powerful tool to prevent major terrorist attacks?"
48% yes, 52% no

A powerful tool which has yet to provide leads into a potential threat
(rather, traditional means have still been significantly more effective), and
which failed spectacularly to even hint at the Boston Marathon bombing?
There's too much data. People can easily use code words or encrypt their
communications. It's horribly and totally unreliable, and warrants are already
a thing.

"Is Bradley Manning a hero?" 31% yes, 69% no

"Should Edward Snowden be prosecuted for disclosing classified information?"
56% yes, 44% no

"Do you consider Edward Snowden a hero?" 34% yes, 66% no

But then...

"Are you glad that Edward Snowden revealed the secret surveillance program?"
75% yes, 25% no

That seems like strong cognitive dissonance. Is it possible the people
answering this poll are getting their information from a source that bashes
the person/act, minimizes the program (or discloses no information about it or
how it could be abused), but is happy it's a talking point? Maybe NBC and Fox
News?

~~~
gee_totes
I'm not sure if this is evidence of cognitive dissonance or the fact that
people have a nuanced view of what's going on. For example, I was channeling
my inner Thomas Friedman and talking with a cab driver about the spying last
night, and he was glad that Snowden revealed the program, but didn't consider
him a hero (because Snowden fled to Hong Kong).

~~~
just2n
I still see that as dissonance. On the one hand, they believe in the US, in
our rights, in the freedom of speech, and in the need for us to blow whistles
on government actions that violate those rights.

But on the other hand, someone who seeks asylum from a tyrannical government
who would illegally violate those rights and possibly torture or indefinitely
detain them is clearly a bad person. Even though this is very similar to how
our country was founded.

I don't see how those two views are not entirely contradictory.

And that's what the mainstream media has been focusing on in this case: he
fled to China. That's the only important thing. Clearly he's guilty. Clearly
he's a treasonous anti-American. Is he a Chinese spy? It's all borderline
defamation at this point.

~~~
gee_totes
Look at the situation from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe that
the US government is tyrannical, and instead, represents the best, most just
system in the world.

From that perspective, why wouldn't Snowden stay in the United States, since
he's guaranteed the right to a fair trial? Why not face the music at home,
instead of fleeing to HK?

~~~
Executor
Serious question: have you been brainwashed by your country?

~~~
gee_totes
Only when I'm channeling my inner Thomas Friedman ;)

------
rayiner
I have yet to meet someone in person, millennial or otherwise, who cares.
Hell, my wife and I care strongly about several political issues (privatized
prisons, for-profit schools, the environment, abortion rights, public
pensions, privatized water, in her case the 2nd amendment) and she totally
doesn't care and I struggle to care. I'm really more disappointed with the
attempts to keep it secret than the actual program--I think the program is
legal and there is no reason it needs to be kept secret.

~~~
mindcrime
_I think the program is legal and there is no reason it needs to be kept
secret._

Do you think it is legal only in the pedantic sense that "congress passed a
law approving this" or do you consider it legal in the constitutional sense
(would likely pass a 4A challenge in the SCOTUS ), or even in the broader
sense where something might be allowed by the SCOTUS, but is still not "ok"?

And to dig a little deeper, how do you feel about the argument that non-
targeted, unspecific data collection approval by the FISA court amounts to a
"general warrant" as opposed to a warrant that describes "the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized"?

~~~
rayiner
We have to be careful defining about exactly what "it" is. I'm operating under
the assumption that the NSA is collecting call data records from phone
companies, and getting downloads of peoples' Google/Facebook/etc accounts
pursuant to court orders that don't meet the requirements of Article III
warrants. I reserve judgment on any activity that isn't covered by the above.

If that is what is actually happening, I think it is at least legal
Constitutionally. I think the third party doctrine is alive and well, and I
agree with Orin Kerr that it makes 4th amendment analysis technologically
neutral
([http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_data_question...](http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_data_question_should_the_third-
party_records_doctrine_be_revisited)). Basically, if I print out my e-mails
and leave them in my friend's garage, the police do not need a warrant to get
them, they can use a subpoena or lesser court order to get him to produce any
documents I gave him. So why should those e-mails be protected if, instead of
printing them out and leaving them in my friend's garage, I instead keep them
in digital form on my friend's servers and my "friend" is named Google?

I think it's also consistent with how the framers understood the 4th
amendment. It creates a zone of privacy around you that protects you from
invasive search and seizure. It protects your person, it protects your house,
it protects your property. It does not attach to the information itself and
follow it around wherever it goes.

And I think with call detail records the 4th amendment isn't even implicated,
because it's not even your data in the first place. It's data generated by
Verizon's or AT&T's computers in response to signals on their networks. It's
like a 7/11's security cameras. It's not a violation of your 4th amendment
rights if your trip to the local 7/11 was captured on a security tape the
store handed over to the police.

I think the NSA's programs are actually more likely to run into problems with
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act or the Stored Communications Act.

Vis-a-vis FISA court warrants, I absolutely agree that they do not pass muster
as Constitutional warrants. That is to say, if a search was deemed to require
a Constitutional warrant for 4th amendment purposes, the police could not
offer a vague FISA warrant to meet the requirement. But at the same time, I
don't think collecting say call detail records from Verizon is something that
requires a Constitutional warrant in the first place.

There is a very deep distinction in the law that I think a lot of people want
to ignore. _Your_ information in your possession is protected much more
strongly than information _pertaining to you_ in the possession of other
people. The police need an article III warrant to bust into your house and
take your accounting records. The police need merely a subpoena to get copies
of your accounting records from your accountant. Similarly, a court cannot
compel you to testify against yourself (5th amendment). But it can definitely
compel your friend to testify against you. This is an asymmetry based on
qualitative distinctions that transcend technology (i.e. _your_ information
versus information _pertaining to you._ ) It's not like new technology has
changed this distinction, all it has done is make it much easier and more
convenient to give your personal information to third parties.

------
mikegioia
I asked most of my friends and they all say they don't really care. There's
really only a small vocal minority that even understands the ramifications.

------
snorkel
No, because it hasn't impacted the lives of any Joe Sixpacks in bad way so far
therefore Joe Sixpack is OK with it.

But the looming risk for Joe Sixpack is a mysterious string all of the sudden
being rejected from jobs, loans, schools, airline flights, credit scores, tax
audits, passports, arbitrations, etc and there's no appeal process for any of
that. Your record is has been red flagged, maybe it's an error, but too bad
for you, terrorist!

The real outcry would happen if a few dubious data points go viral through the
web of information sharing handshakes between government and private industry,
and those bad data points start raising irrevocable red flags on the records
of ordinary people. That's how this could all go wrong for everyone.

~~~
diminoten
> But the looming risk for Joe Sixpack is a mysterious string all of the
> sudden being rejected from jobs, loans, schools, airline flights, credit
> scores, tax audits, passports, arbitrations, etc and there's no appeal
> process for any of that. Your record is has been red flagged, maybe it's an
> error, but too bad for you, terrorist!

Millenials know this will _never_ happen. Ever. And that's why we don't give a
shit.

~~~
1337biz
Sure, that's exactly why nobody innocent landed on the no-fly list. Ever.
Because government knows best!

~~~
diminoten
That's completely different from, "being rejected from jobs, loans, schools,
airline flights, credit scores, tax audits, passports, arbitrations, etc and
there's no appeal process for any of that."

Obviously no-fly lists exist, and obviously they're not _perfect_. Not sure
what your point is, friend.

------
zwieback
I wonder what would happen if you normalize millennial views on PRISM by the
amount of data stored online for each age group. Baby boomers and older groups
may (probably mistakenly) feel they have less of their personal info online
and therefore care less.

------
jdp23
The USA Today/Pew poll had similar results: "Sixty percent of 18- to 29-year-
olds polled support the leaks, compared with 36% of those 65 and older."

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/18/young-p...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/18/young-
people-nsa-leaks-poll/2435005/)

------
rmrfrmrf
A 6% difference between the 35+ crowd and milennials seems rather
insignificant, especially when the data clearly shows that 56% of milennials
and 62% of 35+ respondents are "not outraged" by the existence of PRISM.

Furthermore, cherrypicking some comments regarding PRISM to support a 'point'
that milennials care more than the 35+ crowd doesn't really provide accurate
support to statements like "milennials are among the angriest" about PRISM.

Finally, the poll question itself is worded badly: I'm certainly interested in
PRISM and curious about the extent of its reach, but 'outraged' would never be
a word that would describe my feelings about the program. 'Outraged', in my
book, _certainly_ isn't synonymous with 'giving a damn'.

------
RandallBrown
I don't really give a damn yet, because I don't even know what PRISM is.

Is PRISM just software for making sense of huge data sets? Is PRISM some
system for hacking into web servers and stealing information? Is PRISM just a
program where the government can request access to private information on some
company's servers?

From reading about it, I don't really buy that it's as bad as many people make
it out to be. Have lines been crossed? Yes. Do I know enough about how far
we've gone over the lines to be outraged? No.

~~~
mpyne
PRISM itself is an automated way to do what used to be highly-manual before.
It's like people complaining about robotic car factories or how we use EFT to
direct deposit paychecks instead of handing out paper checks every 2 weeks.

------
swalsh
A lot of the difference I believe has to do with how we consume news, and more
specifically from where. My parents (baby boomers) consume news in a very
traditional way. They read the local newspaper, and watch network news. On the
other hand, myself, and other people my age get news from the internet. The
difference is a lot of the articles that really are fueling the outrage are
not coming from "traditional" sources. The Guardian for instance is not
something my parents would ever read.

------
codva
Could it be simply that millenials have always assumed that this stuff was
going on, this they aren't surprised or particularly worked up by the
revelations?

~~~
mhurron
This is sort of where I am. Given that I have known about ECHELON for oh, 15
years at least and basically look at the NSA as the organization that does
explicitly this, I don't see why people are shocked over the PRISM leaks.
ECHELON to PRISM, the only thing that changed is they got better and people
willingly put disgusting amounts of information out there.

I just figured it was the mobs lack of long term memory.

/Don't call me a millenial

------
fnordfnordfnord
I'm 39. I hate PRISM and related programs. I think my generation has very
little control over national (or local) politics due to the demographics in
the US. Namely, Boomers are conservative, and too numerous to outvote.

------
pressurefree
24 comments. word count 2349: wasted talent lol

