Anyone who throws their hands up in the air (and I'm talking to you yodsanklai and JoeAltmaier, dobbsbob...and basically 80% of the people on this thread) but YOU are a big part of the problem. It doesn't matter even if the petition is totally ineffectual to change things on it's own: it's value is in it's very existence, and it signals a strong position against something that is very, very wrong with our society at the moment. No movement ever started fully formed like Aphrodite from the head of Zues - they all must start somewhere.
So please, if you agree with the desired outcome, why would you naysay ANY attempt to change things, no matter how "naive" or "ineffectual" or "pointless"? Is it not better to have good people speaking truth to power, even if they are not listened to?
All I ask is that you consider this question before criticizing someone else's attempt to advocate for positions that you yourselves agree with.
I suppose pretty much everybody is against mass surveillance, academics or not. But what choice do we have? I think the problem is that we don't really live in democracies. It's not only mass surveillance, but also wars, inequalities and so on...
So I'm watching this new show "Almost Human." its about a future where technology destroys the traditional CSI techniques (e.g. DNA bombs to wipe out DNA evidence), and police are "forced to respond" with synthetic human police. So you have a cop that can go into a business and just download all the documents on their network without touching anything. At one point the synthetic cop asks his human partner "we don't need a warrant for this?" And the partner is like "I didn't think so either." The point of the joke is that the robot wants to follow the warrant requirement, because its a rule, but the human cop knows that its okay to break the rules when the bad guy could get away.
So no, not everyone opposes mass surveillance. Just watch some movies. Since the time of westerns there's been this deep seated idea that procedural protections are optional when a bad guy could get away. This is not a failure of democracy. This is a non-democratically designed procedure being eroded by democracy.
This also plays out in the turn-out of voters on election day - its just a disconnect in community. Not saying its bad -or- good, but its reflective of how diluted our outlets are and the lack of trust we all have in everything and it becomes a culture of indifference.
If we had a direct vote on mass surveillance I wouldn't be at all surprised if American voters rejected it, but that's not how we make political decisions in the US.
There are very few candidates who oppose mass surveillance (though we did elect a president who spoke out against trading freedom for security during his campaign), and most of them also have a bunch of other policy positions that are sufficiently distasteful to enough people that even opponents of mass surveillance will either reject him/her for those other positions, or reject him/her for being "unelectable".
I doubt it. Neither party really opposes surveillance, and if there was broad public opposition to surveillance, one or the other would.
I posit that you're not seeing a failure of representative democracy to properly express what is a position with majority support. Rather, you're failing to perceive the nature of the electorate.
I remember I stared college the year after 9/11 and was in school when the Iraq war started. Conservative place as far as colleges go, but left of center for the region as a whole. I heard a lot of talk about turning the middle east into a glass parking lot. That was not a position anyone was afraid to take publicly. Imagine my surprise when I'd come back to my very liberal circle in northern Virginia and hear about the "overwhelming public opposition to the Iraq war." Simply put, ideological minorities often don't realize that they are that.
Neither party is big on decriminalizing marijuana, but it has >50% support among Americans. Neither party is big on ending gerrymandering, but I'd guess it has >50% support (opposition?) from Americans.
There's stuff that gets votes, and there's stuff the majority supports. They aren't necessarily the same.
Not to forget the people who still bank on the reasoning - Why should I care, I have nothing to hide.
I am sure everyone of these people will object to a routine daily search of their house to make sure that they are not responsible for the occasional neighbourhood burglary.
"I am sure everyone of these people will object to a routine daily search of their house"
It's a good analogy because the usual argument for mass surveillance applies here too. By massively searching houses, we may find a few dangerous criminals and lives would be saved!
Any country in charge of its own currency can always fund a war without a vote by simply printing more of it for itself (debasing the currency of course via "invisible tax"), which is why I support cryptocurrencies.
Any person who is OK with mass surveillance has clearly never seen the movie The Lives of Others ("Das Leben der Anderen," yes it's German with English subtitles, deal with it) http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_lives_of_others/ because to watch that movie is to watch the fall of a country which was destroyed by "too much introspection," as it were.
"Any country in charge of its own currency can always fund a war without a vote by simply printing more of it for itself"
Really? How? Who will fight in this war? Their own population, for the worthless currency? And where do the weapons (and gasoline to power these) come from? Or are they going to spray the enemy with bonds and futures?
We don't really live in democracies? So the fact that a President of the United States was elected who appointed two liberal leaning Supreme Court justices that were confirmed by a freely and fairly elected Senate and now serve their terms without fear of being removed for making an unpopular decision, making Roe v. Wade less likely to be overturned, and the recent Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 cases to be adjudicated the way they were didn't happen? If that's not democracy I'd love to hear what you think is.
Saying we don't live in a democracy is a popular thing to say (obviously, seeing as this is the top comment) but it's just wrong. Senator McCain and then-Senator Obama had two very separate plans for things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and healthcare reform if they were elected. The fact that the country and the world is the way it is today, for better or worse, is because people went out and voted in a free and fair election, and then did it again and again and again in primaries and general elections for local, state, and federal offices in the US.
The Constitution of the United States says that, had the sitting President of the United States or myself been alive during the start of our country, we would be 3/5ths of a human being... yet he runs the place, and I had the right to have campaigned and voted for him twice had I been inclined. That's democracy in action. The fact that he, myself, the two previously mentioned Supreme Court justices, and anyone else got to exercise our right to vote, knowing if we were intimidated or denied for any reason the judicial system would support our right, is democracy in action. The fact that I can get on HN, reddit, a blog, or walk outside and type/say pretty much whatever vile things I want about the leaders of my country and any other country, is democracy in action.
Obviously Americans are lucky to live in a time and place where we have the ability to perfect our Union.
Please don't disrespect the work of countless often forgotten women, men, and children from around the globe who have sacrificed, willingly or otherwise, very significant parts of, and all too often their entire lives for democracy, by acting like their actions didn't help contribute to others being able to live in (or one day live in) democracies.
I think the OP's point is that it's a pseudo-democracy. We might vote in a president or political party, but we have no real power over the decisions made.
Just to run in the elections you need heavy corporate sponsorship, which means any major candidate is already tainted with the potential of a conflict of interest. Then you have corporate lobbyists who have the ability to push their agendas in ways that the Joe Public and everyday voter never could.
And even if you could say without a doubt that no corruptions, secret deals with mates nor any conflict of interests existed in any of those in congress (etc), you still have the issue with regards to how much power some some government agencies have and how their not run by elected officials.
Sometimes it feels like all we're voting on is our favourite puppet and whoever gets voted in will just continue on the same regime that his predecessor left. Sometimes it feels like our votes are completely meaningless as if the government suspects something to be unpopular, then they'll just go ahead and do it anyway; but more covertly.
I completely understand that OP isn't a fan of their current democracy. But let's be honest and not hyperbolic about what the situation really is. Again, I can't speak for every nation, but in America our democracy undeniably has its flaws and shortcoming but there is nothing I've ever heard of that is realistically stopping a movement with enough political will from making a change.
But instead of disagreeing on semantics about "real" or "pseudo" democracies, what "real power" is, etc., I'd be interested to know how you, OP, or anyone else would answer these two straightforward questions.
1. What is it about the current democracy you live in that would need to change for it to become a "real" democracy?
2. If enough people were to work together to make that change a reality, is there anything that could realistically stop that change from happening? (And I don't just mean, you might get out-campaigned, I mean no matter how hard you tried nothing could be done.)
Not being able to change what is wrong is I think a fairly simple starting point for defining something that is not a "real democracy".
The fact is, at least in the US any criticism of government that most people have is something that, if there is enough political will from the electorate, if you, me, and anyone else will knock on doors, talk to our neighbors, find candidates, run ourselves if necessary, can't be stopped.
I know people often phrase questions as backhanded insults on discussion forums, but please know I'm being genuine when I say I would be excited to hear you or anyone else describe specifically what needs to change in government, and then explain specifically why it's impossible for those changes to take place.
I believe any changes are definitely possible if the political will is there.
I've already answered your points when I addressed what I thought was wrong with the current state of democracy.
You seem to have taken my post as an argument about semantics when it really wasn't; I was just expressing that I think you've taken the OP too literally when he said that we don't live in a democracy. Obviously we have elections, but his (and my) point was that the elections don't really change much because the real power usually ends up being those with the deepest pockets or those in charge of government organisations - neither of which the everyday man can elect nor control.
I do think you're right that it is theoretically possible for a truly impartial and incorruptible individual to make change; but I think that's hugely unlikely because I can't see them ever getting enough sponsorship to pay for their election campaign, nor for them to play dirty enough to win enough voters (since politicians and businesses will spin all sorts of negative PR about unfavourable candidates).
For what it's worth, I don't think "true democracy" would ever work because at some point we have to acknowledge that nobody is educated enough on every subject to make an informed opinion about it. Which means we need to rely on a smaller subset of individuals to make those informed decisions for us. The problem lies with whether we can trust those individuals or not. Sadly I don't trust our government nor the election process to generate any desirable individuals in the foreseeable future. :(
You've definitely addressed the first question I had. I'm sorry but I still can't find in your original post where you addressed the "If enough people were to work together to make that change a reality, is there anything that could realistically stop that change from happening?" question.
Which is probably my fault for not explaining what I meant correctly. Maybe a better way to put it would have been, "how specifically would an ideal government work in your mind... and why is that impossible?"
From what you've written I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying that your ideal form of government is one run by individuals without corruption who can remain entirely impartial. But those people don't exist, therefore it's just not possible.
I would probably be inclined to agree that nobody is above all corruption etc. (especially not the tens of thousands it would take to fill every public position in the country) so in that regard I would probably agree with you.
My point, and I hope you can agree is that, sure we aren't going to find perfect people to run the country, because more likely than not, nobody including ourselves is completely perfect. But we can look at the types of corruption and other problems in government like campaign finance laws and find solutions. And here's the most important part, because we live in a democracy, nothing can stop us. For example we as a country might say, "okay, so all of this corruption you politicians are so fond of but isn't technically illegal, it's all illegal now. And if you participate in it you'll lose your seat and go to prison." Which for some types of corruption and campaign finance laws that already exist happens pretty frequently [1] [2]
Then we might say, "campaigns are all publicly funded from now on."
But no matter what we say or do, or how many tries it takes, because all of our votes count, and we can all go vote, we can keep on trying to make our Union a better one.
> What is it about the current democracy you live in that would need to change for it to become a "real" democracy?
Unfortunately, I don't know what to change, but let me tell you why I think the US isn't a real democracy (or any western democracy).
I remember watching the presidential debates. The question of the war(s) was discussed in very simple terms. Basically, both candidates agreed: "we have to catch the bad guys". They disagreed over minor things but that was the idea. Basically, the voters were addressed as they were 5-years old kids, and pretty much didn't have any choice.
This issue is extremely important, both ethically, economically, strategically and so on. Still, no meaningful information was given, or alternative choice or anything.
So you can tell me that the reason why both candidates agreed on this issue is that americans are pro-war, and that's rightly reflected with the two candidates left at that stage of the election. But I don't think americans are pro-war, and even if they are, I don't think there would be if they were correctly informed.
In any case, this decision is not a collective decision made by well-informed people. It's made at a higher level by people with their own agendas. What else is it if not a failure of democracy?
This is true for war, but it's pretty much the same thing with mass surveillance, wealth redistribution.
On the other hand, a friend in Oregon showed me his voting form, and their were several referendum about a variety of things. Then, there were references to what looked like objective websites that weigh the pros and cons about the question to vote for (for instance, a treaty with the indians). I find it ironic that so much detailed information and decision power was given to the voters concerning a treaty with the indian, when wars in iraq and afghanistan are summarized by "trust us, we have to catch the bad guys".
"2. If enough people were to work together to make that change a reality, is there anything that could realistically stop that change from happening?"
No, probably not. But it doesn't mean that our democracies are working. The fact is that for some reasons it doesn't happen and we're left with decisions made that don't represent the public interest (or, at the very least, decisions that weren't collectively made).
I don't agree with petitions. Not only do they get ignored but here they use it against you in politics later when public opinion changes, plus it's a list for marketers. Instead harass your local representative mercilessly with letters and espcially angry phone calls those get noticed eventually.
OR - Most academic never heard of 'acedemicsagainstmasssurvalence' and know form bitter experience that signing a petition from some unknown group could end up with them claiming to speak on your behalf in the future.
While I agree in principle, opposing surveillance is like pissing into the wind. Privacy is becoming extinct. Soon devices and technologies will be impossible to regulate - specks of dust that record sound and location; recorders that stick to clothing, hair, skin; phones and tablets that come pre-infected in their OS and hardware.
We can oppose it, and maybe stave off for a few years, but inevitably we are all going under the microscope. Better to design new social mechanisms to protect against misuse of the data, than try and prevent its collection.
Of course we can oppose surveillance. We can build anti-surveillance systems, and then we can demand companies to support them. Companies like Google could even use data mining in a way that doesn't infringe on user privacy. But their thinking will be "why change the status quo?".
That's why it's so important to fight for such changes, and not get trampled by the corporations and governments wishes for complete knowledge of a user/citizen. If Google doesn't like it, too bad. We'll just have to start supporting privacy-focused companies, and let Google die. That's capitalism, no? Adapt or become a dinosaur and die.
For internet surveillance, sure. For a while. But when the internet is a network of wireless devices, not all of which you own or even know exist, it becomes a swim against a waterfall.
> Better to design new social mechanisms to protect against misuse of the data, than try and prevent its collection.
The only way to achieve this, is to eliminate EVERY kind of asymmetry in society (which we should have achieved a long time ago, since we all always pretend that every life has the exact same value). If you keep any kind of asymmetry within society and accept mass surveillance, democracy is dead because mass surveillance will of course be abused to increase and further protect power monopolies.
This means, every kind of power would have to be distributed equally over every citizen. And that also means that everybody would have to receive the same amount of money per hour of work (all education being paid for by everybody, meaning entirely financed via taxes).
While that would be the perfect model and the most sane one, I doubt we are culturally mature enough to get there fast enough.
which we should have achieved a long time ago, since we all always pretend that every life has the exact same value
I don't think we've ever pretended this. We've "pretended" that all men are created equal, but what anyone does from there has a great impact on how society will value them. And why not? Two guys created equal: One spends his life on his parents' couch, the other becomes Bill Gates or Michael Jordan. Which one should we value more?
I'm not so sure about that. Isn't there an argument that goes like this: if there is indeed ubiquitous, mass surveillance, in other words if "everyone is a target", then doesn't that just move the problem back to a sort of baseline, where authorities still need to identify targets? (or sub-targets, if you like)
In any case I'm glad to see so many people signing this petition. It would be great if it had more populist support.
So please, if you agree with the desired outcome, why would you naysay ANY attempt to change things, no matter how "naive" or "ineffectual" or "pointless"? Is it not better to have good people speaking truth to power, even if they are not listened to?
All I ask is that you consider this question before criticizing someone else's attempt to advocate for positions that you yourselves agree with.