Not terribly surprising considering we are told we are still in a state of emergency declared after 9/11. By law these proclamations expire after a year and yet every year like clockwork, democrat or republican in the white house, the president renews it https://www.courthousenews.com/biden-extends-9-11-state-of-e...
And the event that the 1979 state of emergency was declared in response to, the Iran Hostage Crisis, ended the following year.
Declaring emergencies is obviously an easy way for a leadership class to consolidate power, but they have to be irresponsible, pathetic, decadent, etc. to do that.
> In 2021, the FBI conducted about 3 million so-called “backdoor searches” on US residents
It's hopeless at this point. We have no chance to stop this when our elected representatives put up zero fight to achieve the one bipartisan objective that's emerged this Congress; namely, protecting their constituents (the people who voted for them) from unconstitutional intrusions into their personal lives.
The mistake in this logic is the one that assumes that they represent anyone, instead of thinking of themselves as a seperate caste whose interest is in maintaining the interests of the caste. Across the board.
This adjusted view, in part, explains why they'll never vote against this much power. No matter how bipartisan-populist any one's rhetoric.
This can keeps getting kicked down the road a couple years. Bundled into some other huge bill or abother. Not too long an extension usually, but gee, sure seems unlikely Congress will ever have to actually reckon with their monsters ever, will ever have to re-decide a thing that was deliberately explicitly built as a short term thing to be re-evaluated.
> But these conversations were halted after Congress and the Biden administration squeezed a short-term extension of the spy program through the annual defense bill, potentially keeping it in effect until 2025.
I am a strong leftist progressive who believes in strong competent doing government, very much. But the inability of government to have to face up to old decisions & evaluate how things have been going & make new better informed decisions keeps being super undermined by awful shitty omnibus bills. (Personally I think one party actively sabotages the system & does not want governance or compromise, but anyways...)
"This can keeps getting kicked down the road a couple years."
And it will continue to do so because the only people who care about the matter are the few who read columns like this. Similarly, we see the same apathy amongst the masses when it comes to copyright reform.
To overturn decisions of entrenched power—government or corporate—we need the masses to react and demonstrate in the way they did during the Vietnam War and there's no stomach around for that these days (there's been no such reaction for 50 years).
Opponents of such laws just have to accept the fact that they don't have the numbers and likely won't for some considerable time.
grassroots efforts work in a lot of cases. it of course doesn't mean it can be done by sending a few handwritten snail mails only, but a lot can be achieved through slow and steady activism and the necessary coalition building.
recently protest-driven movements turned into hyperpoliticized empty performative shells of themselves, mostly through the radicalization process driven by the interplay of inciteful keyboard warriors and the gullible ones eager to please on the streets.
True, but I'd deemphasize 'a lot of cases' to just 'some' cases. Decades ago I was involved in a successful grassroots effort to have changes made to broadcasting law where I am and it was successful but the change was only possible because opposition was minimal and the then laws were grossly out of date.
Issues where money is involved—especially where stakeholders have the potential to lose money even if it amounts to a pittance as in some proposals for copyright reform—will be vehemently opposed by stakeholders more on principle than from actual potential loss.
Same goes for matters over security, when Government claims some need for new law over spying/security—whether justifiable or not—then the majority won't give the matter a second thought on grounds that (a) it doesn't concern them personally [even when it does, as here], and (b) they just assume Government is in a better possession of the facts thus has some justifiable reason to implement new law. Laws on security are passed by default as no one wants to be blamed in the otherwise unlikely event something will go wrong.
Moreover, these days, there is also a worrying trend for many people to want to seem to be reasonable and non-confrontational which has the effect of self-censorship, this leads to debate being stifled.
In such circumstances overturning unjust or unreasonable law is nigh on impossible unless some catastrophic event mandates change, and this rarely if ever occurs.
One of the major problems with modern democracy is that so few citizens brother to scrutinize laws that do not concern them personally, this allows 'bad' law to be legislated or continue to exist at the instigation of those who have a vested interest in seeing the existence of such laws. As inevitably 'bad' law is backed by the politically and or financially powerful, those who oppose such law simply can never muster the critical mass necessary to achieve change.
Every cause I've supported in recent decades has suffered from this effect. I've given up expecting to see the law change in my lifetime. That might sound defeatist but the data suggests I'm correct.
> inevitably 'bad' law is backed by the politically and or financially powerful, those who oppose such law simply can never muster the critical mass necessary to achieve change
well, I don't know, some hard data would be good to have for this discussion.
to me it seems there is a big status quo bias for a lot of things, which keep bad stuff on the books, and during populist surges more bad stuff ends up on the pile (looking at the recent crazy anti-abortion laws)
that said it's really strange how things seem to be falling apart while intersectionality is on the news a lot. but of course performativity is also at its peak (and there's still some steps to go before we reach a McCarthy-era hysteria), but real coalition building is rare (and hard, and requires compromises, and due to the constant one-upmanship of keyboard warriors moderates are excommunicated by the raging mobs)
and due to one of the fundamental differences between progressive and reactionary ideology being conformity (and basically forced ideological homogeneity and purity) one group tends to push the needle during these populist surges not the other
so, as I said, data would probably shine some light on this, but after reading slowboring.com a lot one of the takeaways is that the median voter doesn't really have amazing politics, so whether they care or not doesn't lead to big progress.
but that's where persistent campaigns can make some difference, by educating people. (just as unfortunately propaganda can also make fine work of people's minds the same way.)
"well, I don't know, some hard data would be good to have for this discussion."
Right, it would but collating and presenting the data would be the subject of an extensive blog. I know of specific instances but explaining the background is time-consuming and often boring as the matters in question often aren't of interest to the reader whose primary interest is the broader political issue.
Perhaps a recent HN story about how Musk's Starlink satellites are emitting spurious unwanted electromagnetic radiation and are causing interference to other radio services may illustrate the point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38857676.
One of the most important axioms of radio spectrum management is that one service should never interfere with another, it's one of the guiding reasons for the existence of the ITU—International Telecommunications Union—whose job it is to ensure that the electromagnetic spectrum is free from interference.
Had it been technically possible before say 1980 for a Starlink system to be launched then inference of this sort would never have happened because interference regulations were strictly enforced back then. Satellites would have been strictly scrutinized for interference before launching and if a 'wayward' interfering satellite made it to space then the FCC would have required it to be scuttled.
Why is this different now? Well, in the 1980s rules were relaxed, the FCC and the spectrum management departments of other governments were downsized and or outsourced and or their powers reduced because of political pressure from vested (commercial) interests who didn't want to pay extra to maintain high protection ratios on interference. Of course, this wasn't unique to spectrum management, deregulation was all the rage in the Reagan-Thatcher era, and along with deregulation came lower standards. Commercial interests argued that the standards were already too high and there'd be no problem from lowering them.
In many instances that's not what happened, this Starlink problem is but just one instance of many similar interference problems. And it's not confined to something seemingly as esoteric a RF spectrum management, just look at say the disastrous deregulation of the UK's water and sewerage systems. And there are hundreds more similar instances across many countries.
"there's still some steps to go before we reach a McCarthy-era hysteria), ..."
That's true, as there's always inertia built into human tolerance. The trouble is tolerance doesn't mean that annoyance and frustration don't still build up, as clearly they do. As we've seen throughout history, eventually, something snaps and the mobs rage—the French Revolution, US independence, the Civil War, Kent State, etc, etc.
Those in power either never see the writing on the wall in time or they reckon they can weather the storm. It's a perennial problem.
You labor under the delusion that protests are not state level intimidation and excuse to ram through what they want to, against a small obstacle that isn't with the program: popular opinion (seemingly most common), an institution, or a branch of government.
Actual grassroots protests, often representing true popular opinion, get demonized and buried by the press. Participants are prosecuted as far as they can be. Any protests that bring "change" get the opposite treatment, and coincidentally commonly take on a severely antidemocratic tone rooted in the threat of violence against innocents.
> I am a strong leftist progressive who believes in strong competent doing government, very much
So your a conservative in the US since the US Federal government is probably the worst example of competency...? Or do you still prefer a strong incompetent fascist government to a weaker competent government that has checks and balances to it?
I think your question at the end is a good one for discussion. But let’s be honest, even “conservatives” in the U.S. aren’t fighting for small government. It’s barely given lip service, and only when they’re trying to justify gutting government funding. They’re often the ones pushing for authoritarian measures and flirting with outright Nazis at this rate.
I say this as someone who misses the principled “small government” conservative. I didn’t agree with them in a great many ways, but at least I respected them.
Often when I see people advocating for small government, they mostly mean cutting things that they don't use. It's always about cutting welfare, or ending this or that subsidy. Why does (in my country at least) it seem that the "small government" types are the ones that want to criminalise protest, destroy privacy and encryption and make us scan our faces to watch porn (whatever you feel about the subject, can we atleast agree that that is a step to far?). Heck our "small governments" types are trying to get the face of everyone with driver's license in a police database.
"Do you agree with me or are you a fascist?"
Come on, you're being unfair. "strong government" can mean many things, strong regulation in the e.g. gambling industry is something a strong goverment does but that doesn't mean it's fascist. Also, the idea that a weak government is the only kind that has checks and balances is just silly. Not to mention there are plenty of leftists that very much want a weak government, not just conservatives. E.g. libertarian socialism, left-wing anarchists, the strong tradition of syndicalist in the US.
Also, you must live a charmed life if you have access to the internet and believe that the US government is the worst example of competency.
Does Section 702 surveillance of foreign nationals even require a national security pretext? When it was introduced in 2008 it was sold as a tool for stopping foreign terrorists (and it continues to be justified on grounds of fighting terrorism [1]), but judging by e.g. ACLU's account of this case [2], FBI came by the emails of the Temple physics prof incidentally in the course of conducting "extensive surveillance of Chinese universities and scientific research centers", where the "fighting terrorism" justification transparently doesn't apply.
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rogues-gallery-threats-made-...
> Since Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel, [Wray] said, a “rogue’s gallery” of groups have called for violence against the US. “702 is critical to protecting Americans from foreign terrorist threats,” he urged. “Please don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
[2] https://www.aclu.org/cases/xi-v-united-states-challenge-warr...
> The government has reportedly engaged in extensive warrantless surveillance of Chinese universities and scientific research centers. It has siphoned communications off servers, computers, and major internet networks that connect many of China’s most prestigious academic institutions. Both the NSA and FBI routinely store the emails and phone calls they intercept in government databases for years, where they can be later searched by analysts and agents who are investigating Americans. FBI agents conduct so-called “backdoor searches” on Americans so often that the government has referred to one of these massive databases as the “FBI’s Google.”
> Under Section 702 of FISA, federal investigators do not need a warrant to tap the phone calls, texts, and emails of foreigners outside of the country.
Did you know that the Five Eyes alliance (which the US is apart of), has been noted to spy on foreigners and pass the data to their governments to bypass laws around spying on their own citizens? These things cut both ways, foucault's boomerang and all that.
Also, why do you think it's ok to spy on people without oversight just because they are foreign? Everyone is deserving of privacy. If there is legitimate reason to spy, then obtain a warrant.
