I don't want to do the usual ranting thing, mostly because of how pathetically sad it all is.
I will say as a disinterested observer (I do not support either major political party in the U.S.) I'm curious to see if any candidates will run on an anti-surveillance state message in the upcoming presidential elections.
We could end up with the same assholes who support all this nonsense going back out and making a bunch more speeches about how bad it all is -- just so they can get elected and continue things as before.
People say cynical voters are a problem, but you watch enough of how politics actually works (and has worked over the centuries) and if you don't become refreshingly cynical you're an empty-headed fool and more of a danger to yourself and others than anything else.
> I'm curious to see if any candidates will run on an anti-surveillance state message in the upcoming presidential elections.
The danger of this (from a politician's POV) is that it paints a giant target on your head, to the extent that the public is spooked about bad guys. Especially if something bad happens while you're in power, and the public rises up demanding the ability to catch all the bad guys whatever it takes. If we could learn to not freak out every time J Random Lunatic does a public bad thing, then we wouldn't be handing pro-surveillance politicians the tools to so easily defeat their opponents.
Basically this isn't just politicians being evil, it's the symptom of widespread irrationalism.
You point out the excellent reasons for politicians not taking any action -- who wants to be the guy that changed the rules so the next 9-11 could happen? But my point is more along the lines of happy-talk: red meat to throw at some energetic segment of the population to get them to donate and come out and vote.
We see this same pattern on many issues, take for instance welfare for Republicans. They'll talk up their objections, including making all sorts of nuanced arguments, but at the end of the day nobody is going to vote to throw grandma off a cliff.
I'd be ten bucks we same some of this same crap with security. Somebody will make impassioned, reasoned speeches -- probably explaining things just as you have done, and making a case for something that sounds great but is more of a marketing blurb than anything else. Maybe it'll be "peace through reasonable security" or something. (Be assured that it will be heavily poll-tested.)
But in the end, it'll just be more whitewashing. My curiosity is just how banal and pandering the politicians will get. From a rhetorical and philosophical viewpoint alone, it's always interesting to watch these verbal and policy gymnastics. What'll be the catchphrase? Will the tech community come out and support a politician even when it's blatantly obvious he or she is just beating a pinata and isn't serious about real change? I suspect so.
Maybe. I'll also be curious to see if politicians will go against surveillance in their campaign speeches.
Although the cynical side of me asks, if a politician goes against the surveillance state, who has both the motive and opportunity to sabotage that politician's career? Answer: the surveillance state.
I will say as a disinterested observer (I do not support either major political party in the U.S.) I'm curious to see if any candidates will run on an anti-surveillance state message in the upcoming presidential elections.
We could end up with the same assholes who support all this nonsense going back out and making a bunch more speeches about how bad it all is -- just so they can get elected and continue things as before.
People say cynical voters are a problem, but you watch enough of how politics actually works (and has worked over the centuries) and if you don't become refreshingly cynical you're an empty-headed fool and more of a danger to yourself and others than anything else.
ADD: Ok. Maybe a little ranting.