I've seen this comment in various guises over the last few days, and I struggle to understand what it's intended to accomplish.

If you think the problem is old news, that doesn't make it any less urgent to fix. It's like seeing firefighters arrive and tell them not to bother, because the house started burning hours ago.

It is a good a idea to reduce the damage surface now.

Conversely, that damage surface would be significantly smaller, and less of it would remain now that it can only be shut down in haste, had it been reduced back when the administration in charge was one that gave SV warm fuzzies.

This is absolutely true, but let us remember that the creepiest pervasive surveillance entity in SV is probably Palantir. I am sure that Obama did not give Peter Thiel warm fuzzies (based on his position on the Trump transition team) and yet they showed no sign of abatement during Obama's presidency.

I think it is foolish to think all of SV are allies of the people.

Thought experiment: who/what is the 2016 equivalent of circa-2013 Peter Thiel considering a candidate to endorse in the next election?

I think this might have been a hypothetical question on your part, but one name does stand out to me, and that's Tim Cook.

Consider that Trump was openly hostile toward Apple on the campaign trail, and that Tim Cook himself is gay, and the GOP establishment wants to roll back protections for LGBT+ individuals.

And consider Apple's vast war chest, which could really make a difference assuming Citizens United isn't overturned.

Wait, so unaccountable billionaires pouring money into politics is now a good thing all of a sudden? Between this and the 180 on surveillance I am getting serious whiplash.

No, billionaires pouring money into politics is not a good thing, but it is the status quo. As long as it's the status quo, I'd like to see that money being used to oppose autocracy. But I'd be happier to see money out of politics entirely.

And I really don't think there's been a 180 on surveillance. I think the only people who were supporting the surveillance apparatus were the same people of an authoritarian bent who are now supporting Trump.

You are seeing ideological inconsistency where there is none in an effort to make your political opponents appear as hypocrites.

> I think the only people who were supporting the surveillance apparatus were the same people of an authoritarian bent who are now supporting Trump.

And the folks who voted and agitated for surveillance state champions Obama in '12 and Clinton in '16, of course.

Obama supporters were all for mass surveillance when it was their guy doing it. So it's more like the firefighters showed up hours ago and you told them not to put out the fire because it was only burning someone else's room.

> Obama supporters were all for mass surveillance when it was their guy doing it.

Not many of the Obama supporters I know.

Of course they were more willing to forgive it! That's going to be the case. Partly because humans don't like admitting they were wrong. Partly because it's legitimate to trade off issues against each other. Partly because we're introducing selection bias - if it's enough to turn you off Obama entirely, you're not an "Obama supporter".

But there's miles between overly generous forgiveness and support. It was commonly named as an area where they were disappointed in Obama.

And yet that disappointment didn't translate into voting for other candidates -- and I'm not talking about voting for Romney or Trump, there were plenty of other options the whole time -- so in the end it is of no value.

There are exactly 2 choices that are possible for any first-past-the-post voting system.

Change that (which I support) and we can talk 3rd parties.

I supported Sanders 2016 primary and his 2012 primary threat to Obama, after having voted for Obama in 2008. Once the options became Obama (and now Clinton), I voted for those simply because the alternative means more coal, less regulations, and more religious right.

That is to say, you voted for the surveillance state. There were other candidates running, you know.

No, that is to say they were not presented with the option to cast a meaningful vote for or against the surveillance state (in a general election) and so chose to use their vote to speak about other things.

The only reason third-party isn't a meaningful vote is because of people who tell themselves that it isn't a meaningful vote.

No, the reason a third-party isn't a meaningful vote is because we have a voting system that means any vote for any but the two most-likely-to-win candidates has a basically zero chance of affecting the outcome. The reason these particular parties' candidates are the two most likely to win is, certainly, because everyone understands them to be the two most likely to win... but we don't fix that by simply pretending it's not the case.

Your comment is beyond ironic given who it's directed at.

That doesn't make the house less on fire now.

It does suggest that perhaps the folks who were waving off the firefighters earlier don't make the best decisions.

It's all about how do you address the issue and how this very same issue would be handled if the other party took the presidency.

I'm all in when it comes to privacy and I always agreed with encryption and everything people are suggesting to do now.

It is just a pain to listen to how this is being advertised now.

And before anyone starts complaining: 1. I'm not from the US and I don't live in the US 2. I'm against Trump and against Hillary

I share your frustration, but the fact that people have waited too long makes it more urgent to get the work done now. Antagonizing the recently convinced doesn't help that goal.

Yes you are right.

It's intended to make people wake the fuck up and deal with problem(s) (next time) before it is too late, like it is now for this issue.

The saying goes "they went after group 'A' I didn't like, then after group 'B', now they're after me and I care. Well maybe if you 'A', and 'B' worked together against your common enemy instead of being selfish, short-sighted and stupid you wouldn't be fucked right now"

We are idiots and deserve everything that happens next 4 years.

People -- many, many people --- have been concerned about this for a very long time. The concerns are more urgent now, but they are far from new.

But even if what you say were true, it invalidates nothing.

The word might be hypocracy... Hypocracy of power mongering.

Yeah. We should just leave everything intact. Great idea.