this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
76 points (100.0% liked)

politics

21652 readers
4214 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If only someone had warned people that mass surveillance would be used for purposes that most voters are opposed to.

Most laws of the limits of surveillance are based on the understanding that it requires time, effort, and expenditure of limited resources to observe someone. We don't require a warrant for publicly available information, like a cop following you around, and writing down where I go all day, because we understand that no police department is going to spend an officers time like that for no reason. It's a self-limiting decision. Similarly, the records of such observation would be limited in scope to the period of time that I have an officer assigned to me. They can't decide today that they want to have been observing me last week.

But with cameras and data storage, booth of those limits are removed. It costs nothing to observe and record where I go all day. Further, they can decide today that they want to have observed me last week, and just pull the data out of the archives.

With this in mind, the general understanding of "publicly available information" needs to be reconsidered, and the laws about what the government is allowed to collect and store about me needs to be updated.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It used to be that there were two categories, "private" and "public." But now there are three, "private," "public," and "panopticon," and almost nobody realizes it yet. The rights that were adequate protection in "public" are no longer good enough.