Polls that touch a wide audience should be taken with a grain of salt. When you ask someone who doesn't really know what's going on "do you care?" their response doesn't mean much. This is true of just about everything, and transcends age. I would rather see polls like this come with an intensive questionnaire to correlate knowledge about the recent revelations of an NSA surveillance state with their answers.
For instance:
"Do you think PRISM is a powerful tool to prevent major terrorist attacks?"
48% yes, 52% no
A powerful tool which has yet to provide leads into a potential threat (rather, traditional means have still been significantly more effective), and which failed spectacularly to even hint at the Boston Marathon bombing? There's too much data. People can easily use code words or encrypt their communications. It's horribly and totally unreliable, and warrants are already a thing.
"Is Bradley Manning a hero?"
31% yes, 69% no
"Should Edward Snowden be prosecuted for disclosing classified information?"
56% yes, 44% no
"Do you consider Edward Snowden a hero?"
34% yes, 66% no
But then...
"Are you glad that Edward Snowden revealed the secret surveillance program?"
75% yes, 25% no
That seems like strong cognitive dissonance. Is it possible the people answering this poll are getting their information from a source that bashes the person/act, minimizes the program (or discloses no information about it or how it could be abused), but is happy it's a talking point? Maybe NBC and Fox News?
I'm not sure if this is evidence of cognitive dissonance or the fact that people have a nuanced view of what's going on. For example, I was channeling my inner Thomas Friedman and talking with a cab driver about the spying last night, and he was glad that Snowden revealed the program, but didn't consider him a hero (because Snowden fled to Hong Kong).
I still see that as dissonance. On the one hand, they believe in the US, in our rights, in the freedom of speech, and in the need for us to blow whistles on government actions that violate those rights.
But on the other hand, someone who seeks asylum from a tyrannical government who would illegally violate those rights and possibly torture or indefinitely detain them is clearly a bad person. Even though this is very similar to how our country was founded.
I don't see how those two views are not entirely contradictory.
And that's what the mainstream media has been focusing on in this case: he fled to China. That's the only important thing. Clearly he's guilty. Clearly he's a treasonous anti-American. Is he a Chinese spy? It's all borderline defamation at this point.
Look at the situation from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe that the US government is tyrannical, and instead, represents the best, most just system in the world.
From that perspective, why wouldn't Snowden stay in the United States, since he's guaranteed the right to a fair trial? Why not face the music at home, instead of fleeing to HK?
Acknowledgement of the leak demonstrates knowledge that the US government is actively violating the constitutional rights of citizens. Assuming it is the most "just system" in the world where one is "guaranteed the right to a fair trial" contradicts that (an assumption that the government will not violate rights).
Additionally, Obama's approval rating amongst those under 30 has dropped significantly in the past weeks. I would imagine this is a direct result over the NSA leaks.
I have yet to meet someone in person, millennial or otherwise, who cares. Hell, my wife and I care strongly about several political issues (privatized prisons, for-profit schools, the environment, abortion rights, public pensions, privatized water, in her case the 2nd amendment) and she totally doesn't care and I struggle to care. I'm really more disappointed with the attempts to keep it secret than the actual program--I think the program is legal and there is no reason it needs to be kept secret.
I think the program is legal and there is no reason it needs to be kept secret.
Do you think it is legal only in the pedantic sense that "congress passed a law approving this" or do you consider it legal in the constitutional sense (would likely pass a 4A challenge in the SCOTUS ), or even in the broader sense where something might be allowed by the SCOTUS, but is still not "ok"?
And to dig a little deeper, how do you feel about the argument that non-targeted, unspecific data collection approval by the FISA court amounts to a "general warrant" as opposed to a warrant that describes "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"?
Would it make you feel better if the U.S. just required the phone companies to store all of that data for however long the NSA would normally have stored it, and provide a PRISM-like system for the NSA to make the search as needed when they receive the same type of warrant they say they require now?
That seems like a way to get essentially the same effect as what the NSA has now, except that now the phone companies have to pay for the upkeep instead of NSA. But then it would all be legal.
I'm not personally sure I would feel safer shifting NSA-types of duties off on profit-driven civilian companies. As least I know that someone in Congress and the judiciary are being briefed on what's going on now... we won't have that same assurance if the phone companies are all compelled to do it.
We have to be careful defining about exactly what "it" is. I'm operating under the assumption that the NSA is collecting call data records from phone companies, and getting downloads of peoples' Google/Facebook/etc accounts pursuant to court orders that don't meet the requirements of Article III warrants. I reserve judgment on any activity that isn't covered by the above.
If that is what is actually happening, I think it is at least legal Constitutionally. I think the third party doctrine is alive and well, and I agree with Orin Kerr that it makes 4th amendment analysis technologically neutral (http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_data_question...). Basically, if I print out my e-mails and leave them in my friend's garage, the police do not need a warrant to get them, they can use a subpoena or lesser court order to get him to produce any documents I gave him. So why should those e-mails be protected if, instead of printing them out and leaving them in my friend's garage, I instead keep them in digital form on my friend's servers and my "friend" is named Google?
I think it's also consistent with how the framers understood the 4th amendment. It creates a zone of privacy around you that protects you from invasive search and seizure. It protects your person, it protects your house, it protects your property. It does not attach to the information itself and follow it around wherever it goes.
And I think with call detail records the 4th amendment isn't even implicated, because it's not even your data in the first place. It's data generated by Verizon's or AT&T's computers in response to signals on their networks. It's like a 7/11's security cameras. It's not a violation of your 4th amendment rights if your trip to the local 7/11 was captured on a security tape the store handed over to the police.
I think the NSA's programs are actually more likely to run into problems with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act or the Stored Communications Act.
Vis-a-vis FISA court warrants, I absolutely agree that they do not pass muster as Constitutional warrants. That is to say, if a search was deemed to require a Constitutional warrant for 4th amendment purposes, the police could not offer a vague FISA warrant to meet the requirement. But at the same time, I don't think collecting say call detail records from Verizon is something that requires a Constitutional warrant in the first place.
There is a very deep distinction in the law that I think a lot of people want to ignore. Your information in your possession is protected much more strongly than information pertaining to you in the possession of other people. The police need an article III warrant to bust into your house and take your accounting records. The police need merely a subpoena to get copies of your accounting records from your accountant. Similarly, a court cannot compel you to testify against yourself (5th amendment). But it can definitely compel your friend to testify against you. This is an asymmetry based on qualitative distinctions that transcend technology (i.e. your information versus information pertaining to you.) It's not like new technology has changed this distinction, all it has done is make it much easier and more convenient to give your personal information to third parties.
I asked most of my friends and they all say they don't really care. There's really only a small vocal minority that even understands the ramifications.
No, because it hasn't impacted the lives of any Joe Sixpacks in bad way so far therefore Joe Sixpack is OK with it.
But the looming risk for Joe Sixpack is a mysterious string all of the sudden being rejected from jobs, loans, schools, airline flights, credit scores, tax audits, passports, arbitrations, etc and there's no appeal process for any of that. Your record is has been red flagged, maybe it's an error, but too bad for you, terrorist!
The real outcry would happen if a few dubious data points go viral through the web of information sharing handshakes between government and private industry, and those bad data points start raising irrevocable red flags on the records of ordinary people. That's how this could all go wrong for everyone.
> But the looming risk for Joe Sixpack is a mysterious string all of the sudden being rejected from jobs, loans, schools, airline flights, credit scores, tax audits, passports, arbitrations, etc and there's no appeal process for any of that. Your record is has been red flagged, maybe it's an error, but too bad for you, terrorist!
Millenials know this will never happen. Ever. And that's why we don't give a shit.
That's completely different from, "being rejected from jobs, loans, schools, airline flights, credit scores, tax audits, passports, arbitrations, etc and there's no appeal process for any of that."
Obviously no-fly lists exist, and obviously they're not perfect. Not sure what your point is, friend.
I wonder what would happen if you normalize millennial views on PRISM by the amount of data stored online for each age group. Baby boomers and older groups may (probably mistakenly) feel they have less of their personal info online and therefore care less.
A 6% difference between the 35+ crowd and milennials seems rather insignificant, especially when the data clearly shows that 56% of milennials and 62% of 35+ respondents are "not outraged" by the existence of PRISM.
Furthermore, cherrypicking some comments regarding PRISM to support a 'point' that milennials care more than the 35+ crowd doesn't really provide accurate support to statements like "milennials are among the angriest" about PRISM.
Finally, the poll question itself is worded badly: I'm certainly interested in PRISM and curious about the extent of its reach, but 'outraged' would never be a word that would describe my feelings about the program. 'Outraged', in my book, certainly isn't synonymous with 'giving a damn'.
I don't really give a damn yet, because I don't even know what PRISM is.
Is PRISM just software for making sense of huge data sets? Is PRISM some system for hacking into web servers and stealing information? Is PRISM just a program where the government can request access to private information on some company's servers?
From reading about it, I don't really buy that it's as bad as many people make it out to be. Have lines been crossed? Yes. Do I know enough about how far we've gone over the lines to be outraged? No.
PRISM itself is an automated way to do what used to be highly-manual before. It's like people complaining about robotic car factories or how we use EFT to direct deposit paychecks instead of handing out paper checks every 2 weeks.
A lot of the difference I believe has to do with how we consume news, and more specifically from where. My parents (baby boomers) consume news in a very traditional way. They read the local newspaper, and watch network news. On the other hand, myself, and other people my age get news from the internet. The difference is a lot of the articles that really are fueling the outrage are not coming from "traditional" sources. The Guardian for instance is not something my parents would ever read.
Could it be simply that millenials have always assumed that this stuff was going on, this they aren't surprised or particularly worked up by the revelations?
This is sort of where I am. Given that I have known about ECHELON for oh, 15 years at least and basically look at the NSA as the organization that does explicitly this, I don't see why people are shocked over the PRISM leaks. ECHELON to PRISM, the only thing that changed is they got better and people willingly put disgusting amounts of information out there.
I just figured it was the mobs lack of long term memory.
I'm 39. I hate PRISM and related programs. I think my generation has very little control over national (or local) politics due to the demographics in the US. Namely, Boomers are conservative, and too numerous to outvote.
For instance:
"Do you think PRISM is a powerful tool to prevent major terrorist attacks?" 48% yes, 52% no
A powerful tool which has yet to provide leads into a potential threat (rather, traditional means have still been significantly more effective), and which failed spectacularly to even hint at the Boston Marathon bombing? There's too much data. People can easily use code words or encrypt their communications. It's horribly and totally unreliable, and warrants are already a thing.
"Is Bradley Manning a hero?" 31% yes, 69% no
"Should Edward Snowden be prosecuted for disclosing classified information?" 56% yes, 44% no
"Do you consider Edward Snowden a hero?" 34% yes, 66% no
But then...
"Are you glad that Edward Snowden revealed the secret surveillance program?" 75% yes, 25% no
That seems like strong cognitive dissonance. Is it possible the people answering this poll are getting their information from a source that bashes the person/act, minimizes the program (or discloses no information about it or how it could be abused), but is happy it's a talking point? Maybe NBC and Fox News?