"Most Americans at this point are at least marginally aware of the propaganda used to sell recent wars conducted by the United States."
If the FCC or AT&T often disappoint you, you still aren't adequately prepared for the disappointment you will feel when you see results of polling the US populace to measure their knowledge.
On average, we know NOTHING. Did you see that John Oliver bit where he talks to Snowden, and Snowden (fucking hero, BTW) says "I trust that the American people will use the knowledge...yada yada..." Then, Oliver shows him interview footage of American people's familiarity with the name "Edward Snowden". They either don't have a clue who he is, or the best informed think he is tied to Wikileaks, and revealed US secrets.
I felt sooo bad for Snowden at that point. All his sacrifice, and these stupid sheep couldn't even recognize the name, let alone the political significance of what he revealed.
Then there's Congress, who repeatedly called him Eric Snowden.
No. It may not be polite or patriotic to say so (I think it is), but the US populace is clueless, ignorant, and prime examples of the lower quartile of the Dunning Kruger effect.
Effectiveness Or Lack Thereof Is Not The Main Thrust
The effectiveness or lack thereof should not be our main argument against our egregious government surveillance of citizens. The arguments should begin with:
1. It is ethically wrong. 2. It goes against the Bill of Rights 3. It is illegal 4. It may not work well.
The main reason bullet 4 is a weak one is because I can make a very strong counter-argument to the article above:
OK, so the data is just bigger haystacks today. But we don't want to be like the IBM CEO who estimated a market for maybe 6 computers in the world. The reality is that Moore's, Kryder's, and Nielsen's laws are all in effect, and it's only a matter of time before Big Data analytics tools actually manage to make sense of this massive haystack.
While we maybe can't make sense of the haystack today, having data that goes back many years will prove "useful" in the future when we have greater analytical compute capacity. With years of data, not only is their more information to mine, but trend or panel data can be derived, as opposed to just "snapshot in time" data.
So, I'm not convinced the NSA is stupid to want all that data. I just think they are forward-looking. Unflappably insidious, for sure, but not stupid.
Agreed. I don't like any of his other views, but if I accept that privacy and surveillance is a dominant problem today, it might not be a wasted vote to give it to Rand.
Single-issue voters on subjects like abortion have not gotten their desired result, but they've sure as hell succeeded in making abortion a hotly debated topic...for 40 years. I'm bored of that subject, but I would not mind talking about my civil rights for a while. Heck, even 40 years would be OK.
Any other candidate that aligns with Rand on privacy would also stand a good chance to get my vote.
Remember when AT&T said they were "opening" their network, (which they actually did because it was part of the 700MHz license terms, and because their phones use the GSM standard, which means that any SIM-ready GSM device could already be put on their network.)