Traumatic events make the population easier to control. One reason why the nightly news is 99% negative information.

The people under thirty saw and read about the Paris attacks and moved on. The over thirty group watched it over and over again for days on end several times a day via TV and also went online but to a lesser degree.

Edward Snowden said it best.

This comment was edited on Jan 6, 2016, 01:48.

I think this line

The survey asked 1,042 Americans a number of questions regarding various civil rights, in the light of the recent terror attacks in both the US and abroad.

Sums up alot, Terrorism abroad. Americans are probably the most skittish of people on the planet. Despite the fact the news leaves out alot of terrorist attacks now. Sure the serious ones get coverage, but the smaller ones like Bomb vests, and kidnappings. Nope nothing. But the moment they get wind of it. "need to deploy troops" "Take my freedoms! take my privacy! keep me safe" Seems to be all you hear.

Out of all the survey respondents under 30, only a third supported the idea of warrantless Internet surveillance. In contrast, two-thirds of Americans over the age of 30 supported the idea.

And here is good evidence of a generational gap, between people who understand how Internet affects there modern life. And how the older set are less worried and more willing to give it up, as it played less of an important role. Alot like how the Chip&Pin system took so long to get root in the US. People there just keep alot of status quo lifestyle.

But as mentioned, its only 1,000 people and that small of a group changes answer's due to dumb luck. Maybe they hit more Scared of terrorism people that day then not. Sadly these are the polls politicians love to quote and use for new law making, so it counts.

Jerykk wrote on Jan 4, 2016, 23:12:
The U.S. has been spying on its citizens since the 50's. It's nothing new and for 99.99999% of the population, it has no impact on their life whatsoever. Opponents of surveillance believe that governments are inherently corrupt and that they will inevitably use any information they gather to either exploit or persecute you. I don't believe that to be true. Totalitarian governments use surveillance to help suppress opposition but they'd be suppressing opposition even if surveillance didn't exist.

Surveillance is inherently neutral. It doesn't turn a democratic nation into a totalitarian one. If it did, the U.S. would have become a totalitarian nation a long time ago (and please don't claim that the U.S. is already totalitarian; if that were true, you'd already be dead or in prison because of your publicly-expressed beliefs).

Governments don't need to be totalitarian in the classic sense of the word for them to be inherently opposed to the good being and welfare of the vast majority of its peoples. Read "Democracy Inc." for an explanation of how these openly democratic states exist today, and the culture that allows them to exist and defend special interest groups at the expense of the majority.

In many ways totalitarian rule is much less dangerous, at least you can point it out, oppose it, and fight it directly. This sentence at least gives me comfort that the next generation might finally get rid of the warmongers and fear pushers:

Out of all the survey respondents under 30, only a third supported the idea of warrantless Internet surveillance. In contrast, two-thirds of Americans over the age of 30 supported the idea.

The U.S. has been spying on its citizens since the 50's. It's nothing new and for 99.99999% of the population, it has no impact on their life whatsoever. Opponents of surveillance believe that governments are inherently corrupt and that they will inevitably use any information they gather to either exploit or persecute you. I don't believe that to be true. Totalitarian governments use surveillance to help suppress opposition but they'd be suppressing opposition even if surveillance didn't exist.

Surveillance is inherently neutral. It doesn't turn a democratic nation into a totalitarian one. If it did, the U.S. would have become a totalitarian nation a long time ago (and please don't claim that the U.S. is already totalitarian; if that were true, you'd already be dead or in prison because of your publicly-expressed beliefs).

NegaDeath wrote on Jan 4, 2016, 18:16:
RE: The "nothing to hide" argument, beyond the real personal ramifications one can reason out with even a cursory examination of the topic, is still an incredibly selfish argument. Mathematically it's entirely probable it won't be used against you. What about other people? Is it ok for power to be abused so long as it happens to someone else? Journalists critical of the people in power? Whistleblowers? Opposition members of government? Rival businesses of someone in power? evidence exists that this has already happened. There are things that happen outside ones sheltered, insular personal life that affect society as a whole.

Gee, let's just hope he doesn't have any medical issues - real or potential - that could possibly mean no one would insure him. But that's ok, because he has nothing to hide apparently.

RE: The "nothing to hide" argument, beyond the real personal ramifications one can reason out with even a cursory examination of the topic, is still an incredibly selfish argument. Mathematically it's entirely probable it won't be used against you. What about other people? Is it ok for power to be abused so long as it happens to someone else? Journalists critical of the people in power? Whistleblowers? Opposition members of government? Rival businesses of someone in power? evidence exists that this has already happened. There are things that happen outside ones sheltered, insular personal life that affect society as a whole.

Cutter wrote on Jan 4, 2016, 14:16:

Porn-O-Matic wrote on Jan 4, 2016, 13:16:
As long as they don't slow down my connection while they are watching me, what do I care? I got nothing to hide, and definitely no internet activity of any great interest. I mean, look, I'm on Bluesnews for cryin' out loud. I'm sure my web habits would bore any government watchdog to tears.

Nothing to see here, boys. Move along.

Oh ok. So you'd be cool if we installed cameras all over your entire house and monitored everything you do everywhere you go 24/7, right?

1$ the first minute, 2$ each additional minute...

"Most Americans..."?! A bit of a stretch, isn't it.

Let's do the math: 1042 people polled, out of which 56% -- 583.52 people -- in favor. 584 (let's round up; they probably did) people out of ~319 million total U.S. residents! Yeah, hardly representative of "most" Americans.

And... demographic? 1042 people from large cities? Small cities? Rural towns? East coast? West coast? Midwest?

This is clearly just more media spin masquerading as fact.

Porn-O-Matic wrote on Jan 4, 2016, 13:16:
As long as they don't slow down my connection while they are watching me, what do I care? I got nothing to hide, and definitely no internet activity of any great interest. I mean, look, I'm on Bluesnews for cryin' out loud. I'm sure my web habits would bore any government watchdog to tears.

Nothing to see here, boys. Move along.

The "nothing to hide" argument is a frustrating refrain I see in privacy discussions. It's pretty silly because you have everything to hide and you DO hide it. If you didn't have anything to hide you wouldn't need passwords, doors, locks and many other basic security features that you use to prevent people from accessing areas important for various reasons including privacy. You should absolutely be at least weary of governments collecting and analyzing information, there's a large precedent of governments attempting to use information to silence its opponents or in ways that negatively affect society. There are very few upsides to it and most are vaguely represented as "security" related.

I'm sure my web habits would bore any government watchdog to tears.

Says the guy calling himself porn-o-matic?

Most people in the USA are 12 o'clock flashers.

There are partisan differences in the acceptance of government investigations into Americans’ internet activities, with Republicans more supportive. Two-thirds of Republicans favor the analysis of internet activity and communication by the government without a warrant. Fifty-five percent of Democrats and only 40 percent of independents agree.

No surprise there. The right-wing always claims to be anti-gov't, pro-freedom, yet they really crave authority, conformity, et al.

And seeing as this poll took place a month after the Paris attacks of course it's going to be skewed. So yes, it is clickbait bullshit.

Porn-O-Matic wrote on Jan 4, 2016, 13:16:
As long as they don't slow down my connection while they are watching me, what do I care? I got nothing to hide, and definitely no internet activity of any great interest. I mean, look, I'm on Bluesnews for cryin' out loud. I'm sure my web habits would bore any government watchdog to tears.

Nothing to see here, boys. Move along.

Oh ok. So you'd be cool if we installed cameras all over your entire house and monitored everything you do everywhere you go 24/7, right?

As long as they don't slow down my connection while they are watching me, what do I care? I got nothing to hide, and definitely no internet activity of any great interest. I mean, look, I'm on Bluesnews for cryin' out loud. I'm sure my web habits would bore any government watchdog to tears.

Nothing to see here, boys. Move along.

I wouldn't be surprised if AP didn't phrase the questions in such a way that they could use this headline, which they had probably already come up with and thought too good not to use.

Even if Ben Franklin's quote meant something different in context, the way its interpreted now definitely applies.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Unfortunately most of my fellow Americans ARE stupid. They keep voting in the same idiots. Want to change the Status Quo? Vote out EVERY fricken incumbent.

(I'm registered non-partisan, BTW, because both parties piss me off, and I try to vote for the lesser of two evils depending on the individual... not their party)

Awesome...