[liberationtech] And right on cue, the flush our civil liberties down the toilet boys rear their ugly heads

[Yosem Companys]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130418/19421722759/former-policy-secretary-dhs-uses-boston-bombing-to-point-out-how-eff-aclu-are-wrong-about-surveillance-cispa.shtml

Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong
About Surveillance And CISPA
from the call-up-OED:-'crass'-needs-to-be-redefined dept
by Tim Cushing
Fri, Apr 19th 2013 7:05am

There have been a lot of kneejerk reactions to the Boston Marathon
bombing. Between certain politicians and pundits quickly turning the
horrific event into makeshift planks to support their pet
legislation/conspiracy theories and the New York Post cranking out
reports so "exclusive" they weren't even true, the internet and
airwaves have been filled with the sort of stupidity we've sadly come
to expect when tragedy strikes.

Then something comes along that swaggers right up to you and punches
you in the face with its breathtaking imbecility. This is Stewart
Baker's "contribution" to the national discussion, filed over at the
otherwise esteemed Volokh Conspiracy under the heading "Fool Me
Once..."

When people say, "The stupid! It burns!" they're usually referring to
garden variety stupidity or the occasional bit of advanced moronics
that momentarily derails entire comment threads. This thing that Baker
has cobbled together out of the stuff he likes best -- surveillance
and more surveillance -- towers over other moments of burning stupid
like a Wicker Man made entirely from straw. The stupid here doesn't
simply burn. It immolates the rational person's mind, replacing
coherent arguments with searing, nightmarish pain that reduces
responses to stunted internet-native declarations like "wat."

Baker wants us to believe that the EFF and the ACLU are wrong... in
both instances. What it actually shows is the EFF/ACLU's consistency
on these issues. Unless Baker has heard otherwise, the EFF and ACLU
are still against widespread surveillance (along with CISPA). This
event, as terrible as it was, doesn't change that stance.

Only someone like Baker, a former DHS "company man" and freelance
contributor to the underdeveloped "TSA porn" genre, would take the
stance that the FBI's release of camera footage capturing the two
bombing suspects' images justifies the massive amount of surveillance
many in this country are subjected to in nearly every public space.
(His take conveniently ignores the fact that the stills posted by the
FBI appear to have been captured by cameras deployed by private
businesses.)

Only someone who seems to detest the actions of privacy advocates
would insinuate through a disingenuous headline ("What they said about
street cameras before the bombing") that the EFF and ACLU would change
their views on surveillance after an event like this. They won't. Only
fair-weather friends of Constitutional rights and civil liberties
change their stances after a tragedy like this. (See also: EVERYTHING
THE GOVERNMENT HAS ENACTED SINCE SEPT. 11, 2001 THAT DEALS WITH
NATIONAL "SAFETY" OR "SECURITY.")

And only someone who knows CISPA is a purposely flawed bill aimed at
giving the government even more control and surveillance powers would
have the gall to cheapen this tragedy by attempting to equate the two
using a bullshit "conclusion" hastily MS Painted together and dropped
unceremoniously into the blogosphere like a flaming bag of
foul-smelling rhetoric on the doormat.

One question, though, Stewart, tied into Boston Marathon as you've
done with yours: all of this surveillance, all these increased
security measures, all this warrantless wiretapping, all these pat
downs and scans at the airport, all of these drones flying all over
the world, all these double-secret interpretations of super-secret
laws, all of these redacted FOIA responses, all of this Cyber Pearl
Harbor hand wringing, all of encroachment of the government into every
aspect of American existence?

What did it prevent?