Remix.run Logo
▲ CodingJeebus an hour ago

> During his 18 years in the Senate, Tester was an outspoken critic of the PATRIOT Act that passed shortly after the 9/11 attacks that expanded the Justice Department's surveillance powers. When asked whether his concerns over government surveillance remain and whether he has the same concerns with his new employer, Tester said Palantir is different and that the company doesn't build "big databases" or trade in private data.

That is literally what Palantir does.

> "I wanted to do away with the Patriot Act because it was about privacy," Tester said. "It was about making sure that I am not being watched by anybody, including Big Brother. And by the way, I've talked to many people within Palantir. They believe the same way I do. This is an organization that believes in privacy."

Congress is full of these people. Forget party affiliation, this is as broad as it is systemic. Talk a big game in office, develop your network and have a cushy job waiting for you once you leave where you make millions calling your friends who are still in office. All while saying that it's not lobbying with a straight face.

▲graemep an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Its not just the US either. Meta hired a former British deputy Prime Minister and leader (Nick Clegg) and it happens everywhere.

I think what is needed is restrictions on jobs people can do after leaving public office.

▲hydrogen7800 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

If I have to sign a non-compete agreement in the private sector, it seems very reasonable to have a similar restriction for public employees.

▲Buttons840 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

Politicians should have a cap on the amount their net worth can increase for the rest of their life.

Let it be a price of public service. Let them build a society that works for normal people, and then they'll be fine being a normal person.

▲rjsw 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Palantir itself has done a similar thing in the UK by hiring Tom Watson [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Watson,_Baron_Watson_of_Wy...

▲spacebanana7 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Such rules have to be marketable to people in public office in order to be enacted. One way might be to have a congressional alumni committee with very high salaries and strict rules on donations (this strictness could be sold as a way to prevent alumni officials from competing against the power of active officials).

Even if it cost a few hundred million a year in do nothing salaries, it'd help the integrity of multi trillion dollar budgets.

The British House of Lords sort of used to work this way until the stigma of aristocrats being involved in commercial/social activities faded.

▲nilamo 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But then the only people who run for office, are independently wealthy and don't need work after they serve. Which is also a class of people who don't represent the people.

▲vrganj 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

That's not true. To stay with the UK example, think of Jeremy Corbyn.

▲bad_haircut72 14 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Perhaps we should pay them a pension that will make them comfortable for life and actually ban them from ever working again.

▲whimsicalism 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This already exists, at least for senior US senate staff. Not sure about actual senators. The restrictions are relatively mild but do exist.

▲georgemcbay 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> I think what is needed is restrictions on jobs people can do after leaving public office.

People who have left public office aren't the only concern, either, there are also quite a few disturbing family connections these days.

For example, both of Chuck Schumer's daughters work in "government outreach" and "politics marketing" positions for big tech companies. One works at OpenAI, the other works at Meta. Not illegal, but not a good look and the sort of thing people should be concerned about.

(I'm glad the Democrats trounced the much worse Trump Republicans, but let's not pretend they are beyond reproach).

▲robotnikman 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Congress is full of these people. Forget party affiliation, this is as broad as it is systemic.

I wish more people understood this. Forget party allegiances, vote for those who have your best interests in mind. I bet if the people stopped focusing on their differences, and instead focused on the struggles we all have in common, we would get so much done.

▲ 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲forshaper 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The structure incentivizes it.

▲Phemist 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> This is an organization that believes in privacy.

Like a doctor believes in disease

Like a preacher believes in sin

Like a teacher believes in ignorance

▲pj_mukh 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

General annoyance: Not having a specific patriot act-like privacy violation ready to not let politicos weasel out like this is journalistic malpractice. Is it just laziness? Just look up some examples before the interview!

What is and isn't "Big databases" isn't up for debate, point to the exact example and ask them about it.

▲ToucanLoucan an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I genuinely think we need some kind of restrictions on free speech for representatives in/formerly in government, because the fact that our politicians can lie this blatantly is as disgusting as it is anti-democracy. It's no wonder 1/3 of our electorate is completely fucking detached from reality.

And the complicity of the media here is also fucking disgusting. A former senator getting a job at Violating Privacy Inc. after opposing the Violating Your Privacy law, Jesus fuck.

▲trescenzi 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

At first glance this came off as a bit absurd to me but the government puts restrictions on what it can do all the time. Now it is probably too far to say officials not currently in government have speech restrictions but restrictions on those in office is no more outlandish than any other regulation or rights legislation. Elected officials _are_ the government.

▲mcbobgorge 9 minutes ago | parent [-]

Agreed. I think the US Military is a good example- when you enlist you agree to limits on freedom of speech, association, and privacy. Parker v. Levy established the fact that the military is a “specialized society” with unique needs. Congress could be a similar group.

▲g-b-r 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think it was ever meant for free speech to mean free lying, and if you forbid politicians to lie in public you solved most problems of democracy

▲whimsicalism 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are good reasons we don't allow the DoJ to investigate senators for "lying."

▲skinfaxi 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

No, we need more of these people getting into car accidents.