World's Biggest Comspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True

[goDel]

im not sure if they have to prove anything, have there been serious indicators that they are abusing their powers/authority/laws ?

why the expectations of them are different as opposed to the authorities that are responsible for building regulations for example? those are even more important as they are supposed to guarantee that the bridge you drive on or a house you live in wont collapse, as opposed to violation of privacy.

i guess the paranoia in regards to nsa's secrecy overshadows the usual , very well warranted (and mostly internalized) trust in countless institutions that guarantee that things are operating according to laws and expectations.

 

Because they have been given access to private information and should be held accountable for what they are doing. Not just in cases where the bad stuff comes out in the open, but all the cases.

[eugene]

who's to say they aren't accountable ? or perhaps your view of accountability is that everyone knows what are you doing at any given moment ?

[goDel]

i forgot to reply to that bit. no it actually seems to me like treating radicals is way more intrusive than screening them/determining whether they pose any danger at all.

ehm, i'm not sure whether you've actually thought this through, but "radicals" mostly aren't born like radicals.

 

And if they are born that way, than the "medical" solution should most definitely be the preferred solution, instead of the "we do nothing until people start to really be a potential threat against society, and because of that we have to keep track every single individual in the country".

 

Ever noticed how those non-born radicals started out having mental issues long before they started to really radicalise?

 

Whatever the case though, often there's a medical condition and there's actually a medical record long before the actual radicalisation start. If the government does something at that point in time, maybe it doesn't need to check everyone's phone record?

 

Perhaps that's a bit more intrusive for the couple of people with a medical condition, but two things can be said about that:

- treating such individuals would always be intrusive, so that's a given

- it doesn't require the government to be intrusive to the entire population at the same time

who's to say they aren't accountable ? or perhaps your view of accountability is that everyone knows what are you doing at any given moment ?

no, it's that they actually give verifiably straight answers to concerns people are having, instead of bullshitting around the park.

[Guest Atom Dowry Firth]

i forgot to reply to that bit. no it actually seems to me like treating radicals is way more intrusive than screening them/determining whether they pose any danger at all.

 

Working in the community to ease cultural stresses, pre-empting radicalisation in the first place and altering foreign policy so that instead of war mongering for profit and 'the security of America and her interests overseas', doing more to get to the root causes of the issues involved - that's a lot less intrusive than monitoring everyone indiscriminately, occasionally putting a bag over someone's head and carting them off somewhere never to be seen or heard from again with no legal discourse and with complete impunity while doing so. IMO anyway

[awepittance]

i think anybody in this thread who hasn't seem the Adam Curtis documentary The Trap yet needs to stop what they're doing and go watch all 3 parts right now. It is one of the best overviews of 'game theory' that exists and explains a great deal (at least to me) why the NSA and the US government are doing what they are doing.

This has nothing to do with stopping legitimate militant 'al qaeda' terrorists or even muslim radicials, it's been put into place to stop any potential 'threat' before it happens, threat being defined as anything remotely consequentially damaging to the United States government image or function. This is game theory being played out at one of the most calculated and complex levels ever in human history.

[goDel]

 

i forgot to reply to that bit. no it actually seems to me like treating radicals is way more intrusive than screening them/determining whether they pose any danger at all.

 

Working in the community to ease cultural stresses, pre-empting radicalisation in the first place and altering foreign policy so that instead of war mongering for profit and 'the security of America and her interests overseas', doing more to get to the root causes of the issues involved - that's a lot less intrusive than monitoring everyone indiscriminately, occasionally putting a bag over someone's head and carting them off somewhere never to be seen or heard from again with no legal discourse and with complete impunity while doing so. IMO anyway

 

 

And in mine.

 

If the government actually wants to help people AND create more safety, there's a huge friggin window of opportunity here. A government giving a helping hand to people (by providing facilities for the medical community to do it's work, for instance) with a medical condition is fundamentally different to a government keeping track of all citizens using huge databases and what not.

[awepittance]

that's a lot less intrusive than monitoring everyone indiscriminately, occasionally putting a bag over someone's head and carting them off somewhere never to be seen or heard from again with no legal discourse and with complete impunity while doing so. IMO anyway

 

luckily the US is smart and does it both ways, they cover all bases, otherwise they lose the 'game'

 

i'm not sure who i'm quoting but

 

 

 

 

pre-empting radicalisation in the first place

i think this is exactly what they intend to do, but it's not radicalisation in the sense that you and i or a normal person thinks of it. It's taken to a greater level, any potential 'radical' which can mean a political activist, an internet blogger, or literally anyone who can make waves big enough to hurt or cause any kind of significant damage to the state of the US government.

[eugene]

well we'd better establish common definition of radical/radicalization first because i really don't see it as a medical problem or something inherently dangerous at all. one could be a radical pacifist for example.

regarding "keeping track of every single individual in the country", i don't think it's what they do at all (from the very little that we know), they aren't allowed to just browse info freely from what i understand, just like cops aren't allowed to randomly shoot people they don't like, it's those laws and mutual understandings that determine what the "thing" actually is.

well speaking technically, maybe the fact that the info sits on some mega hard drive may be defined as "keeping track of" but unless a human analysts breaks the law he isn't actually keeping track of anyone.

[awepittance]

i think you've just hit on a key point here eugene, it's the US government that has made the term radical almost purposefully ambiguous and so broad that it surely sweeps up many non violent activists and journalists in it's wake, simply because by association existentially or not they can be 'helping the enemy'

[goDel]

I think the third part of The Trap is mostly about what's being discussed here. Isaiah Berlin definitions of positive and negative freedom and it's role in society.

 

The game theory thing is a bit past century, imo. The NSA program is not so much about explaining/predicting people's behavior using game theory. Nor is there some philosophical human image coming from game theory at it's roots (and if it is, it hardly matters at this point). What those mining algorithms do is just finding patterns and indicators which resemble known patterns, or better, which trace "outliers". It's pure statistics.

 

And although a large part of the documentary is about showing the danger of numbers, there's a fundamental difference between managing society with numbers (performance of police, for instance) and analysing phone records to trace radicalising individuals. The latter has a lot less to do with "managing", but more with "finding". The trap was mostly about the fundamental difference between the real world and the numbers and how managing this real world using those numbers can (by definition) lead to problems.

[Alcofribas]

 

i found this quite good: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130810/09240524136/jennifer-hoelzers-insiders-view-administrations-response-to-nsa-surveillance-leaks.shtmleugene, you should really read this one.

i did but i couldn't find anything new or really interesting, what specifically did you want me to see ?i mean given her position i expected something more revelatory but she just repeats the narrative that greenwald and co have constructed (which has shoddy basis so say the least, like the nsa loophole which is not a loophole as i showed, or warrantless surveillance that isn't warrantless at all, see bob cesca blog regarding the last) with the addition of her and her senator's gripes about secrecy and the lack of open debate. there's no open debate now either, i mean some bombastic and mostly unsupported claims by greenwald and guardian certainly made some waves but is anyone actually planning to reveal all those secrets for public review ? doubtful. nothing prevented public debate about the secrecy of this whole ordeal earlier, the public probably wasn't too interested so it didn't get much traction, but when snowden and greenwald go and say that everything you do on the internet is being spied on without anything to back this claim up suddenly everyone goes mental. it's an interesting phenomena on its own though.

the reason i thought you might find this article helpful is because it seems to clarify the issue of legality you seem to be misunderstanding. your whole point, as far as i can tell, is that so far there have been no disclosures revealing any illegal activity by the government and the only person who has clearly committed a crime and should be punished for it is snowden.

 

the article i posted makes it very clear that your stance on the legality of the NSA's information gathering is nothing more than an unsubstantiated belief. you cannot know if what they are doing is legal since the government's legal argument demonstrating its authority in this issue is classified. so you can only believe them when they say they have this authority, and you cannot demonstrate its legality because the information is simply not available. this is one of the major points of the article, viz, wyden and udall think it is of the utmost importance for the government to reveal the basis upon which it has secretly concluded its rights, so that the American people can make informed decisions as to whether or not they agree the government should have this power. you may dismiss this as so many "gripes" but it is in fact of the utmost importance if in fact we are to have a democratic society.

 

basically, you may think the government should be allowed to collect this data and also to do all kinds of secret shit in order to protect its people, however, it is actually for the people to decide if they want the government to have such powers. it's simply not up to the government to decide, in secret, that it can do this. i think the article illustrates very clearly that there is basically no way the government's actions here can be called "legal" in any meangful sense in a democratic society.

 

i think you should also consider how simply you make the argument that snowden clearly broke the law and should be punished while simultaneously taking no issue with the governement's actions, actions which at best can be seen as having rather unclear legal ramifications. in fact, you've gone to some lengths to continuously apologize for the government here ("nothing illegal") while continuously vilifying snowden and even greenwald ("cult") which to me is quite a topsy tervy and hypocritical position. if you are in fact so concerned about the rule of law your total dismissal of the secrecy behind which the government has decided upon its reach seems rather out of touch. you should at the very least hold the government to as strict a standard as you do snowden. and if you did that i think it would be pretty difficult to conclude that there's "nothing illegal" going on here.

[Guest Atom Dowry Firth]

 

pre-empting radicalisation in the first place

 

i think this is exactly what they intend to do

 

For sure, it's just not the right way of going about it

 

it's not radicalisation in the sense that you and i or a normal person thinks of it. It's taken to a greater level, any potential 'radical' which can mean a political activist, an internet blogger, or literally anyone who can make waves big enough to hurt or cause any kind of significant damage to the state of the US government.

 

My definition of a radical would be someone who is literally willing to strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it in an act of terrorism. People making waves is freedom of speech, something which should absolutely not under any circumstances be stifled or controlled by government

[awepittance]

I think the third part of The Trap is mostly about what's being discussed here. Isaiah Berlin definitions of positive and negative freedom and it's role in society.

 

The game theory thing is a bit past century, imo. The NSA program is not so much about explaining/predicting people's behavior using game theory. Nor is there some philosophical human image coming from game theory at it's roots (and if it is, it hardly matters at this point). What those mining algorithms do is just finding patterns and indicators which resemble known patterns, or better, which trace "outliers". It's pure statistics.

 

And although a large part of the documentary is about showing the danger of numbers, there's a fundamental difference between managing society with numbers (performance of police, for instance) and analysing phone records to trace radicalising individuals. The latter has a lot less to do with "managing", but more with "finding". The trap was mostly about the fundamental difference between the real world and the numbers and how managing this real world using those numbers can (by definition) lead to problems.

what makes you think that game theory is a bit past century? Have you read anything by the Project For a New American Century? Their document 'rebuilding americas defenses' is nothing but a very vast and long term plan of how to employ game theory to re-assert America's dominance over the globe. This NSA spying program is a direct result of the architects of this document, in other words every major US foreign policy happening post 9/11 is based off these blueprints

 

I get that you like to disagree with some of my finer points for the sake of arguing, but as I've seen from this thread you've made a huge turn from some of the things you used to espouse on this forum, and for that I'm very proud of you

[goDel]

well we'd better establish common definition of radical/radicalization first because i really don't see it as a medical problem or something inherently dangerous at all. one could be a radical pacifist for example.

regarding "keeping track of every single individual in the country", i don't think it's what they do at all (from the very little that we know), they aren't allowed to just browse info freely from what i understand, just like cops aren't allowed to randomly shoot people they don't like, it's those laws and mutual understandings that determine what the "thing" actually is.

well speaking technically, maybe the fact that the info sits on some mega hard drive may be defined as "keeping track of" but unless a human analysts breaks the law he isn't actually keeping track of anyone.

there's a huge difference between a cop shooting people he doesn't like, and an analyst checking any individual he thinks is interesting checking.

 

A cop shooting people can be easily verified. It creates a lot of noise, a bloody mess. Often more people are involved. And those events tend to happen out in the open, instead of being held secret.

 

An analyst just checking anyone for whatever reason won't be noticed by the outside world. In the best case there's a record of his actions, but for the outside world those records are secret as well.

 

Thing is though, for the NSA program to actually do what it is aimed for, it is required they have access to as much information on US civilians as possible at any given time. And the datamining algorithms would be on the hunt continuously looking for outliers. Legally speaking, those algorithms aren't human so that's perfectly legal, I'd assume.

 

O, and talking about "legal": that techdirt piece alco posted was interesting in the sense that it addressed a discrepancy between the NSA's interpretation of the law and the interpretation of the outside world. So if you happen to think " mwa, those algorithms would be illegal as well", think again. We don't know, and I really wouldn't be surprised if they actually interpreted it that way. You'd be amazed how a couple of tiny subtleties can open up a totally different window of options when it comes to laws.

[goDel]

 

I think the third part of The Trap is mostly about what's being discussed here. Isaiah Berlin definitions of positive and negative freedom and it's role in society.

 

The game theory thing is a bit past century, imo. The NSA program is not so much about explaining/predicting people's behavior using game theory. Nor is there some philosophical human image coming from game theory at it's roots (and if it is, it hardly matters at this point). What those mining algorithms do is just finding patterns and indicators which resemble known patterns, or better, which trace "outliers". It's pure statistics.

 

And although a large part of the documentary is about showing the danger of numbers, there's a fundamental difference between managing society with numbers (performance of police, for instance) and analysing phone records to trace radicalising individuals. The latter has a lot less to do with "managing", but more with "finding". The trap was mostly about the fundamental difference between the real world and the numbers and how managing this real world using those numbers can (by definition) lead to problems.

 

what makes you think that game theory is a bit past century? Have you read anything by the Project For a New American Century? Their document 'rebuilding americas defenses' is nothing but a very vast and long term plan of how to employ game theory to re-assert America's dominance over the globe.

 

I get that you like to disagree with some of my finer points for the sake of arguing, but as I've seen from this thread you've made a huge turn from some of the things you used to espouse on this forum, and for that I'm very proud of you

 

 

That game theory in the trap was used as a management tool. Perhaps it's not as last century as I'm hoping it would be, but the point still stands that this NSA program is about finding potential danger, and not about providing a management-tool. There's a fundamental difference between numeric models for measuring performance and looking for outliers.

Notice how much of the 2nd episode was about the uk government looking for ways to manage the country by numbers. That managing people using numbers was fundamental to the docu. If you assume the NSA program to be about managing the country as well, you might want to explain to me how the NSA or the government manages the country with this program.

[Alcofribas]

godel, on your last point i agree. and I think what greenwald and his monstrous satanic cult are doing here is trying to reveal how the government is making decisions about what it can and cannot do without any input from the public. it is quite literally saying "we decide what we can do and our reasons are secret." and since when is that a good thing?

 

@ your previous post

[goDel]

godel, on your last point i agree. and I think what greenwald and his monstrous satanic cult are doing here is trying to reveal how the government is making decisions about what it can and cannot do without any input from the public. it is quite literally saying "we decide what we can do and our reasons are secret." and since when is that a good thing?

 

@ your previous post

 

Thanks.

 

That techdirt piece touched a pretty crucial point, imo: there's all kinds of interpretations of the law possible with vastly different consequences. And because the public has no knowledge about the governments' interpretation of the laws surrounding some secret program, we have every right to assume the worst without any counter-evidence, imo. Instead of the other way around.

 

It should be a fundament to a democracy that the specific interpretation of the law by the government is transparent and verifiable by the public.

 

I'd be amazed if Eugene would have some kind of argument against this....truism...imooooo

[Alcofribas]

exactly, godel.

[awepittance]

goDel, on 11 Aug 2013 - 3:38 PM, said:

 

 

John Ehrlichman, on 11 Aug 2013 - 3:26 PM, said:

 

 

goDel, on 11 Aug 2013 - 3:12 PM, said:

 

I think the third part of The Trap is mostly about what's being discussed here. Isaiah Berlin definitions of positive and negative freedom and it's role in society.

 

The game theory thing is a bit past century, imo. The NSA program is not so much about explaining/predicting people's behavior using game theory. Nor is there some philosophical human image coming from game theory at it's roots (and if it is, it hardly matters at this point). What those mining algorithms do is just finding patterns and indicators which resemble known patterns, or better, which trace "outliers". It's pure statistics.

 

And although a large part of the documentary is about showing the danger of numbers, there's a fundamental difference between managing society with numbers (performance of police, for instance) and analysing phone records to trace radicalising individuals. The latter has a lot less to do with "managing", but more with "finding". The trap was mostly about the fundamental difference between the real world and the numbers and how managing this real world using those numbers can (by definition) lead to problems.

what makes you think that game theory is a bit past century? Have you read anything by the Project For a New American Century? Their document 'rebuilding americas defenses' is nothing but a very vast and long term plan of how to employ game theory to re-assert America's dominance over the globe.

 

I get that you like to disagree with some of my finer points for the sake of arguing, but as I've seen from this thread you've made a huge turn from some of the things you used to espouse on this forum, and for that I'm very proud of you

That game theory in the trap was used as a management tool. Perhaps it's not as last century as I'm hoping it would be, but the point still stands that this NSA program is about finding potential danger, and not about providing a management-tool. There's a fundamental difference between numeric models for measuring performance and looking for outliers.

Notice how much of the 2nd episode was about the uk government looking for ways to manage the country by numbers. That managing people using numbers was fundamental to the docu. If you assume the NSA program to be about managing the country as well, you might want to explain to me how the NSA or the government manages the country with this program.

im not talking about the part of the trap that only described it as a management tool. I'm talking about it use as a tactic that guided the cold-war philosophy of how we deal with hostile nations or nations that MAY be hostile at some future point.

I just think that if you transpose the idea that same technique with dealing with pre-crime or pre-hostility to the american public itself, it makes quite a lot of sense from a game theory perspective.

If the US government feels it can be one step ahead of every single person by monitoring their activities and being able to predict their future movements, it is cold-war game theory taken to an incredibly sophisticated level but this time the enemy is not Russia or communism, it's dissent, radicalism in many different forms.

 

lets just take the idea that the US government is collecting complex meta data on every single citizen. Just that alone can give you an incredible prescience to be able to predict what someone will do next, what is their daily routine, who do they talk to most often, etc.

IF you are always one step ahead of your enemy

 

if the term 'game theory' as applied to this is still not making sense to you, then pick up a copy of the Art of War. Which lays out many of the same things, if you know your enemy (or in this case *us* ) better than he knows you, you have an inherent advantage.

[goDel]

Ok, tbh that's not how i interpreted the trap. Of course it was talked about that game theory was a technique for developing cold war tactics. A tool which enabled government to act out different strategies on paper and 'predict' various possible outcomes. But in my memory that mostly served as history lesson on where the mindset behind various modern ways of measuring and managing people came from.

 

I can see why there's a grey area in a program with the goal to discover radicalizing individuals as soon as possible. As soon as possible and prediction are closely tied. But predictive models are just that, predictive models, whether or not they're based on game theory ( adam curtis would argue any model predicting human behavior is philosophically based on game theory).

 

But the existence of a model to predict a certain outcome wasn't what the trap was about, imo. If that was the case, Nate Silver would be part of the Dark Side when he used his models to predict the outcome of the 2008 and 2012 elections. Looking back, his predictions were surprisingly close to reality, but the point Adam Curtis was trying to make was not about predictive modeling itself, imo. If he would remake his documentary, he wouldn't use this example as a way to show there being a trap in predictive modeling. There's not much harm in predicting the outcome of elections, for instance. The trap entered the moment where those models were used to manage and control human beings.

 

The main point, imo, was about those methods explicitly entering our lives as a way to give meaning and manage our day to day lives. Not behind some curtain in complete secrecy, but out in the open: a government or companies managing people by measuring performance , the field of psychology using it as a way to classify behavior ( their still number one bible, the DSM), the field of economics as a method to incorporate human behavior into their economic models ( which influence political decision making).

 

Again, I see a fundamental difference between fraud detection ( which is what the nsa is basically trying to do, imo ) and those explicit ways to manage people. We don't notice fraud detection in our day to day lives. And if we do, it might even be positive. For example when you get a call from your bank that they blocked your bank account, because someone skimmed your card and started to buy stuff. That's fundamentally different to a government telling you what to do and how to do it.

 

I can only see a gray area at the point where this fraud detection becomes fraud prediction, but even here we will hardly notice this invasion of our privacy in our day to day lives. The point where the government starts telling what people should or should not do on a large scale, is still far away. People are still free to do whatever they want and there's not a single performance target specified either. It's just that the government is capable of watching your every move (i imagine eugene would argue that although they are capable, but they are not free to do so - or at least, there is no proof they are free to do so). This is more a privacy issue than a control issue, imo. The only issue I see here, which is related to things covered in the trap, is freedom. The freedom to be a whistleblower. Or the freedom to have opposing views. But this has hardly anything to do with game theory, imo.

 

And yes, I'm pretty fucking stubborn at this point. You're free to assume the government is out to play cold war tactics on it's civilians. Personally I don't see any proof of that, and it's an issue which imo distorts the current issue which is about privacy and people having the freedom to think/ say/ write what they want to. In my mind there's a huge concrete wall between cold war tactics and privacy/ personal freedom. Even if the government is out to play these games on the long run, the current issues aren't even related to those games (or intentions).

 

If you think I'm back to my old talking points again, I can assure you that i meant everything i've said on this subject here or in other threads ( although there might be some sarcasm/trolling here and there). I still believe snowden should keep himself from accusing the government, for instance. So, although I can thank you for complimenting on my changed views, from my point of view nothing much has changed. Perhaps I've changed roles from prosecution to defense here and there, but that has hardly anything to do with personal views. Thats about the distinction between having an opinion about an argument and having an opinion about a subject. I realize that it isnt always clear whats what in discussions like these. So, whatever the case, my apologies for the confusion.

[eugene]

the article i posted makes it very clear that your stance on the legality of the NSA's information gathering is nothing more than an unsubstantiated belief.

 

 

 

no, the belief that governmental institution generally work as expected and in a legal way is pretty substantiated, i mean think about all the things that government provides that DO work properly in everyday life. it's a pretty conservative looking at things but it also makes much more sense as a default assumption than "there must be something evil going on in the nsa".

 

you cannot know if what they are doing is legal since the government's legal argument demonstrating its authority in this issue is classified. so you can only believe them when they say they have this authority, and you cannot demonstrate its legality because the information is simply not available. this is one of the major points of the article, viz, wyden and udall think it is of the utmost importance for the government to reveal the basis upon which it has secretly concluded its rights, so that the American people can make informed decisions as to whether or not they agree the government should have this power. you may dismiss this as so many "gripes" but it is in fact of the utmost importance if in fact we are to have a democratic society.

 

basically, you may think the government should be allowed to collect this data and also to do all kinds of secret shit in order to protect its people, however, it is actually for the people to decide if they want the government to have such powers. it's simply not up to the government to decide, in secret, that it can do this. i think the article illustrates very clearly that there is basically no way the government's actions here can be called "legal" in any meangful sense in a democratic society.

 

those nsa programs are based on the patriot act, which afaik was passed in a democratic way, so the people have decided through their representatives, and can be retracted in a democratic way as well. so the public understandably might not know the details of these intelligence programs, they know how to disable it if they suspect or even feel that it's being abused. (although i do suspect that someone might make the argument that's it's not easy at all). also there's nothing about secrecy of certain governmental agencies that makes them necessarily undemocratic, i'm pretty sure there's a general agreement on the need of intelligence to operate in secret.

 

 

i think you should also consider how simply you make the argument that snowden clearly broke the law and should be punished while simultaneously taking no issue with the governement's actions, actions which at best can be seen as having rather unclear legal ramifications. in fact, you've gone to some lengths to continuously apologize for the government here ("nothing illegal") while continuously vilifying snowden and even greenwald ("cult") which to me is quite a topsy tervy and hypocritical position. if you are in fact so concerned about the rule of law your total dismissal of the secrecy behind which the government has decided upon its reach seems rather out of touch. you should at the very least hold the government to as strict a standard as you do snowden. and if you did that i think it would be pretty difficult to conclude that there's "nothing illegal" going on here.

 

 

 

yeah, but regarding snowden's actions there's nothing unclear really. i'm not saying he's a vile traitor that must be crucified in a gas chamber while being injected with poison in front of his family, but he did break some laws. i don't dismiss secrecy, i understand that it's easier to abuse the system which is shrouded in secrecy, but i also understand that it's by default reined in by laws and all kinds of institutions that prevent abuse, rather than suspect that because it's secret something bad must be going on.

 

regarding greenwald's cult you should see how people on reddit react when you try to poke holes in greenwald's articles to understand what im talking about, it's pretty insane.

[eugene]

 

there's a huge difference between a cop shooting people he doesn't like, and an analyst checking any individual he thinks is interesting checking.

A cop shooting people can be easily verified. It creates a lot of noise, a bloody mess. Often more people are involved. And those events tend to happen out in the open, instead of being held secret.

how about a cop with a silencer ? but seriously it was just one example in an infinte number of, take some government bureaucrat whose corruption can be hidden more easily.

 

Thing is though, for the NSA program to actually do what it is aimed for, it is required they have access to as much information on US civilians as possible at any given time. And the datamining algorithms would be on the hunt continuously looking for outliers. Legally speaking, those algorithms aren't human so that's perfectly legal, I'd assume.

 

i actually think that machine that analyzes data doesn't violate my privacy in a common sense way, not just legal.

 

 

O, and talking about "legal": that techdirt piece alco posted was interesting in the sense that it addressed a discrepancy between the NSA's interpretation of the law and the interpretation of the outside world. So if you happen to think " mwa, those algorithms would be illegal as well", think again. We don't know, and I really wouldn't be surprised if they actually interpreted it that way. You'd be amazed how a couple of tiny subtleties can open up a totally different window of options when it comes to laws.

 

 

why do you assume that it would be interpreted in an illegal way ? besides, it's not a bible, there's a pretty strict limit to interpretations of such texts.

[awepittance]

And yes, I'm pretty fucking stubborn at this point. You're free to assume the government is out to play cold war tactics on it's civilians. Personally I don't see any proof of that,

fair enough, plenty of people have seen the proof and are reacting accordingly. I don't know if i would say your stubbornness paid off during the initial Snowden leaks, not to say Being stubborn isn't good some times, but we don't have an infinite amount of time to 'turn things around' so to speak. Like i've been saying on this forum for years, once these legal policies are put into place and have run for over a decade, the chance of reversing them is very slim.

[SR4]

 

 

i found this quite good: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130810/09240524136/jennifer-hoelzers-insiders-view-administrations-response-to-nsa-surveillance-leaks.shtmleugene, you should really read this one.

i did but i couldn't find anything new or really interesting, what specifically did you want me to see ?i mean given her position i expected something more revelatory but she just repeats the narrative that greenwald and co have constructed (which has shoddy basis so say the least, like the nsa loophole which is not a loophole as i showed, or warrantless surveillance that isn't warrantless at all, see bob cesca blog regarding the last) with the addition of her and her senator's gripes about secrecy and the lack of open debate. there's no open debate now either, i mean some bombastic and mostly unsupported claims by greenwald and guardian certainly made some waves but is anyone actually planning to reveal all those secrets for public review ? doubtful. nothing prevented public debate about the secrecy of this whole ordeal earlier, the public probably wasn't too interested so it didn't get much traction, but when snowden and greenwald go and say that everything you do on the internet is being spied on without anything to back this claim up suddenly everyone goes mental. it's an interesting phenomena on its own though.

the reason i thought you might find this article helpful is because it seems to clarify the issue of legality you seem to be misunderstanding. your whole point, as far as i can tell, is that so far there have been no disclosures revealing any illegal activity by the government and the only person who has clearly committed a crime and should be punished for it is snowden.

 

the article i posted makes it very clear that your stance on the legality of the NSA's information gathering is nothing more than an unsubstantiated belief. you cannot know if what they are doing is legal since the government's legal argument demonstrating its authority in this issue is classified. so you can only believe them when they say they have this authority, and you cannot demonstrate its legality because the information is simply not available. this is one of the major points of the article, viz, wyden and udall think it is of the utmost importance for the government to reveal the basis upon which it has secretly concluded its rights, so that the American people can make informed decisions as to whether or not they agree the government should have this power. you may dismiss this as so many "gripes" but it is in fact of the utmost importance if in fact we are to have a democratic society.

 

basically, you may think the government should be allowed to collect this data and also to do all kinds of secret shit in order to protect its people, however, it is actually for the people to decide if they want the government to have such powers. it's simply not up to the government to decide, in secret, that it can do this. i think the article illustrates very clearly that there is basically no way the government's actions here can be called "legal" in any meangful sense in a democratic society.

 

i think you should also consider how simply you make the argument that snowden clearly broke the law and should be punished while simultaneously taking no issue with the governement's actions, actions which at best can be seen as having rather unclear legal ramifications. in fact, you've gone to some lengths to continuously apologize for the government here ("nothing illegal") while continuously vilifying snowden and even greenwald ("cult") which to me is quite a topsy tervy and hypocritical position. if you are in fact so concerned about the rule of law your total dismissal of the secrecy behind which the government has decided upon its reach seems rather out of touch. you should at the very least hold the government to as strict a standard as you do snowden. and if you did that i think it would be pretty difficult to conclude that there's "nothing illegal" going on here.

 

 

 

this is one of the best posts ive ever read at WATMM.

[Guest Atom Dowry Firth]

http://rt.com/news/guardian-hard-drives-destroyed-697/

 

 

 

UK authorities reportedly raided the Guardian’s office in London to destroy hard drives in an effort to stop future publications of leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.