Obama Admin. admits to surveillance methods: Beating a Dead Horse Pt. 74

[MisterE]

and it's seriously disturbing that there are people trying to DEFEND this shit, by comparing the fact that my private emails may be handed over from my ISP to the government, who may do who knows what with any info they can obtain about me from PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS i've had with people, to something like facebook sharing things that i do PUBLICLY with advertisers who want to sell me stuff. it's either a)idiocy or b)knowing support of something that could lead to something much worse than any fascism the world has ever seen.

[Guest Atom Dowry Firth]

This is good http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-why

 

I hope this guy doesnt become a prisoner like Manning, in my opinion he is a hero and a champion of truth and i respect that.

 

That was good.

[kcinsu]

"you can't have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we're going to have to make some choices as a society." - President Obama

"In the abstract, you can complain about ‘big brother’ and how this is a potential program wrong amok. But when you actually look at the details, I think we’ve struck the right balance." - President Obama

The problem though, is that society can't make a decision on something that is hidden from them. When something is secret, we cannot look at the details to decide if the right balance was struck.

[eugene]

and when it's not hidden it's completely ineffective.

[kcinsu]

Oh, well it's not hidden anymore. So we can dismantle it now? It's completely ineffective right, so no reason to continue?

[LimpyLoo]

I disagree with the implied premise that governments shouldn't be beholden to the people.

[eugene]

Oh, well it's not hidden anymore. So we can dismantle it now? It's completely ineffective right, so no reason to continue?

well they might try to convince everyone that's it's going to be shut down but keep it going anyway, in that case it may still be effective

[kcinsu]

So in reality, they don't want us to make a decision as a society, and they dont want us to look at the details.

 

So why say that? Because they are being dishonest. So if they don't say what they mean, why should be believe that it is for our own good?

Also, he kept saying that it was our congressmen that approved it. Which implies that people we elected in our name, approved it, so we approve it too. Well if we don;t know they approved it, then we can't decide if we want them representing us, and we con't vote them out of office during the next election. So again, society is not making the decision.

[eugene]

they could have approved it because it doesn't infringe the promises they've made and the ideals they stand for. the secrecy is obviously required for that kind of stuff.

[kcinsu]

the point of electing officials though, is that the people decide if the actions of the elected official truly does reflects the values the voter holds. this is why we have elections over and over again: its so we can alter who represents us. If someone starts acting in ways that differs from the reason we voted for them, we don't vote for them again.

[lumpenprol]

Richard Snowden is a hero

[awepittance]

what Kcinsu has pointed out is vital to the discussion. I think overall what it brings up is the idea of having faith and trust in your government to 'do the right thing'. If you start questioning that, or I should say the average citizen who does automatically trust the gov has their best interests in mind, your whole world could collapse and cause a major upset in your equilibrium of being content with life.

[lumpenprol]

secret parts of govt. do require some secrecy (but, without a doubt, accountability to the appropriate organs of congress), but this seems like a very clear-cut case. Privacy is privacy (at least, in the US). Spies should be required to do the same labor-intensive gumshoe work they always have been. By all means, register on supremacist forums, hang out on watmm (lol), go wherever it is an ordinary citizen could go, and take notes. But don't start reading my emails (even with a bot), that's an invasion of privacy.

 

I also think it's quite ridiculous that true "bad guys" would be using gmail without all sorts of code words the govt. filters wouldn't pick up. Or, if they weren't before, they certainly will be after these revelations. Making this sort of mining of dubious utility.

 

Edit: also it's just such events like this that should make conspiracy theorists think twice...there is (thankfully) always someone honorable enough to be a whistleblower...

[eugene]

the point of electing officials though, is that the people decide if the actions of the elected official truly does reflects the values the voter holds. this is why we have elections over and over again: its so we can alter who represents us. If someone starts acting in ways that differs from the reason we voted for them, we don't vote for them again.

well the only thing we know so far (if obama is honest) is that they approved this, in secrecy, but there's no clear idea on what is it they approved exactly so far. so you can't really say whether they reflect or don't the values they promised to reflect, unless it's the secrecy that bothers you.

[SR4]

 

the point of electing officials though, is that the people decide if the actions of the elected official truly does reflects the values the voter holds. this is why we have elections over and over again: its so we can alter who represents us. If someone starts acting in ways that differs from the reason we voted for them, we don't vote for them again.

well the only thing we know so far (if obama is honest) is that they approved this, in secrecy, but there's no clear idea on what is it they approved exactly so far. so you can't really say whether they reflect or don't the values they promised to reflect, unless it's the secrecy that bothers you.

 

 

 

secrecy in relation to privacy? absolutely.

 

 

People seem to forget about COINTELPRO, of which its existence was leaked to the public in the mid-70s and people went apeshit. It was the precursor to today's operations, but everyone is far more apathetic/lazy/uninterested due to media oversaturation and bullshit layers of meta-irony, so its a different story i spose now.

 

 

Tocuqeville always said that in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve, and this constant handwaving of Bush policy continuation seems to uphold such a sentiment.

[lumpenprol]

word, SR4

 

I just wanna know...can they dose me with acid via internets? Dear govt people, please send microdot to my inbox, thanks

 

omg what if those Nigerian phishing scams are actually the us Govt!

 

*mind blown*

[goDel]

and when it's not hidden it's completely ineffective.

That's a bit bullshit, I believe.

 

Sometimes the effect is reached when controls are completely out in the open, because it gives a clear signal. Look at the controls at airports, for instance.

 

At airports we know we are going to be checked. Most checks are out in the open. We accept it. And it even helps us to have trust in having a safe trip. ( yes, the psychological necessity of non-hidden checks!). Without such open checks, people might feel a lot less safe.

And the effect? Well, I haven't heard of many planes being hijacked. There was the underwear bomber, but that was no attempt to hijack a plane to fly it into some building. And it wasn't really successful either, despite all these open checks.

 

Also, everyone knows you're going to be checked at an airport. But not many people know every detail about those checks. If you wrap a gun in plastic will it show up at a metal detector? Ok, this is kind of a rhetorical question, but the idea is there are still plenty opportunities to keep some things hidden WITHOUT touching on our basic rights.

 

Even if all information about checks would be accessible. If the access to information like that was free but controlled, that is an easy way to build more effective (and cheap!) checks into the system. Who would search for that kind of information? It would be highly suspect if someone did (+1 for watmm inside joke).

 

Now the final question might be whether or not we'd accept all the data behind these (in my example still open/democratic) checks to be collected, centralized and stored indefinitely. Outside of the direct control of individuals. And would it be necessary for our safety to do something like that? (of some importance: this hasnt got anything to do with emails and phone records...yet)

 

I think we cant answer this without specifying the why and the what. Would universal background checks be effective/necessary when people want to buy a gun, for instance? Well that would depend on a lot of things (again, regardless of the amount of secrecy behind the checks) but lets say there can be circumstances where you want to be able to collect these data and store them centralized. The point is, stuff like this needs to be debated out in the open. And the effectiveness of these controls shouldn't be any less because they have been discussed in the open.

 

Imo, after 911 there was a window of opportunity to implement safety measures outside of the public opinion. Now that we're past the immediate aftermath, stuff should be debated out in the open and not just continued indefinitely. The process should be democratic and transparent. The why, what and when should be clear, and can be without having a negative impact on effectiveness. Look past the FUD, I'd argue.

[awepittance]

i'd argue that in part, the obfuscation of exactly how they go about surveillance is exactly part of it's intended effect. When we don't know or have no idea when and how we will be watched, the chilling effect is at it's most intense. Eugene has somewhat of an interesting point, but i think that it illuminates the almost contradictory nature of the US spying policy. They obviously don't want to hide that they are capable of spying on all of us and storing all of our information, they've done a "horrible job" of keeping this a secret, which means to me it's not supposed to be a secret. Why? So we (terrorists, politically active people, radicals, journalists, people who in any way want to fight US government policy) can be scared of them. On top of that they give us very little actual detail on how it's done, and i think this is the 2nd part which is intentional. By telling us this but then not following up with concrete information it's able to generate the most paralysis.

I just found a wolfowitz clip from ABC news on 9/14/01 and the reporter rightfully asks him
"how are foreign countries supposed to know how they fall on the spectrum of your description of harboring and supporting terrorism, essentially where on the spectrum do they need to be to worry about potential US attack or involvement"

he basically didn't answer the question, and almost seemed to get off on the pleasure he felt from her clever perceptions (almost as if she read his mind)
his answer:

(laughs smiling)"Well im sure every country around the world is wondering that very thing right now, and they should be, no country is safe from this potential"

so right out in the open you have Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense admitting with glee that he counts on the chilling effect of open ended war waging as a means to keep America's post 9/11 military strategy dominant and in control on a psychological level designed to scare the rest of the world at large.

The Bush administration and now the Obama administration have the weapon of the chilling effect down to a science. Bush never even took the war on journalism this far, it's almost a miracle at this point we do have whistleblowers even ones that flee to Hong Kong.
It's rule by fear, and in large part fear of the unknown. But we do know some of things they are capable of that also strike fear, torture, indefinite detention, extra judicial assassinations, dangerous computer viruses, etc. At this point the 'unknown' factor is that we really don't know for sure as a society where the 'line' is drawn, how far can we go before the US government does employ these techniques against us? Again this is purposefully made unclear, so that even if you are just merely thinking of rebelling against the government, you might think twice because you have no idea how far you can go before they'll come for you. It sounds paranoid, sounds conspiratorial but none of this is hidden.

[goDel]

But isn't that a bit of a distortion of the argument? Foreign countries typically don't vote in the US, right? It's about being transparent towards the people who are part of the voting- machine which has the name US.

[awepittance]

i wasn't really using that example to relate it back to surveillance directly. All i'm pointing out is the Machiavellian multi-faceted strategic way in which people like Wolfowitz and Cheney think. They are the architects of what we are seeing carried out now.

I believe that like many of their other policies, the surveillence grid that they setup when Wolfowitz spoke of the intelligence abilities becoming 'even more awesome' (his own words) follow along the same logic, rule by fear but what of nobody knows for sure, they just know to be afraid.

[lumpenprol]

did you read the related article?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/booz-allen-hamilton-edward-snowden

 

Can't believe that such a sensitive area is being handled by a subcontractor...

 

Really shaking my head at the direction the govt. is headed in, it was bad enough with the Blackwater guys, but ultimately they are just hired muscle (mercs)...but why would we invite subcontractors into the most sensitive parts of our govt. Doesn't make any sense to me at all...UNLESS the intent is just to reward Necon biz cronies.

 

Outsourcing simple tasks is one thing, but outsourcing the very heart of govt? wtf?

 

It's utterly shameful...

[goDel]

Yeah, but that's taking too much from just assumptions. For starters, there were far more people involved. Secondly, peoples intentions are never fully transparent. Thirdly, using the Cheney's as a fud, is just that: a fud.

 

Who the architects have been is irrelevant, imo. It's a moral issue about how we deal with stuff like this. The people behind the current policies can be no reason for applying certain moral judgments on these policies.

[awepittance]

The people behind the current policies can be no reason for applying certain moral judgments on these policies.

on one hand I agree with you, they need to be dealt with in the present obviously, but to not take into account that they were created by people who held the mindset it took to write 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' for PNAC would be missing a significant context, that without it makes it harder to see the full picture.

[goDel]

I simply disagree. Policies are right/wrong regardless of the mindset. Hitler was to large extent responsible for universal healthcare. The mindset about it might have been completely corrupt, but does that say anything about the quality of the policy of universal healthcare? I'd argue no, by principle. It's about the effects, not the intentions.

 

( lol about playing the hitler card.... Over the cheney card, no less!)

[Bertolt Brechtakt]

the only 'reason' to believe otherwise seems to be 'why would the government want to spy on me, my life is boring' etc.

 

 

 

That's the main point, I guess. And the problem with this attitude is that your life might be that of the average guy/girl but what if your interests / communication issues / web behaviour isn't? For example, you browse the web for information on islamic fundamentalism (simply because you are interested in this mess and you look for some information that was not filtered through the Murdoch machine). So, you visit some pages that might be of interest to the government, you maybe discuss those findings with friends and foreigners in forums and emails. So for the government analyst there is a guy who is collecting lots of information about islamic fundamentalism and who is perhaps even criticising the way the government and media is acting against it or is dealing with it as promo stunt to invade other countries etc. I bet you would become a very interesting subject for the government. Just remember the McCarthy era or even the post 9-11 years where the branding of being a communist or non-patriot, respectively, was handed out very very fast without checking the details.