Prism Program ( Big Brother gone too far?)

[Nepenthe]

 

It's those damn g20 terrorists again: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits

 

 

Got to love all the chortling in the comments.

 

This isn't even news. I have books from the _90s_ in my library talking about eavesdropping at these sorts of meetings. In fact there was a woman who whistleblew on GCHQ about five years ago, doing exactly this. We discussed it _on this forum_.

 

People still turn up. It seems the slack jawed mandarins who attend have also learned nothing about security.

 

 

I'm sure it goes even further than the 90s, and while I agree that this isn't really a smoking gun - possibly due to the stuff Guardian chose not to publish at this time - I think it's only a matter of time before they link Prism to this type of more banal espionage. And then you start having trouble with your moral justification, when all the curtailing of liberties that has taken place during both the past two administrations (I'd like to point out before the hypocritical Republican strike team arrives) has had it's justification in "stopping terror". While both you and I know, I'm sure, that it's at best only a part of the reason for the measures, I assume that it plays a big part in convincing Joe Sixpack of the necessity of these measures, since they keep repeating it ad nauseam. Or maybe it's just how Morpheus posits in Deus Ex, people need to be watched to feel special.

[Zoraptor]

(I'd like to point out before the hypocritical Republican strike team arrives)

 

To be fair, as much as there are Republicans who're up in arms mainly because it's Obama and who defended Bush for doing similar things there are also more than a few Democrats who would have been incandescent with rage had this come out during Bush's term who are either quiet or defending it under Obama because he's their guy. If it had been Bush bugging reporters and having the IRS 'independently' decide to investigate his political opponents the internet would be replete with Bu$Hitler's and the like every bit as much.

[Walsingham]

 

 

It's those damn g20 terrorists again: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits

 

 

Got to love all the chortling in the comments.

 

This isn't even news. I have books from the _90s_ in my library talking about eavesdropping at these sorts of meetings. In fact there was a woman who whistleblew on GCHQ about five years ago, doing exactly this. We discussed it _on this forum_.

 

People still turn up. It seems the slack jawed mandarins who attend have also learned nothing about security.

 

 

I'm sure it goes even further than the 90s, and while I agree that this isn't really a smoking gun - possibly due to the stuff Guardian chose not to publish at this time - I think it's only a matter of time before they link Prism to this type of more banal espionage. And then you start having trouble with your moral justification, when all the curtailing of liberties that has taken place during both the past two administrations (I'd like to point out before the hypocritical Republican strike team arrives) has had it's justification in "stopping terror". While both you and I know, I'm sure, that it's at best only a part of the reason for the measures, I assume that it plays a big part in convincing Joe Sixpack of the necessity of these measures, since they keep repeating it ad nauseam. Or maybe it's just how Morpheus posits in Deus Ex, people need to be watched to feel special.

 

 

Well, there just wasn't the data processing back in the day. Nor of course the widespread of electronic digital communications on which to graze.

 

I feel I have to keep repeating I think this isn't justified already. For the simple reason that we aren't DOING anything useful with the information. There are literally thousands of malevolent bastards who we know full well mean us harm and are guilty of a dozen criminal acts of conspiracy and we have neither the will or the means to tackle them. What's the point of knowing about more?

 

I don't mind being spied on in a good cause, so to speak. But I'm buggered if I'll be happy about it for no goddamn reason.

[Malcador]

Snowden's doing a Q&A right now, if anyone's interested

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower

[ravenshrike]

 

(I'd like to point out before the hypocritical Republican strike team arrives)

 

To be fair, as much as there are Republicans who're up in arms mainly because it's Obama and who defended Bush for doing similar things there are also more than a few Democrats who would have been incandescent with rage had this come out during Bush's term who are either quiet or defending it under Obama because he's their guy. If it had been Bush bugging reporters and having the IRS 'independently' decide to investigate his political opponents the internet would be replete with Bu$Hitler's and the like every bit as much.

 

Looking at the poll results on the issue, it was only about a 10% switch for either side. The rest of repubs/dems stuck to their guns. Of course, since both parties were at least within 10 percentage points of for/against, to someone without an understanding of statistics, it looks like dems and repubs completely switched positions on the issue, instead of only 10% switching their opinion.

[Walsingham]

 

 

(I'd like to point out before the hypocritical Republican strike team arrives)

 

To be fair, as much as there are Republicans who're up in arms mainly because it's Obama and who defended Bush for doing similar things there are also more than a few Democrats who would have been incandescent with rage had this come out during Bush's term who are either quiet or defending it under Obama because he's their guy. If it had been Bush bugging reporters and having the IRS 'independently' decide to investigate his political opponents the internet would be replete with Bu$Hitler's and the like every bit as much.

 

Looking at the poll results on the issue, it was only about a 10% switch for either side. The rest of repubs/dems stuck to their guns. Of course, since both parties were at least within 10 percentage points of for/against, to someone without an understanding of statistics, it looks like dems and repubs completely switched positions on the issue, instead of only 10% switching their opinion.

 

 

Whichever way you slice it, it shows how far we've moved from reasoned politics to neo-tribalism.

[Nepenthe]

 

(I'd like to point out before the hypocritical Republican strike team arrives)

 

To be fair, as much as there are Republicans who're up in arms mainly because it's Obama and who defended Bush for doing similar things there are also more than a few Democrats who would have been incandescent with rage had this come out during Bush's term who are either quiet or defending it under Obama because he's their guy. If it had been Bush bugging reporters and having the IRS 'independently' decide to investigate his political opponents the internet would be replete with Bu$Hitler's and the like every bit as much.

Definitely, but I'll call them out when it actually happens, instead of lessening the annoyance of what actually is happening with hypotheticals. In fact, I consider the general loose grip on reality it portrays rather terrifying...

[Zoraptor]

 

Looking at the poll results on the issue, it was only about a 10% switch for either side. The rest of repubs/dems stuck to their guns. Of course, since both parties were at least within 10 percentage points of for/against, to someone without an understanding of statistics, it looks like dems and repubs completely switched positions on the issue, instead of only 10% switching their opinion.

 

If it's the poll I've seen then it was general population, not internet population. Generally it would be the more committed ideologically who will comment on an issue online, and they're also the ones more likely to either swap position to support 'their' guy, or at least keep quiet so as not to undermine him even if they think he's wrong on the issue- as anything else helps the opposition.

 

It's a general observation only in any case. I broadly supported Obama but don't mind saying that he's been a disappointment on just about every relevant front, and there are plenty of people on both sides who haven't conveniently swapped positions even if some fairly strident people have almost comically reversed or fallen silent.

[Walsingham]

Well, Zor, thinking about it some more I don't think it's detestable to maintain some loyalty to the candidate you voted in, as a form of credit. But I personally always thought crap like this would happen. Obama's too weak personally not to try and appear strong administratively.

 

Ultimately, Obama didn't have the courage to lose his first term, making all the moves he said he would. He would have been blocked, and lives would have been lost security wise. But he'd have done the job honestly. Which is surely the 'change' he sold to the public.

[Zoraptor]

I don't think it's detestable, it's just 100% human. People don't like admitting when they make mistakes, and like to accept or make excuses for the people they like and support. That's particularly true in a democracy with elected officials because if you've elected the guy you're tacitly accepting blame for his conduct since you put him there.

 

How would anyone feel voting for a guy who knifed his leader in the back and threw a reporter he'd been having an extramarital affair with off a building? I'd probably feel a bit stupid if I'd done that.

[Walsingham]

I don't think it's detestable, it's just 100% human. People don't like admitting when they make mistakes, and like to accept or make excuses for the people they like and support. That's particularly true in a democracy with elected officials because if you've elected the guy you're tacitly accepting blame for his conduct since you put him there.

 

How would anyone feel voting for a guy who knifed his leader in the back and threw a reporter he'd been having an extramarital affair with off a building? I'd probably feel a bit stupid if I'd done that.

 

It's an interesting one, really. Logically if you vote him in with a mandate and he does something else then how can it be your fault?

 

But yes, I think it comes back to this neo-tribal notion. You didn't mandate Obama. You joined his neo-democro-tribe. Maybe because the two main parties are so 'big tent' now that they are almost meaningless. I mean what is the GOP, if not privilege and advancement? What are the democrats, if not intellectualism and progress? And really what is the presidential candidate in either case, but a spokesperson? Like the face of L'Oreal. 

[TrashMan]

 

What are the democrats, if not intellectualism and progress?

 

For realsies?

[Walsingham]

 

What are the democrats, if not intellectualism and progress?

 

For realsies?

 

 

I'm talking how they sell themselves, you goon.

[Zoraptor]

It's an interesting one, really. Logically if you vote him in with a mandate and he does something else then how can it be your fault?

Logically, it cannot be. You, or any individual voter, have effectively no responsibility because you have effectively no influence. 1 vote in 60 million for you, 1 in 300 million for an american, 1 in 4 million for me. But people buy into the notion that they have influence over elections because collectively we do and politicians play to that, people like to feel important and involved, and for the health of the system itself it is important for people to feel engaged rather than apathetic. It's human nature again, really.

[Walsingham]

 

It's an interesting one, really. Logically if you vote him in with a mandate and he does something else then how can it be your fault?

Logically, it cannot be. You, or any individual voter, have effectively no responsibility because you have effectively no influence. 1 vote in 60 million for you, 1 in 300 million for an american, 1 in 4 million for me. But people buy into the notion that they have influence over elections because collectively we do and politicians play to that, people like to feel important and involved, and for the health of the system itself it is important for people to feel engaged rather than apathetic. It's human nature again, really.

 

 

You've a Westminster avatar, Zor. So I'm assuming you know a bit about Parliament. You recall that in the UK we vote for specific members of Parliament? Over here, what matters is the swing in a particular seat. That swing is rarely more than a few thousand. Sometimes its only treble figures.

 

The small scale and directness of our system is what I love about it most, even if it does enable Galloways to arse about.

[BruceVC]

 

 

It's an interesting one, really. Logically if you vote him in with a mandate and he does something else then how can it be your fault?

Logically, it cannot be. You, or any individual voter, have effectively no responsibility because you have effectively no influence. 1 vote in 60 million for you, 1 in 300 million for an american, 1 in 4 million for me. But people buy into the notion that they have influence over elections because collectively we do and politicians play to that, people like to feel important and involved, and for the health of the system itself it is important for people to feel engaged rather than apathetic. It's human nature again, really.

 

 

You've a Westminster avatar, Zor. So I'm assuming you know a bit about Parliament. You recall that in the UK we vote for specific members of Parliament? Over here, what matters is the swing in a particular seat. That swing is rarely more than a few thousand. Sometimes its only treble figures.

 

The small scale and directness of our system is what I love about it most, even if it does enable Galloways to arse about.

 

 

Galloway, another person that annoys me. But he is very humorous

 

Did you ever watch when he had to go in front of that USA congressional hearing. He gave it to them as only he can. He didn't seem intimidated at all

[Tagaziel]

Whichever way you slice it, it shows how far we've moved from reasoned politics to neo-tribalism.

Were we ever at reasoned politics? Tribalism has always ruled the human mind, centuries of technological progress and cultural development did not change that.

[BruceVC]

 

Whichever way you slice it, it shows how far we've moved from reasoned politics to neo-tribalism.

Were we ever at reasoned politics? Tribalism has always ruled the human mind, centuries of technological progress and cultural development did not change that.

 

 

Yes politics is reasonable, don't mistake systemic problems with a failure of the whole system

[Gorgon]

I thought I would post this here.  A piece making the point that misinformation is much more dangerous than intelligence gathering. It's really scary how many deliberate lies eventually come to be the accepted version of events.

 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/06/20/commentary/cyber-snooping-only-one-side-of-the-information-war/#.UcMgUqDPxUM

[Meshugger]

Senkaku belongs to the chinese, Tiananmen square was a product of manufactured consent and China was not first to launch the attacks in the Sino-Indian war? 

 

I think i see a pattern in there

[Gorgon]

It's all very well documented and you are exaggerating the claims of the article. It goes to the nature of the discourse on Russia and China through half a century.

 

I don't see you discounting the WMD fiasco as a tin foil hat conspitacy.  Is that because you are willing to concede that goverments will make you believe whatever suits their strategic interests the best, including democracies who champion freedom of the press.

[Walsingham]

It's all very well documented and you are exaggerating the claims of the article. It goes to the nature of the discourse on Russia and China through half a century.

 

I don't see you discounting the WMD fiasco as a tin foil hat conspitacy.  Is that because you are willing to concede that goverments will make you believe whatever suits their strategic interests the best, including democracies who champion freedom of the press.

 

If you will concede that some journalists *coughcoughRobertFiskcough* need to be beaten within an inch of their lives.

[Gorgon]

i forget what he was supposed to habe done

[Gfted1]

U.K. Spy Agency Secretly Taps Over 200 Fiber-Optic Cables, Shares Data With the NSA.

[BruceVC]

Latest news is that Snowden has been charged with espionage. The USA will also be asking for his extradition and Snowden himself is asking for asylum in Iceland. There are people that are ready to fly him from Hong Kong to Iceland the moment this asylum is granted. It seems in Iceland he is considered a hero, I just don't think the Icelandic government would want to annoy the Americans by granting the right to live there?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/edward-snowden-charged_n_3480984.html