Prism Program ( Big Brother gone too far?)

[Humanoid]

 

Well he is running for the senate here in the election in three months' time, if becoming a politician means being a patriot (ha).

 

 

I admit to being totally superficial in this regard - I back the information dump being released because it's interesting to read about.

 

Wait who is running for election, Assange? You can't be  serious?

 

Not just him, but a formal Wikileaks party is running. Assange himself is running as a senate candidate for Victoria, yes. Though obviously there are some legal hurdles in the way given he can't really attend sittings and such at the moment. No one thinks he's any real chance of winning, but senate elections are weird things and very strange candidates have got up before.

[Zoraptor]

To take it away from Manning (true hero and patriot that he is) and focus solely on Mr Snowden's stuff (#1 awesome dude in the universe)

 

If it were a Chinese guy, or an Iranian guy, or a Venezualan guy from their NSA equivalents leaking equivalent details of their surveillance he'd be hailed a hero by exactly the same people currently suffering strangulated gonads at the thought of someone having the temerity, the sheer effrontery of doing it to a western country who stand for truth and justice by unquestionable definition and only ever does stuff to 'protect their people'- a statement so meaningless that it has been used as justification by such luminaries as Hitler and Stalin, 'protecting their people' against commies, jews and counter revolutionaries. Same old same old, and it ain't ever 'protecting the people'.

 

The 'crime' ain't informing the Chinese or terrorists or whoever about it- if they have so much as a smidgeon of sense they already knew; sheesh, season 2 of The Wire could be used as a manual to avoid the worst of it. The crime is informing the general population and especially ostensible allies* of the fact, and, of course, the cardinal sin of embarrassing the government and showing complaints about chinese hacking are hypocritical (US just makes it legal in their pet court that never turns down warrants) and claims of internet freedom self serving.

 

*Would anyone use google docs/ cloud/ email to do anything commercially sensitive now, knowing that it's just a click away from the eyes of some anonymous US contractor?

[Malcador]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22850901

 

ZOMG

[Tigranes]

Well, of course. He must have known he could die/disappear/etc at any moment once he did that interview, and perhaps before that. Either he's fled somewhere (e.g. an embassy) or...

[BruceVC]

 

 

Well he is running for the senate here in the election in three months' time, if becoming a politician means being a patriot (ha).

 

 

I admit to being totally superficial in this regard - I back the information dump being released because it's interesting to read about.

 

Wait who is running for election, Assange? You can't be  serious?

 

Not just him, but a formal Wikileaks party is running. Assange himself is running as a senate candidate for Victoria, yes. Though obviously there are some legal hurdles in the way given he can't really attend sittings and such at the moment. No one thinks he's any real chance of winning, but senate elections are weird things and very strange candidates have got up before.

 

 

Wow, okay this is a shocking development but very interesting. The things I don't get are

 

• He won't be to get to Oz because he will be arrested the moment he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy
• Why would anyone actually vote for him? Is he considered some kind of misunderstood hero?

 

To take it away from Manning (true hero and patriot that he is) and focus solely on Mr Snowden's stuff (#1 awesome dude in the universe)

 

If it were a Chinese guy, or an Iranian guy, or a Venezualan guy from their NSA equivalents leaking equivalent details of their surveillance he'd be hailed a hero by exactly the same people currently suffering strangulated gonads at the thought of someone having the temerity, the sheer effrontery of doing it to a western country who stand for truth and justice by unquestionable definition and only ever does stuff to 'protect their people'- a statement so meaningless that it has been used as justification by such luminaries as Hitler and Stalin, 'protecting their people' against commies, jews and counter revolutionaries. Same old same old, and it ain't ever 'protecting the people'.

 

The 'crime' ain't informing the Chinese or terrorists or whoever about it- if they have so much as a smidgeon of sense they already knew; sheesh, season 2 of The Wire could be used as a manual to avoid the worst of it. The crime is informing the general population and especially ostensible allies* of the fact, and, of course, the cardinal sin of embarrassing the government and showing complaints about chinese hacking are hypocritical (US just makes it legal in their pet court that never turns down warrants) and claims of internet freedom self serving.

 

*Would anyone use google docs/ cloud/ email to do anything commercially sensitive now, knowing that it's just a click away from the eyes of some anonymous US contractor?

 

I cannot understand why you keep saying Assange is a hero, there is nothing heroic about using the foundation of the Internet to share confidential information with all and sundry because you have a personal gripe with a particular country. How do you feel about the fact that Assange broke the conditions of his bail, lied to his supporters and refused to go to Sweden to face rape charges? I see nothing heroic about those decisions. Its like saying that Lulz and Anonymous should be seen as groups we need to admire for informing the ignorant masses about " what's really going on in the world " 

 

But I will say you are right that I would be cheering if an Iranian, Chinese or Venezuelan whistle-blower had gone public. I wouldn't have had any issue with this because I consider Western countries the "good guys" in this debate and I don't want there personal security comprised in any way. Now before I get lambasted for being biased and selective I need to explain why I have this view that Western countries are the "good guys"

 

In the last 30 years I can probably count on one hand the number of times any of  those countries I have mentioned have done anything to help other countries when it comes to anything that wouldn't directly benefit them either economically or politically. Lets take China, I can't think of a single example where they have actually sent troops as a peace keeping force or part of any UN security council mandate. China wants to be considered a super power but they aren't even prepared to publically condemn acts of obvious human rights abuse, examples in the past would be Myanmar and North Korea.

 

Now I am not suggesting that Western countries aren't concerned with there own self-interests, every country has to be. But its always the Western countries who generally commit the most to humanitarian disasters, are prepared to send troops and suffer real losses of life in conflict area's and really get involved in assisting the indigent in certain places throughout the world. The USA has donated tens of millions of dollars to various African transformation projects and it was the USA who adopted the hundreds of Sierra Leone war orphans after the brutal civil wars in the region. I can give other examples but I think you get my point. 

 

I am not saying the West is perfect but in a world of global moral ambiguity they have done more right than wrong so of course anything that undermines there role and the perception that countries have of them I am opposed to. So they still are the "good guys" compared to many other countries because they care about people less fortunate than them

 

[Calax]

Bruce, I think the thing about Assange and his organization is that without them (and similar organisations) we'd be in the dark on topics like this, and on topics like gitmo, intentional targeting by the IRS and all those other things that most people associate with corrupt governments. In order for the US to fulfill it's claim of being a democratic nation, and for it's people to make informed decisions about who's governmening them how, they need to know about this sort of thing. Otherwise it's much to easy to fix the political system one way or the other (like Russia).

[Walsingham]

If anyone cares to get an interesting perspective I would heartily encourage them to read the House of Commons debates on the original forming of the first regular police force.

 

In brief the argument against was that it was obviously a tool of government oppression. But the counter-argument was that an urbanising population could not rely on traditional mechanisms to protect them from the actions of their fellow citizens. Of course what they couldn't know was that a professional police force would eventually enable standards of conduct to be applied meaningfully to that police force, and by extension apply criminal justice to the state itself.

 

On balance I think the vast majority of people are pleased we have professional police now.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Walsingham

[pmp10]

Funny you should mention it.

But consider something more relevant to modern times:

Some 80 years ago Supreme Court ruled that US government cannot wire-tap phones at will because it would invade privacy and because end cannot justify the means.

Today government breaks similar laws outright and it seems that people are actually in favor of this.

Maybe it's true that men are tired of liberty.

[Tagaziel]

The Supreme Court 80 years ago didn't have to bother with a high speed global network allowing most of the world's population to communicate instantly, satellite phones, spy satellites, portable video/audio recorders, and all the other wondrous bits of technology we take for granted nowadays.

 

I love how people use any old document to support their views, consistently ignoring the circumstances in which they were written. Kind of like gun nuts use the 2nd Amendment, forgetting that it was penned by people who could not know that in less than 150 years there'd be man-portable weapons capable of unloading several dozen rounds of ammunition into an unsuspecting crowd in seconds.

 

Problem is, Internet surveillance is a necessary evil. You can't adopt a hands-off approach and treat the Internet as an inviolate sanctity and treat all attempts to monitor activity in it as sacrilege. You're essentially giving away free means of secure communication to everyone, regardless of their intent. A balance needs to be struck between the needs of the many and, well, the needs of the many, between privacy and security.

 

"HERP DERP USA IS EVIL, COMMIENAZIJEWPINKOGAYCONSERVATIVEKK OBAMA WANTS TO PUT YOU IN FEMA CAMPS PRAISE FREE INTERNET PORN AND TORRENTS" isn't really a helpful attitude. What would be helpful would be realizing that compromises need to be made and put forth constructive proposals. Like how data gathering and monitoring could be kept in check, or how security can be balanced against the right to privacy.

 

And what Walsingham said.

[Orogun01]

Funny how these compromises never involve the government giving up something to favor the populace.

Also, its worth pointing out that said program has a margin of error of 51%. So depending on what actions are taken in regards to the information, futures will be decided on the flip of a $20 million dollars coin.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-06/concise-history-nsas-online-spying-program-prism

[Walsingham]

Yeah. I think it's important to remember that we are dealing with different technologies and different technologies impact the law. 100 years ago the driving limit was (something like) 20 miles an hour. That limit increased but we also got surveillance, traffic cops, speed cameras...

[Orogun01]

This program was being developed in secret, this is not policing this is spying.

[BruceVC]

This program was being developed in secret, this is not policing this is spying.

 

But the positive is at least once the Prism programs existence was made known everyone is now talking about it. From politicians to journalists. The only person who may get arrested would be Edward Snowden for breaking the conditions of his NDA. I doubt this freedom of speech would be acceptable in countries like China where there would be a media blackout and mass arrests just for discussing it?

Edited June 11, 2013 by BruceVC

[HoonDing]

[Zoraptor]

I doubt this freedom of speech would be acceptable in countries like China where there would be a media blackout and mass arrests just for discussing it?

 

No, and it wouldn't in, as another topical example, Turkey either. But if the milestone comes down to "at least we're better than CountryName" then it's utterly meaningless as much as everything always being about 'protecting the people'. Bring in chopping a finger off people as punishment? At least we're better than Saudi Arabia, where they'd chop the whole hand off!

 

Surveillance of this type is very useful to make sure you can get the right people into positions. Worried that someone else might pull a Manning or Snowden? No worries, run a security check and go back through X years of their history looking for anything ideologically questionable, or any questionable associations. Want to make sure you get Proper, Right Minded People into governmental positions? Run the same 'security check', go back and make sure they're all good pro life recumbent transcendentalist communists in favour of gun ownership, veganism and nuking Canada as the only way to remove Celine Dion from existence efficiently.

 

What wonders might Joe McCarthy have achieved in his quest to 'protect the people' had he had this system? Because at some point he will get hold of it, he just won't have the same name.

[WDeranged]

I'm firmly in the "this is bulls**t" camp but if I was in charge of the world's most bloated imperial power I'd probably be pulling the exact same stunts to keep my greasy hands on that pole.

 

NSA admits it created internet so it could spy on it

[BruceVC]

 

I doubt this freedom of speech would be acceptable in countries like China where there would be a media blackout and mass arrests just for discussing it?

 

No, and it wouldn't in, as another topical example, Turkey either. But if the milestone comes down to "at least we're better than CountryName" then it's utterly meaningless as much as everything always being about 'protecting the people'. Bring in chopping a finger off people as punishment? At least we're better than Saudi Arabia, where they'd chop the whole hand off!

 

Surveillance of this type is very useful to make sure you can get the right people into positions. Worried that someone else might pull a Manning or Snowden? No worries, run a security check and go back through X years of their history looking for anything ideologically questionable, or any questionable associations. Want to make sure you get Proper, Right Minded People into governmental positions? Run the same 'security check', go back and make sure they're all good pro life recumbent transcendentalist communists in favour of gun ownership, veganism and nuking Canada as the only way to remove Celine Dion from existence efficiently.

 

What wonders might Joe McCarthy have achieved in his quest to 'protect the people' had he had this system? Because at some point he will get hold of it, he just won't have the same name.

 

 

I hear you and I do share your concern around Prism being used for push political agenda's and it basically being abused. The risk is real IMO

[Tagaziel]

No, and it wouldn't in, as another topical example, Turkey either. But if the milestone comes down to "at least we're better than CountryName" then it's utterly meaningless as much as everything always being about 'protecting the people'. Bring in chopping a finger off people as punishment? At least we're better than Saudi Arabia, where they'd chop the whole hand off!

Why do you insist on pointless arguments attempting to reduce an idea to absurdity? Nobody's proposing (re)introducing barbaric punishments, in fact, people are actively campaigning against them and for the abolition of the death penalty in the United States, so the trend is in the other direction.

 

Surveillance of this type is very useful to make sure you can get the right people into positions. Worried that someone else might pull a Manning or Snowden? No worries, run a security check and go back through X years of their history looking for anything ideologically questionable, or any questionable associations. Want to make sure you get Proper, Right Minded People into governmental positions? Run the same 'security check', go back and make sure they're all good pro life recumbent transcendentalist communists in favour of gun ownership, veganism and nuking Canada as the only way to remove Celine Dion from existence efficiently.

As much as I like your writing, the point is kind of bizarre. What, background checks shouldn't be used at all?

 

Regardless, you're still avoiding answering the "how." How would someone abuse the system? How would he avoid logging the background checks? How would he avoid detection? You are claiming that the PRISM system would enable political conspiracies to create the equivalent of a dictatorship, yet you fail to answer how such a bloated organism could function. If the Prism system could be revealed by a single employee barely out of his test period, how could an entire conspiracy based on no-one ever blowing the whistle function?

 

In fact, how would it even form in the first place? The infrastructure required for the project requires hundreds of employees, each of which can blow the lid off the whole thing if he notices something wrong or out of the ordinary. Limiting the conspiracy to just the bigwigs won't protect either, since you're relying on dumb luck to not be discovered.

 

Either way, any attempt to use the system for political gain is going to require so many co-conspirators as to be impractical. Terribly impractical, especially when you consider that politicians don't exist in a vacuum and have entire courts. All you need is a single overheard conversation for the house of cards to start tumbling down.

 

What wonders might Joe McCarthy have achieved in his quest to 'protect the people' had he had this system? Because at some point he will get hold of it, he just won't have the same name.

McCarty and the HUAC were a product of very peculiar times, emerging in specific circumstances. Claiming that a McCarthy will come again is cheap populism. I.e. an attempt to avoid having to formulate an actual agenda. Describe how he could gain control of the system, avoid being compromised, and produce results publicly without being compromised and dooming his political career faster than Sarah Palin sunk John McCain's campaign.

[Malcador]

Rather than the program's existence, it being renewed every 3 months is the real iffy thing to me. Also, the NSA created the Internet ?

 

NSA sure is a capable branch, well or so they'd seem historically, e.g. their involvement with DES/Lucifer where they 'helped' with the design so people believed that they could have broken it back then.

[Gfted1]

Im sure the government has had, and used, the capability to monitor all communications for decades. Besides the lol moral outrage, do you guys really think this is new?

[TrashMan]

 

 "he who has no secrets cannot be blackmailed"

 

Biggest steaming load of bollocks ever. 

 

Do you know what policemen will tell you to do, if you are apprehended by the police when you have done nothing wrong? Don't tell them anything. They just want to ask you a few questions! They don't think you did it! Oh, it'll be okay! No, don't say anything. 

 

Any and every innocuous, innocent, even noble thing that you do in your life can easily be turned into something scandalous, incriminating, sufficiently suspicious, when under the close eye of people who are trained to look for suspicious things and have some reason, whether right or misguided, to think you may be suspicious. 

 

Why should we now live our lives by the maxim that "you should live so cleanly and unambiguously that no amount of secret surveillance upon every aspect of your life will incriminate you, and if you don't, then it's bloody well your fault that they're now probing up your buttcheeks"? It's nonsense. 

 

I don't think he meant you have ot live the life of a pure saint.

Just that if you're a normal guy not doing anything illegal, there's really not much to worry about.

 

If people are actively trying to find something or falsifying evidence to incriminate you, then you've got a LOT bigger problem on your hands,

[Gfted1]

Say hello to ECHELON. Big Brother-ing your asses since the 60's. And Im totally sure its only ever been used to monitor the bad guys. Totally.

[Walsingham]

What I find mental is the notion that the Pure and Holy Light of Freedom will somehow keep us all safe while we divulge every secret we possess to any genocidal goat-bastard* who wants it.

 

*Rules of information in warfare snipped for clarity*

 

The problem with both Prism and Assange et al is that the problem isn't information. The problem is what is done with information. Prism feeds information to a justice system that only works when it isn't democratic - i.e. Gitmo. Assange et al. feed information indiscriminately out in a format which is sensationalist and legally moot.

 

Both give the thrilling illusion and no substance. The only ones who benefit from either are likely to be those misusing the information in illegal ways.

 

 

*It's a thing

Edited June 11, 2013 by Walsingham

[pmp10]

The problem with both Prism and Assange et al is that the problem isn't information. The problem is what is done with information. Prism feeds information to a justice system that only works when it isn't democratic - i.e. Gitmo. Assange et al. feed information indiscriminately out in a format which is sensationalist and legally moot.

 

Both give the thrilling illusion and no substance. The only ones who benefit from either are likely to be those misusing the information in illegal ways.

Everyone who wants the system exposed and taken down benefits from this 'leak'.

That covers far more than just terrorists.

[Moose]

I dunno if wikileaks really compromises national security. If they do I don't think it's really on the same level as say a Russian mole within The Circus. Is any of the leaked information really that useful to criminals?