LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Heres an interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yB3n9fu-rM
24Likes
I wish he did a better job of explaining exactly what the danger was. My take on the real danger is the part he mentioned about the NSA being able to use it's substantial amount of data to paint anyone it wants as a traitor.
Essentially if they can put you in a position where innocent people stand no realistic chance in court, they've given themselves unlimited jailing power. Some corrupt guy in the right office wants to bang your wife, and you won't let him, you may find yourself in prison and unable to do anything to stop him. Anyone intervenes to help you - prison. The police decide to help you - well they won't want to be seen to help a traitor, now will they?
He didn't reveal a damn thing that I've seen we really didn't already assume was happening.
Nevertheless, I'm glad its been brought back into the public's attention. I regard him more patriot than traitor--though really neither.
Well, after hearing him I wouldn't think what he said was that earth shaking because after all it has been being done for decades now. It just seems that the media likes to shake the cage every so often about something that has been going on for many decades only now is somehow becoming "out of control" because this spying on people has been done everywhere over the past century including looking for homosexuals, Communists and other people that the government "thinks" is trying to do something wrong. The governments everywhere are spying on everyone and that, to me is a bad thing but something that must be done in order to insure terrorists do not get the upper hand and hurt others as they already have.
Trying to shut this kind of spying down won't ever work because everyone wants to be protected as best they can from terrorist activities and if we do not allow this kind of spying then we run the risk of more terrorism attacks and other bad problems happening. I would think that this kind of spying is a bad thing that must be done but wish it could be controlled as to who they are monitoring and why. but no one knows who the terrorists are so they must seek out everything and try to uncover those people trying to harm others.
Count me out of that "everyone" , Im much more worried of a totalitarian state than any "terrorism" (or more worried of a car accident for that matter)"everyone wants to be protected as best they can from terrorist activities and if we do not allow this kind of spying then we run the risk of more terrorism attacks and other bad problems happening."
Usually terrorism is scaled into irrelevancy compared to car accidents(and acts of War by the State that claims to want protection from terrorism), and usally are the direct result of a countries own oppression/invasion/occupation (terrosists dont say "death to Austria", the IRA didnt say "Hey lets go to Austria and fight them, because we a re terrorists, and going to kill people for no reason what so ever is what we do") , OR, Terrorism is the purposeful manipulation from the very State that uses the terrorists action it controls as Proxy aggression against others(CIA Operation Ajax terrorism& Coup d'etat, Death squads in south america trained in the "Schools of the Americas", CIA trained/funded/radicalized Islamists targeted at the USSR, etc) or as political cover for its own agenda with false flag terrorism (or false flag attacks).
PRISM failed to spot the Boston Bombers -how much is this progam costing the US tax payer?
I'd be asking for a refund.
Terrorist - Anyone with a bomb but without an air force.
SameOriginally Posted by icewendigo
Add another. The "threat of terrorism" has become a catch-all for absurdly outrageous governmental behavior. I'm still frothing about the TSA. I am in utter disbelief as to what that organization has been doing, been getting away with and the horrifying realization that the majority of the populace is complacent about it.
Adding this on top of it and the majority is still complacent about it is beyond horrifying. What HAPPENED to my country?!
I wouldn't mind them gathering all that data if I were assured that they couldn't use it in court against me. And I am pretty sure it probably is still inadmissible in a normal court proceeding (since it was obtained without a warrant).
But what about terrorism accusations? If I have ever once in my life said one word in support of Al Qaeda, or argued against someone who thought all Arabs are the devil, do I have to worry that those statements will be used against me in one of those closed-door proceedings where they label you a terrorist and ship you down to Guantanimo Bay to be tortured for the next few years?
Do I need to be extra careful not to look at NSA dudes the wrong way? If one of them doesn't like me it looks like they can make me vanish pretty much on their own discretion, just to mess with me.
I agree that he is a hero.
Edward Snowden is a traitor and hopefully he will be brought to trial for treason. The NSA, and GCHQ here in the UK, are doing a fantastic job in combatting Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately Jihad Joe is hit or miss, the security services have to try 100% and are not always successful.
Snowden is no more of a traitor to the United States government than Congress has been to the people of the United States.
Dude, Snowden took the Queen's Shilling, he is a traitor.
Lol...I guess he did do that...
Dave, few people I disgree with are as entertaining, I start laughing the second I see your Reagan avatar, its like a caricature. I hope your keep it."Edward Snowden is a traitor and hopefully"
It's ok you think he's a traitor, otherwise Id be suspicious, and have to do additional research to figure out what the catch is
( Maybe if I was in Orwellian UK, I'd also be saying, Snowden is guilty of "Thought Crime", yes, I love the NSA, long live the Queen, Big Brother is good, look Im waving the flag, its double plus good )
A whistle blower is always a traitor to someone. But what if the organization upon which they blow the whistle is traitorous and they're exposing its treachery? Now they're a traitor twice over.
Can two wrongs make a right in this case? Or are they just doubly traitorous?
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment."
-JFK
Secrecy is for criminal organisations, tyranical regimes and cockroaches, it is indeed "repugnant". The threat posed by secrecy in organisations, and even more so in public organizations, far outweighs the dangers which are cited to justify it. Public administration, should be public and transparent. Decisions should be made with data, methods and results, that are transparent and accessible, open to public scrutiny and technical improvements. A Whistle Blower allows the flow of information that ought to have been public in the first place or about malignant actions that ought not to have been perpetrated and were facilitated by the cover of repugnant secrecy. SO a Whistle Blower, signals both the information itself AND the systemic problem of lack of transparency in the group he is part of. Saying that "a Whistle Blower is a traitor", is saying that "Good is Evil", because "Good is Evil from the Evil's point of view".
In my opinion, we are in a dark age, characterised by the use of Money, Hierarchy and Secrecy , social mechanisms we have inherited since before the feudal medieval times. Secrecy (along with ignorance and manipulation of information which are alternate facets) needs to be overcome with Transparency and free access to Education and Information. This is one part of the process humanity needs to develop if we are to progress to the next level.
Last edited by icewendigo; June 28th, 2013 at 08:05 AM.
I am glad that you like my Avatar. Ronald Reagan was a very fine actor and the best President that the USA has ever had. Ronald Reagan, with the help of Maggie T, won the Cold War. The former USSR gave birth to 15 new states, most of them have flourished under the heel of democracy. I am not certain in what part of the world that you reside, but I will wager that you live in a democracy , a democracy that you despise. There is one country in the world that I think that you would admire, it is called North Korea. They have lots of five year plans, no Multi National Corporations to bitch about, hell you would love the place.Dave, few people I disgree with are as entertaining, I start laughing the second I see your Reagan avatar, its like a caricature. I hope your keep it."Edward Snowden is a traitor and hopefully"
It's ok you think he's a traitor, otherwise Id be suspicious, and have to do additional research to figure out what the catch is
( Maybe if I was in Orwellian UK, I'd also be saying, Snowden is guilty of "Thought Crime", yes, I love the NSA, long live the Queen, Big Brother is good, look Im waving the flag, its double plus good )
This is a positive development imo, generally speaking, I prefer smaller political units that choose to cooperate voluntarily within a network of their choosing rather than having a federal/central super-aggregate political unit.The former USSR gave birth to 15 new states
I realize it was a joke but I'll counter by saying: its just one more of the many things you are wrong about."There is one country in the world that I think that you would admire, it is called North Korea. "
I think western countries are not democratic enough, that money is outdated economic mechanism and that there's too little transparency, and the military is a huge waste of human activity.
North Korea is therefore the paragon of what I dislike, since its plagued by hierarchy, it uses money, its cloaked in secrecy, and allocates a great deal of human activity on the military (in part to protect itself from the US which bombs counties left and right, unlike North Korea which for all its faults at least did not kill thousands of people in various regions of the planet). On the other hand, you probably like the Orwellian Police state measures of North Korea, because Orwell was from the UK, is his vision appears to be more of a road map to oppression than a warning, with cameras, DNA sampling, if this keeps up, North Korea will be jealous of "Air Strip One".
Have a Double Plus Good day sir, and may Big Brother watch over you, from several angles.
Last edited by icewendigo; July 8th, 2013 at 09:21 AM.
I see both advantages and disadvantages. Tort laws make it easier to check a large organization than a small one, because if a person sues a large organization, they can demand a lot more money, which makes it easier to find a competent lawyer to represent them.
On the other hand, large organizations are slow about change, and whenever corruption or inefficiency is tolerated, it becomes institutional. And then you can't ever hardly hope to get rid of it later on.
Could you elaborate about what your substitute for money would be? I don't want to start a whole new thread just to ask this, but I am curious.I realize it was a joke but I'll counter by saying: its just one more of the many things you are wrong about.
I think western countries are not democratic enough, that money is outdated economic mechanism and that there's too little transparency, and the military is a huge waste of human activity.
The biggest problem collective systems have is people expecting too much from the central leadership. It's hard to explain that resources are finite to a person who individually possesses only about a millionth as much wealth as the state. But if the state is in charge of a million people, that wealth can get spread pretty thin pretty fast.
Money allows people to understand what the limits are. Without it, I don't see how it would be possible to communicate that.
I'll make another thread, but in a nutshel,"Could you elaborate about what your substitute for money would be?"
a) Money is replaced by information, education, methods (and a different society)
b) Society is not the one we know now, but without money. This is a projection that is normal but makes it harder to understand. The same way some of the attitudes in the fictional world of star trek are different
www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_VSIdAx4PQ
c) Such a system is an idea at this stage, like the idea of a submarine
when Jules Verne wrote 20,000 leagues under the sea, or like the Wright brothers first thought of experimenting with airplane prototypes. The Venus Project, and Zeitgeist movement share a number of interesting ideas, but I have not yet seen a functional plan detailing how such a society works. It has to be designed, tested.
d) A number of concepts, understanding, methods are now available to work with, from distributed networks to open source development, from P2P to 3D printers, from better understanding of humans, to emergent properties and symbiotic relationships, some of these can help develop a system that is better and more up to date.
So you think Snowden should immediatly be punished as a traitor?
pretty scary to me....don't you think?
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)
First off this belongs in link, secondly, we all knew this surveilence was happening, what he did was make elaborate plans for it available to our enemies. I'm fine with uncle same looking at my stuff but not people who could potentially exploit my information comercially
The most alarming part of this case has been learning about the FISA court, a rubber stamp agency that disapproved only 11 of more than 30,000 warrant request and who's judges don't require congressional approval. It's very existence would probably be Constitutionally challenged, if enough information about its operations and relevant cases directly related to one of its warrants were to reach the public.
Going beyond the law for the sake the American people.
This is what Edward Snowden did.
No, this is what the NSA did.
Hold on, I'm really messed up here.
This is what results when the American government declares war against a non-entity. As with the "war" on drugs, or the "war" against terrorism, etc.
It gives the government free license to paste any face above the caption "Terrorist".
Terrorist
Benjamin Franklin said —
I think it rather naive for the American people to believe that their government can collect all this electronic telecommunications data, but supposedly cannot look at it without a court order.They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? That is, Who watches the watchmen?
“If you’re doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide from the giant surveillance apparatus the U.S. government’s been hiding.”
Stephen Colbert
Surely they have that ass backwards "If the giant surveillance apparatus is doing nothing wrong then it should have nothing to hide from the public", George Orwell would be turning in his grave.
I think that was the point.
"Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process."
E.B. White
We all knew this would happen with the "patriot act".
What an horrible piece of legislative crap.
(vast quantities of deleted expletives)
(more deleted expletives)"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."
We all knew this would happen with the "patriot act".
What an horrible piece of legislative crap.
(vast quantities of deleted expletives)
(more deleted expletives)"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."
as my mother would say......it's all "DREK"
Do I understand this correctly?
Snowden signed for a security clearance with the intent of deception?
If so, then he has gone out of his way to earn his bunk at Leavenworth.
Something about swearing false oaths just doesn't sit well with me.
When the NSA tried to spy on americans under Nixon, I found them incompetent and rather entertaining.
The NSA ain't the problem. The're just a bunch of mopes who take themselves far too seriously. (at least, they did then)
The congress's patriot act is the problem.
It would be entertaining to see a congress person labeled "Terrorist"
NSA is an ego trip.
TSA can be the same thing.
Congress is full of insipid souls.
Just my humble opinion.
Humble
hmm
humble?
ROFL
Apparently our entire intelligence community was caught with its pants down by the Arab Spring within nations of people upon whom it was particularly focused. I guess they didn't get the memo.
GLARE!!!Humble
hmm
humble?
ROFL
It's ok....the TSA and I had a major run in a few years ago.
Don't think they ever will.Apparently our entire intelligence community was caught with its pants down by the Arab Spring within nations of people upon whom it was particularly focused. I guess they didn't get the memo.
My attitude about whistleblowers changed a lot after I watched this movie:
The Informant! (2009) - IMDbEspecially since it is based on a true story.
Mark Whitacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHave to remember that some people are honest to goodness sociopaths. And not all sociopaths have limits on how far they'll take it.
Whitacre turned informant to report price fixing by his company when he was busy embezzling millions from them. Most likely his motive was to cover his own tracks by focusing attention on someone else and pretending to help.
I'm thinking it's likely that Snowden was selling secrets to China, and that's why his first airplane hop was to Hong Kong. He knew he couldn't return to the USA, and Hong Kong would only hold off extraditing him for a limited time, so he goes "whistleblower" in order to widen his chances of getting asylum somewhere.
As I read about this guy's travels, and living conditions, I keep asking myself "where is he getting his money?" Hotels aren't cheap. Plane tickets aren't terribly cheap either. He doesn't have a job anymore. Are people donating money to him? Are the press interviews paying for it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_..._from_the_U.S.
Interesting concept!
| « Universal Declaration of Human Rights | Is Americas "debt" issue working as intended? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
