Edward Snowden reveals the 21th Centurys' Global Big Brother

How does anyone not find it so? I'm going through what I know of history, and trying very hard to think of a regime where increased wholesale surveilance and blanket monitoring of all citizens resulted in a better society for those subjected to such treatment. All the governments who did so did not end up being very good to their people. Why would America be any different?

 

While I'm worried about the the "accuracy of some of the predictive tools" if they are used wrongly there is also reason to worry about the inaccuracy of the data mining algorithms when used in good faith. The intrinsic inaccuracy of these tools leaves a lot of ground for "collateral damage" and "false positives" and as we are basicaly dealing with reputations they are likely to create the sort of damage that simply cannot be repaired.

As the details of the tools are classified there is no data about "false positive ratio", I strongly suspect one reason for this is because if they were published the programmes would be stopped as clearly cost ineffective when avaluated against their stated intent and the people responsible for them would find themselves out of a job for wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money even without digging into the "peculiar" procurrement pratices often associated with black programmes.

IMO that sort of set up only makes sense if the true goal is generalized population control, they are close to useless for catching a handful of non terrorists that will most likely remain hidden in the "background noise" until it's too late.

 

Talking about accuracy of universal oversight seems relevant only after the fact. In my mind, the very act of monitoring every single citizen is not in good faith. Debating accuracy of said infrigement is not what bothers me, it's the initial infringment that does.

 

Short of unplugging ourselves from everything (including this internet thingy) we will have to accept that we will forever live in a world where we will never be far from some kind of scrutiny. We love its conveniences and I doubt we will ever be willing to part with them.

Went to see the Brit comedy The Worlds End, perhaps the ultimate big brother is watching you and conform or else movie. Not sure I could live with or in a world completely free of all such avenues of observation such as the film ends with.

 

If you are doing nothing wrong,you don't have to be afraid of the NSA..
99 ,99 % of what they are eavesdropping and collecting is useless s..t.

The choice is : limitation of privacy,or a new 09/11.

 

Are the only two options completely unplugging from the digital world and avoiding surveilance? Are the only two options global surveillance or 9/11? Really?

"If you are doing nothing wrong, you don't have to ber afraid of the NSA" God I hate that statement. That statement is used by any and all oppressive regime in history. I wonder if someone like Senator Joseph McCarthy had access to all this NSA information, what would he do with it?

You need to read up on your Benjamin Franklin:
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” - Benjamin Franklin
He also had some great quotes on beer too, a very smart man.

 

Yes O.M.A., you need to read up on your Benjamin Franklin

The earliest proven version of this quote reads

from November 11, 1755.

It will reappear a few years later, in 1759, as

Now, pay attention to the two adjectives that your [cough]quote[cough] has neglected: "essential" liberty and "temporary" security. Those two terms are rather important to Franklin's the sum of statement. The paragraph in it's entirety is

This paragraph, as well as the entire "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor" from November 11, 1755 can be found here: http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=6&page=238a

It is not simply a matter of surrendering freedom for security - that is not Franklin's argument...But how best to go about it - either by having the King provide security for the Colonies, or by having the Colonies provide security for themselves.

 

Forgive me, but I don't see E-mail as an "essential" liberty.

Back in 1989, I did not have e-mail, does that mean I was living in a totalitarian regime under Ronald Reagan an George H W Bush? Did Bill Clinton set me "free" by allowing me my "essential" liberty of e-mail?

Boy, my parents, grandparents, great grandparents lived under some despotic Presidents then, since they did not even have computers...What bastards those presidents were.

 

Takao the issue is not having e-Mail but the privacy of e-Mail, people think of e-Mail as mail transmitted with a different technology and the sececy of personal mail has usually been been considered a basic right, those "despotic presidents" would have been impeached within minutes is it was discivered they allowed some "no such agency" to setup shop in the post office systematically looking at all correspondence.

In a lot of countries mail privacy is a costitutional right, though anyone who understands the underlayng technology is aware that current US legislation on electronic comunications does not implement that right.
The problem is the usual one, the public does not generaly understand complex technological isues, in security "the devil is in the details", and the control freaks in government have it easy in confusing the issue until it's impossible to gather opposition. People like the EFF do have some power, but when you look at it they are basically fighting a defensive battle against a much better funded opponent who has the initiative, the worse the agencies risk is having a programme canceled, though usually they get away with just renaming it, if we believe privacy is a basic right, and I think it is as it's a basic need of humans, we need to "put some teeth" in it's defence.

@LJad

"The choice is : limitation of privacy,or a new 09/11"

Hope you are being ironic here, there are lots of thing that can contribute to preventing a recurrence of 09/11 but limitation of privacy and throwing away our freedom is definetly not amongst the more effective ones, it's actually likely to be counterproductive as while it's still unproved that massive surveillance can generally stop terrorists, up to now it has mostly helped "after the fact", and that's not "preventing", hostile acts like snooping personal comunications are sure to of generate hostility and generalized hostility is the breeding ground terrorists need.

If we leave out state sponsored terrorism, assuming it actually exists it would be a different beast against which generalized surveillance is totally ineffective, any measure that is likely to gather more hostility and blur the distinction between the free world and toppressive govenments should be very carefully considered as it's likely to create exactly the right climate of hostility terrorists need as breeding ground

 

That is true GS..its not the amount of traffic that is sampled that matters, but the direction of the annalysis...garbage in...Gargabe out.

 

Yes, familiar with the full quote. Doesn't change a thing about what it [cough]means[cough].

Obviously email isn't the liberty (what a ridiculous argument), it's the ability to communicate without warrantless surveilance. Under your analogy, any new communicatrion technology that didn't exist in the past does not meet the muster of constitutional protection?

 

Here is a better version of the same sentence as above:

...its not the amount of traffic that is sampled that matters, but the existence of the warrantless analysis...Garbage.

 

Wellcome to the real world...You've..not personally of course...been getting unwarranted monitoring for a very very long time. The present uproar suprises me...Folk have been shouting this from rooftops for years...

The RAF in UK contained more voice and data monitioring staff than aircraft associated trades. Monitoring all and sundry not just the Percieved foreign foe.

 

Me too, urqh. A few years ago I got into a conversation about urveilence programs with another fellow. I told him that such programs have been in place for many years and were widespread, covering essentially every form of digital communication. In response, I was told it was "technologicaly impossible" (complete BS, as everyone now knows) and was called "paranoid" (which is funny, because the scope of these programs is not a ajor concern for me).

In an idea world there should not be any surveillence programs. I'd be really pised off about it if there were, because it wouldn't be neccessary. But, this is not an ideal world. If the security agencies really want to view my web history (which, yesterday, consisted of about 1 hour of searching for a butplate screw for an Arisaka Type 38 in Canada, a couple visits to WW2F, some defense industry periodicals and a few news websites), they can go ahead. And, for what its worth, I'm not a fan of the Obama administration and I voted or the conservative PM of Canada.

 

People that don't vote, don't care enough about basic rights and freedoms, because they take it all for granted. The long term trend for Western Democracies has been a decline in voter participation. The only pressure we can put on these organisations is through elected officialdom. Political lethargy and a disenfranchisement with the political establishment combined with a lack of transparency (increasing obfuscation) make it easy for secretive semi-governmental organisations to appropriate funds for tasks that are distinctly NOT in the best interests of the General Public. Such as exaggerated spending on security.

When the voter turnout is less than 70%, you really have to question the validity of your election process, and the mandate of the elected.

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
- Marcellus

 

You have that luxury, because you live in the society you do. One day, that society may change. No society, no civilisation is everlasting. Many, many more people live in far more repressive societies today. Progress is not a linear development, striving ever upward. The freedoms you treat so cavalier, may one day not be yours. Many, many generations have fought tyranny very hard for them.

 

So, you're implying that I'm disrespecting veterans? Your statement is a oversimplfication and doesn't apply well to this case. No war is simply a 'crusade' for moral justice.

And certainly society will change. It already has (for the worst in my opinion). The world geopolitical situation will also change. Argueably, people have been continuously losing "freedoms" for the past 200 years. This is a continous trend that isn't going to be stopped by outrage and protests. Yes, I don't like this at all. But, given the goepolitical situation, *some* of it is neccssary. And yes, that includes the surveillence programs in my opinion.

I think that's about all I have to say.

 

No, I don't think any disrespect was intended. I'd disagree about my statement being oversimplification. As a general principle, it always applies. I disagree on the necessity of this trend. I don't think this quasi-military blanket espionage of your own civilians is necessary in the least. There are other methods available, other than undermining your own credibility as a defender of freedoms.

 

Do you really think that bastards involved in 911 were using something like Osama.Bin.Laden@gmail.com? They never were and never will - such excuse for a large scale spying on ordinary citizens is outright laughable.

A war on terrorism is just a poor excuse for depriving the world from privacy. They steel from all of us these little well kept secrets that we keep for ourselves to make life a bit more bearable.

 

I already said I disagree with the principle, so I'll leave it at that.

What other options are there given the current situation (not other options that would be available if tied to a bunch of 'what ifs'). I'm actually curious to know because I can't think of any. Implement strict immigration laws to stop people from terrorist 'hot spots' ending up in the US? That might work to some extent, but it certainly cannot be implemented now. Maybe 40 years ago this would have worked. Armed guards on every corner? That isn't going to go over well, not to mention the massive manpower burden that would place on the police, National Guard and active-duty military.

Did I ever say that (and how is this relevant to anything I said, assuming that you are replying to me)? Most (if not all) of these bastards are fairly stupid and naive, and I'm sure that they wouldn't think twice about using words like 'jihad', 'attack' and 'bomb' in communications with their fellow nutcases. Regularly use these words and bingo -- the computers flag these communications for follow up. Only then will an actual person look into it. There is simply no way from a logistical standpoint for every email, phone call and internet history to be monitored by an actual person. They go for the important things -- I doubt anyone cares, for example, if you spent $9.54 on a DVD last week or where you are going to meet your date for dinner tomorrow night.

That being said, do I like the fact that this is going on? NO, of course not. I imagine that only someone with strong conviction in the North Korean system of government or the Stalin-era NKVD would. Maybe I should have mentioned this earlier -- I typed both of the previous messages from my phone while waiting at the Denver airport this morning, and didn't proof read them.

Its easy to say 'its a bad idea, lets get rid of it' when you don't have to come up with a replacement. And sadly, because of a bunch of j@ckasses fighting their 'jihad' against the West and the mentally unstable mass murders in waiting, doing nothing just isn't an option in this day and age.