If PRISM is Good Policy, Why Stop with Terrorism?(m.theatlantic.com)
m.theatlantic.com
If PRISM is Good Policy, Why Stop with Terrorism?
http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/if-prism-is-good-policy-why-stop-with-terrorism/277531/?
130 comments
Then they will fall. The protests were an abysmal failure. I've seen plenty of "I don't care" opinions regarding it, and that's not even factoring the 50+% of people who don't even follow such things.
People get what they deserve, and the world apparently deserves the US monitoring all of its communications. My only hope is a complete collapse of their government.
People get what they deserve, and the world apparently deserves the US monitoring all of its communications. My only hope is a complete collapse of their government.
It's not: will fall; America has fallen. It's a realization most are just starting to come to.
America collapsed in four waves. 1913, 1930, 1971, 2001.
By almost any metric you could measure, America has lost substantial ground over 40 years. The late 1990s or early 2000's was the peak of the visible projection of "superpower" status, but it was mostly a fraud. Even the temporary budget surplus was a fraud, made possible by an extreme economic bubble and stealing from social security inflows.
The real US standard of living has declined since the late 1960s. And that huge standard of living was only possible due to the rest of the world having been blown up in WW2; America was left with half the global manufacturing base by default, with little competition for two decades.
In the most straight-forward of terms: America got rich with manufacturing, and poor with consumption; one creates wealth, the other eats it. China is now the one getting rich off of manufacturing, along with a few other nations.
We've been floating on borrowed time for 30 years in the form of ever cheaper credit, sustained by the military reach of a superpower that convinced the likes of Japan and China to buy trillions of dollars of worthless paper. The dollar, as the global reserve currency, has been living on a reputation it hasn't deserved for many decades, namely that it's good as gold.
The end of cheap money has arrived. You can easily guess what happens next. US national debt has a mere 64 month turn over period to it. Countries like China have shifted most of their treasuries to short term holdings. 5% * $20 trillion = $1 trillion in interest alone. See Japan for an example of what happens, they currently pay half their tax revenue toward debt interest.
America collapsed in four waves. 1913, 1930, 1971, 2001.
By almost any metric you could measure, America has lost substantial ground over 40 years. The late 1990s or early 2000's was the peak of the visible projection of "superpower" status, but it was mostly a fraud. Even the temporary budget surplus was a fraud, made possible by an extreme economic bubble and stealing from social security inflows.
The real US standard of living has declined since the late 1960s. And that huge standard of living was only possible due to the rest of the world having been blown up in WW2; America was left with half the global manufacturing base by default, with little competition for two decades.
In the most straight-forward of terms: America got rich with manufacturing, and poor with consumption; one creates wealth, the other eats it. China is now the one getting rich off of manufacturing, along with a few other nations.
We've been floating on borrowed time for 30 years in the form of ever cheaper credit, sustained by the military reach of a superpower that convinced the likes of Japan and China to buy trillions of dollars of worthless paper. The dollar, as the global reserve currency, has been living on a reputation it hasn't deserved for many decades, namely that it's good as gold.
The end of cheap money has arrived. You can easily guess what happens next. US national debt has a mere 64 month turn over period to it. Countries like China have shifted most of their treasuries to short term holdings. 5% * $20 trillion = $1 trillion in interest alone. See Japan for an example of what happens, they currently pay half their tax revenue toward debt interest.
Not true. Europe and Japan are even worse off, and the average standard of living for a Chinese worker is pitiful.
You have it completely backwards. We were net exporting post-war, now we're net importing. Imports are benefits; net importing is a good thing if the rest of the world is letting you get away with it.
No, I've got it 100% spot on.
The proof as they say, is in the pudding.
By the time the world stops letting you get away with massive debt binging, it's too late and you're screwed. Exactly as we are today. Which is why our central bank has to 'print' in order to fund the government or it would instantly be insolvent. The QE programs are primarily about debt monetization (which is what quantitative easing was always about historically) to keep the Federal Government from collapsing.
Net exporting is how you create rapid domestic wealth: you sell manufactured goods to the rest of the world at a profit, and consume less than you earn. Just ask China about their massive increase in national wealth built on the back of net exports.
The proof as they say, is in the pudding.
By the time the world stops letting you get away with massive debt binging, it's too late and you're screwed. Exactly as we are today. Which is why our central bank has to 'print' in order to fund the government or it would instantly be insolvent. The QE programs are primarily about debt monetization (which is what quantitative easing was always about historically) to keep the Federal Government from collapsing.
Net exporting is how you create rapid domestic wealth: you sell manufactured goods to the rest of the world at a profit, and consume less than you earn. Just ask China about their massive increase in national wealth built on the back of net exports.
Government bonds and currency are different forms of government debt. One yields interest at a rate of the Fed's choosing, one does not. The net effect of swapping the private sector's bonds for the Fed's cash reserves is to remove interest income from the private sector.
This is an incredibly broad, overgeneralized, and unsupported argument.
1) The real US standard of living has declined since the 1960s? What? What is "the real US standard of living?" How is it measured and where is the evidence it has declined? Here's a quick list of vast improvements since the 1960s, all contributing to standard of living: civil rights, medicine, commercial flight, computers/phones/internet, globalization, declining crime rates. Those are just a few.
2)America got rich with manufacturing, poor with consumption? Sorry, this is just not how economics works. There are not simply two types of economies that equally add and subtract from each other. There are more kinds of exports than "manufacturing," and consumption drives manufacturing. Also, explain to me why the Chinese government is making a concerted effort to transition into a consumption economy, if it is so bad?
3) You mak a good point about currency. But understand how much of the world economy, not just the US economy, depends on the dollar. US debt is not only a US issue. Almost every country, especially China, has a vested interest in the success of the dollar. That fact alone will keep it afloat.
1) The real US standard of living has declined since the 1960s? What? What is "the real US standard of living?" How is it measured and where is the evidence it has declined? Here's a quick list of vast improvements since the 1960s, all contributing to standard of living: civil rights, medicine, commercial flight, computers/phones/internet, globalization, declining crime rates. Those are just a few.
2)America got rich with manufacturing, poor with consumption? Sorry, this is just not how economics works. There are not simply two types of economies that equally add and subtract from each other. There are more kinds of exports than "manufacturing," and consumption drives manufacturing. Also, explain to me why the Chinese government is making a concerted effort to transition into a consumption economy, if it is so bad?
3) You mak a good point about currency. But understand how much of the world economy, not just the US economy, depends on the dollar. US debt is not only a US issue. Almost every country, especially China, has a vested interest in the success of the dollar. That fact alone will keep it afloat.
It's completely, easily supported. The facts of America's economic decline speak volumes.
- National debt skyrocketing to extreme imbalances; it's so extreme now, America can hardly afford 1% interest on the national debt
- A hundred trillion in entitlement liabilities that can never actually be paid for, with social security already bleeding out negative flows, and there is no actual SS trust fund
- Significant erosion in the labor force participation rate, even as the population expands and a lot more households in which both parents work versus in the 1960s or 1970s
- Welfare dependency has soared
- Food stamp usage has soared
- Big surge in part time jobs; and 2nd & 3rd jobs
- U6 (aka real) unemployment has soared, now at 14.3%
- Trade deficits continue at extreme levels
- Federal Reserve has to buy 75%+ of all new US government debt to keep the government from becoming insolvent, leading to a guaranteed fiscal downward spiral that is already happening
- Economy requires permanent 0% interest rates, and trillions worth of QE stimulus just to stay flat lined
- Massive long term manufacturing job losses
- Huge plunge in return on invested capital by corporations over 40 years
- Unsustainable imbalance between consumption and manufacturing, leading to an explosion in consumer debt over 40 years
- Hyper implosion in the savings rate
- 76% of all Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/index.h...
- A trillion dollars in student loan debt that didn't exist just 20 years ago; larger than all credit card debt, and guaranteed to either drown this generation, or require a massive printed bailout; with no jobs to match the loan debt
- Primary job growth exists in services, specifically the hospitality industry; aka consumption jobs; and that's only doing ok due to the Fed inflating the stock market, so rich people are spending on hospitality
- Significant plunge in full time jobs as a trend; 240,000 were lost last month alone
- Huge shift in financial inequality in every respect
- Minimum wage falling by 70% over 40 years
- Huge decline in real disposable income
- Balance of equity to debt in home ownership
- Balance of equity to debt in car ownership (2nd most expensive thing consumers buy)
- Income per capita, 1960's vs today, relative to all other major industrialized nations
- Massive erosion in the dollar since 1970 has stolen a huge amount of standard of living from the bottom economic tiers who are least able to adjust to even modest amounts of inflation
This list is very long and it keeps going
- National debt skyrocketing to extreme imbalances; it's so extreme now, America can hardly afford 1% interest on the national debt
- A hundred trillion in entitlement liabilities that can never actually be paid for, with social security already bleeding out negative flows, and there is no actual SS trust fund
- Significant erosion in the labor force participation rate, even as the population expands and a lot more households in which both parents work versus in the 1960s or 1970s
- Welfare dependency has soared
- Food stamp usage has soared
- Big surge in part time jobs; and 2nd & 3rd jobs
- U6 (aka real) unemployment has soared, now at 14.3%
- Trade deficits continue at extreme levels
- Federal Reserve has to buy 75%+ of all new US government debt to keep the government from becoming insolvent, leading to a guaranteed fiscal downward spiral that is already happening
- Economy requires permanent 0% interest rates, and trillions worth of QE stimulus just to stay flat lined
- Massive long term manufacturing job losses
- Huge plunge in return on invested capital by corporations over 40 years
- Unsustainable imbalance between consumption and manufacturing, leading to an explosion in consumer debt over 40 years
- Hyper implosion in the savings rate
- 76% of all Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/index.h...
- A trillion dollars in student loan debt that didn't exist just 20 years ago; larger than all credit card debt, and guaranteed to either drown this generation, or require a massive printed bailout; with no jobs to match the loan debt
- Primary job growth exists in services, specifically the hospitality industry; aka consumption jobs; and that's only doing ok due to the Fed inflating the stock market, so rich people are spending on hospitality
- Significant plunge in full time jobs as a trend; 240,000 were lost last month alone
- Huge shift in financial inequality in every respect
- Minimum wage falling by 70% over 40 years
- Huge decline in real disposable income
- Balance of equity to debt in home ownership
- Balance of equity to debt in car ownership (2nd most expensive thing consumers buy)
- Income per capita, 1960's vs today, relative to all other major industrialized nations
- Massive erosion in the dollar since 1970 has stolen a huge amount of standard of living from the bottom economic tiers who are least able to adjust to even modest amounts of inflation
This list is very long and it keeps going
Also falling middle class incomes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A#t=8m25s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A#t=8m25s
Yeah, here too in the UK but worse. As I have said before even the satirists don't seem to give a toss. The level of apathy is stunning. Frankly, I think the terror scare stories have worked a treat, as I suppose is predictable. Which is amazing since we in the UK lived through a real(1) terrorist campaign with the IRA. All I hear is, "well, I don't care if the silly spooks see my boring facebook, email, shopping data. Ha, ha to them if they are that interested.". And that is it. Heh, even heard, "well, I've got nothing to hide".
I have to say, I don't really care any more. I have had enough. Yeah, I don't like what the US is doing, but my lot are in it up their necks, and are literally proud of it. My people don't care, my media don't care, no one cares. So I am the odd one out. Fine, we live in a so called democracy, so the people can have what they damn well deserve. My only hope is that I see this get really out of hand, and "normal" people start to get hurt by this. Then I can just stand there and laugh my sweet behind off at them, asking, "who did you vote for?".
As for me, I'll be a lot more careful, increasingly use security and simply act in a more aware way. Its all I can do. :(
(1)I say "real" because the "troubles" lasted over 30 years with sustained attacks of many kinds were successfully launched through that entire period, including the bombing of our entire government. Way worse than anything evil Muslims have done to the UK. I was indirectly involved, I know real terror. A one off attack is NOT terror. 30 odd years sustained, damn well is. Oh, a lot of it funded by Americans who saw the IRA as freedom fighters.
I have to say, I don't really care any more. I have had enough. Yeah, I don't like what the US is doing, but my lot are in it up their necks, and are literally proud of it. My people don't care, my media don't care, no one cares. So I am the odd one out. Fine, we live in a so called democracy, so the people can have what they damn well deserve. My only hope is that I see this get really out of hand, and "normal" people start to get hurt by this. Then I can just stand there and laugh my sweet behind off at them, asking, "who did you vote for?".
As for me, I'll be a lot more careful, increasingly use security and simply act in a more aware way. Its all I can do. :(
(1)I say "real" because the "troubles" lasted over 30 years with sustained attacks of many kinds were successfully launched through that entire period, including the bombing of our entire government. Way worse than anything evil Muslims have done to the UK. I was indirectly involved, I know real terror. A one off attack is NOT terror. 30 odd years sustained, damn well is. Oh, a lot of it funded by Americans who saw the IRA as freedom fighters.
All I hear is, "well, I don't care if the silly spooks see my boring facebook, email, shopping data. Ha, ha to them if they are that interested.".
The problem with a lot of civil liberties situations is that while the consequences of being the victim of a deliberate abuse or simply a mistake can be severe for the individual, the probability of being such a victim remains low, particularly if you're a good little citizen and keep your head down. This allows the kind of "it would never happen to me" mentality that Pastor Niemoeller tried to warn us about.
Realistically, the expected damage to an individual citizen from (for example) a busted economy or poor healthcare or low quality education really is much higher than the expected damage from a government failing to respect the civil liberties of its citizens, so the "meh, got bigger things to worry about" crowd do have a point here. It's just unfortunate that there is a lot of danger in the world and most people don't have the time to expend on every possible danger to them or their loved ones, so they naturally favour concentrating on the dangers they perceive to be the biggest threats.
We're supposed to have representative governments as a way to balance this problem, so that the people who are there as professional public servants have more time to consider the issues that aren't numbers 1-N on the list. Alas, numbers 1-N on the list then become the deciding factors in the elections that determine those representatives instead, and anything from N+1 on down can be handled or mishandled as the representatives and whatever special interest groups have their ear see fit.
I'd like to say I have a solution to this, but it seems to be an inherent problem built into typical modern political systems. However, it's deeply ironic that many governments' own actions in these cases seem to be doing exactly the opposite, letting the fear of a high-impact, low-probability event like a major terrorist attack dominate their agenda rather than dealing with vastly more important issues like the ones I mentioned before. I still don't quite understand what's really in it for them to constantly perpetuate the fear of crime and terrorism, nor for the media to collaborate in doing so. Surely spending all that time and money and public attention on high-profile, high-value projects that would actually make a difference to a lot of people's lives would give them more political capital come election time, but at the moment it seems as if the political classes have lost all perspective.
The problem with a lot of civil liberties situations is that while the consequences of being the victim of a deliberate abuse or simply a mistake can be severe for the individual, the probability of being such a victim remains low, particularly if you're a good little citizen and keep your head down. This allows the kind of "it would never happen to me" mentality that Pastor Niemoeller tried to warn us about.
Realistically, the expected damage to an individual citizen from (for example) a busted economy or poor healthcare or low quality education really is much higher than the expected damage from a government failing to respect the civil liberties of its citizens, so the "meh, got bigger things to worry about" crowd do have a point here. It's just unfortunate that there is a lot of danger in the world and most people don't have the time to expend on every possible danger to them or their loved ones, so they naturally favour concentrating on the dangers they perceive to be the biggest threats.
We're supposed to have representative governments as a way to balance this problem, so that the people who are there as professional public servants have more time to consider the issues that aren't numbers 1-N on the list. Alas, numbers 1-N on the list then become the deciding factors in the elections that determine those representatives instead, and anything from N+1 on down can be handled or mishandled as the representatives and whatever special interest groups have their ear see fit.
I'd like to say I have a solution to this, but it seems to be an inherent problem built into typical modern political systems. However, it's deeply ironic that many governments' own actions in these cases seem to be doing exactly the opposite, letting the fear of a high-impact, low-probability event like a major terrorist attack dominate their agenda rather than dealing with vastly more important issues like the ones I mentioned before. I still don't quite understand what's really in it for them to constantly perpetuate the fear of crime and terrorism, nor for the media to collaborate in doing so. Surely spending all that time and money and public attention on high-profile, high-value projects that would actually make a difference to a lot of people's lives would give them more political capital come election time, but at the moment it seems as if the political classes have lost all perspective.
Symbolically, 4th of July was a good choice, but practically it wasn't, because it seems people would rather celebrate the concept of freedom, instead of actually defending it. Or maybe they just wanted to enjoy their day off, and has nothing to do with freedom and whatnot.
Hopefully the protest will be repeated soon. This was kind of bad timing, because now politicians all over the world are also going to start their vacations, and it's summer and people don't want to think about "serious issues" anymore. But I agree it's still depressing.
Hopefully the protest will be repeated soon. This was kind of bad timing, because now politicians all over the world are also going to start their vacations, and it's summer and people don't want to think about "serious issues" anymore. But I agree it's still depressing.
A one-off protest does little (~0?) good with today's ADD media consumers.
If the United States is becoming more repressive, where can one go? Other English speaking countries such as Australia, England, and Singapore have problems with freedom of expression.
You cant flee anywhere nice, Snowden is trying to you and you see 99.9% of the world countries are willing to stuff their own constitutions and human rights treaties up their asses and stick their head in the sand at request of USA.
Russia is more like 11%, not 0.01 ;)
scnr
scnr
Try to do to Russia what Snowden did to USA and you will find polonium in your food. Also falsified elections. Not that good place if you like freedom.
Russia is not doing anything different: they are not going to grant Snowden asylum or citizenship. So they're well and truly in that 99.99% at this point, together with China and Venezuela.
They did offer him asylum, with the condition to shut the fuck up and not continually interfere in international politics.
He rejected it for his own reasons.
He rejected it for his own reasons.
Did you really take Putin at face value?
I think it is a safe bet that they knew what Snowdens values were before making the offer and they fully expected him to turn it down. Or they knew it for certain...
I think it is a safe bet that they knew what Snowdens values were before making the offer and they fully expected him to turn it down. Or they knew it for certain...
Their offer was clearly meant to be rejected; it was like offering Richard Stallman a job at Microsoft as long as he shut up about this whole Free Software stuff.
This sounds ridiculous, but lately I've been of the opinion that this planet is borked. I hold out serious hope for Elon Musk and his Mars colony. I seriously believe that we as a species need a fresh start in a new place. We need a new planet so we can try new things, create new ideas, and generally liberate ourselves of traditional conventions. It sounds pie-in-the-sky, but people are actively working on it and I hope to one day count myself among them.
America used to be the place where things like this could happen, but that's not so much anymore. There's still innovation, but the trend doesn't look good and most of the world just doesn't care.
America used to be the place where things like this could happen, but that's not so much anymore. There's still innovation, but the trend doesn't look good and most of the world just doesn't care.
What do you imagine will happen if Musk lands on Mars? Various countries will be claiming jurisdiction before he lands (assuming they don't already). They could simply call mars an extension of their country and hold him accountable to their laws for anything he does on Mars.
They could, but I'd like to see them enforce it. The worst they could do on Earth would be to stop rocket launches to Mars (which would be bad) but rockets can be launched in a variety of places. They represent a large injection of wealth into an area, and the economic benefits of hosting rocket infrastructure outweighs the cost of dealing with a loud but ultimately toothless colony. By the time Mars would represent a 'threat' it will be essentially self-sufficient and then there is little hold Earth would have over it.
Those on earth would still have the biggest military and as soon as the martian colony made it clear that they didn't submit to which ever overlords claimed them, that army would be in space on its way to Mars.
Fleeing earth doesn't instantly change human nature. The risks to liberty will remain no matter where you go.
The George Washington willing-to-cede-his-throne type will be just as rare on Mars in 2095 as it is today, as it was throughout history.
The George Washington willing-to-cede-his-throne type will be just as rare on Mars in 2095 as it is today, as it was throughout history.
True, but it might allow the freedom to implement alternative methods that clamp down on such things. Just as the New World allowed for the political innovations that has lead to modern democracy (however flawed), Mars would be a new frontier that could be used to create a better government with all the lessons the past 400 years has taught us. It would be an even better frontier, as Mars doesn't have the pesky problem of people already living there with all the historical baggage that accompany it. It doesn't have the terrible legacy of slavery and the social problems that that implies. It is a fresher start than we as a species have ever had, and we now how the proper perspective to avoid the pitfalls that we're currently saddled with. In time, much as democracy filtered its way back to Europe, a better system of governance could find its way back to Earth.
In any case, it would be a bold experiment. To go in with the intention of building a better social contract, or to rethink what that even means, is something that we should keep in mind. Mars shouldn't just be a joyride in 0.4 g, but an intentional effort to rethink society.
In any case, it would be a bold experiment. To go in with the intention of building a better social contract, or to rethink what that even means, is something that we should keep in mind. Mars shouldn't just be a joyride in 0.4 g, but an intentional effort to rethink society.
"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once." —Heinlein
I think a better bet would be to create a nation in international waters.
So you've moved to Mars. Through a stunning feat of engineering, humanity has designed a ship that can make the journey, land tons of people and equipment without crashing, and has deployed a habitat of some kind intact.
Well congratulations. You now live in a tube or box in a freezing, unbreathable, radiated, barren desert. The only way you can go outside is by donning a bulky environmental suit and breathing apparatus. You may have brought a dune buggy of some kind along for exploration, but you can't go very far. If something happens to it, your spare parts are numbered and you probably won't survive the night out there, spending your last moments staring at yet more sand and rocks.
You don't have real mining or manufacturing capabilities and a resupply takes years. At best, you might have a high-end industrial 3D printer for parts, but your (specialty!) raw materials will run out very quickly, and you can't 3D print truly complicated things.
The remainder of your life now depends on you maintaining a delicate, miniature artificial ecosystem inside, so you can produce food and oxygen indefinitely. This is a feat which, when we tried it back here on Earth, failed miserably (Biosphere 2). That was with the luxury of Earth-based construction, at atmospheric pressure, without having to ship materials out and in of two enormous gravity wells. Environmental integrity was a question of science, not one of life and death. Besides, there is no reason to believe that Earth's ecosystem itself is stable long-term, never mind an artificially picked subset of it.
Once the honeymoon period is over and you've settled in, you will slowly come to understand what it means to be truly alone. You will never again see the people you left behind. You cannot move away if you get into irreconcilable conflict. Your survival depends on maintaining social cohesion above else, despite none of the usual comforts being available.
If, above all odds, people manage to not go insane on their own, there's always Dunbar's number: a suggested upper limit on the size of stable social groups. In case of ideological rifts, it is impossible for people to move away and start over: unlike on Earth, a new colony can only be started with the full and unconditional cooperation of an existing one.
If you want to try new things, Mars is the last place to do so. Whoever goes there will be clinging to the way things were.
We already have a vague approximation of colonizing Mars anyway: Antarctica. Go read about life on McMurdo base for example, or this: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/big-stink-brews-in-anta...
Well congratulations. You now live in a tube or box in a freezing, unbreathable, radiated, barren desert. The only way you can go outside is by donning a bulky environmental suit and breathing apparatus. You may have brought a dune buggy of some kind along for exploration, but you can't go very far. If something happens to it, your spare parts are numbered and you probably won't survive the night out there, spending your last moments staring at yet more sand and rocks.
You don't have real mining or manufacturing capabilities and a resupply takes years. At best, you might have a high-end industrial 3D printer for parts, but your (specialty!) raw materials will run out very quickly, and you can't 3D print truly complicated things.
The remainder of your life now depends on you maintaining a delicate, miniature artificial ecosystem inside, so you can produce food and oxygen indefinitely. This is a feat which, when we tried it back here on Earth, failed miserably (Biosphere 2). That was with the luxury of Earth-based construction, at atmospheric pressure, without having to ship materials out and in of two enormous gravity wells. Environmental integrity was a question of science, not one of life and death. Besides, there is no reason to believe that Earth's ecosystem itself is stable long-term, never mind an artificially picked subset of it.
Once the honeymoon period is over and you've settled in, you will slowly come to understand what it means to be truly alone. You will never again see the people you left behind. You cannot move away if you get into irreconcilable conflict. Your survival depends on maintaining social cohesion above else, despite none of the usual comforts being available.
If, above all odds, people manage to not go insane on their own, there's always Dunbar's number: a suggested upper limit on the size of stable social groups. In case of ideological rifts, it is impossible for people to move away and start over: unlike on Earth, a new colony can only be started with the full and unconditional cooperation of an existing one.
If you want to try new things, Mars is the last place to do so. Whoever goes there will be clinging to the way things were.
We already have a vague approximation of colonizing Mars anyway: Antarctica. Go read about life on McMurdo base for example, or this: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/big-stink-brews-in-anta...
There are perfectly good engineering solutions to all of the points you've raised which I won't go into here, because I don't want to waste your time or mine. I'll just state that Biosphere 2 was a terrible experiment that in no way reflects the proper way to do a mission of that sort. Additionally, there are myriad ways of generating resources in-situ, especially with using the Martian atmosphere.
The point is that I'm not talking about a society a year or even a decade into a mission. Once the groundwork is laid, though, the possibilities emerge. The colonies didn't revolt until 169 years after Jamestown was founded. I'll finish by saying that your pessimism is unfounded, as very smart people have figured out solutions to most of the problems you have presented. Furthermore, just because you personally do not find such a situation to your liking doesn't mean that others feel the same way.
The point is that I'm not talking about a society a year or even a decade into a mission. Once the groundwork is laid, though, the possibilities emerge. The colonies didn't revolt until 169 years after Jamestown was founded. I'll finish by saying that your pessimism is unfounded, as very smart people have figured out solutions to most of the problems you have presented. Furthermore, just because you personally do not find such a situation to your liking doesn't mean that others feel the same way.
Cheer up, I was being cynical because of this specifically:
"We need a new planet so we can try new things, create new ideas, and generally liberate ourselves of traditional conventions."
Of all the places to try out 'new conventions', the harshest frontier in human history does not sound like a good idea. And I agree, BioSphere was terrible, but the important thing is that it failed (mainly) for human reasons, not scientific ones. I think it is entirely possible we lack the capacity as a species to thrive outside our world.
I don't think the scientific problems are impossible to overcome, but I do think anyone who flies there with any notion of romantic exploration and a new beginning is going on a suicide mission.
"We need a new planet so we can try new things, create new ideas, and generally liberate ourselves of traditional conventions."
Of all the places to try out 'new conventions', the harshest frontier in human history does not sound like a good idea. And I agree, BioSphere was terrible, but the important thing is that it failed (mainly) for human reasons, not scientific ones. I think it is entirely possible we lack the capacity as a species to thrive outside our world.
I don't think the scientific problems are impossible to overcome, but I do think anyone who flies there with any notion of romantic exploration and a new beginning is going on a suicide mission.
I'm sorry if that came off rather strongly - I'm very passionate about the subject!
I you can write code there are a lot of countries you could support yourself in. I've visited and in some cases worked in 49 countries with minimal foreign language skills.
Learn another language? :-)
I'm learning Japanese, but what I hear about their criminal justice system is not inspiring.
And then go where?
That's a whole other question but at least it opens your options up a bit more.
Form a new country? Speaking as amateur cartographer, I support all independence movements, because it will give cartographers new borders to draw on maps and thus a reason for people to buy new maps.
Declare the East Coast US States independent and be done with it; I am tired of waiting.
Declare the East Coast US States independent and be done with it; I am tired of waiting.
The Southern US States tried that. Didn't go very well. (Bloodiest war the USA was involved in.)
"Declare the East Coast US States independent and be done with it; I am tired of waiting."
How does that solve this problem? I mean, I can't even guess which side of this issue you think the "East Coast" is on.
How does that solve this problem? I mean, I can't even guess which side of this issue you think the "East Coast" is on.
Oh, it is entirely unrelated to this particular issue. But the population of America could benefit from more local democracy rather than something far away as Washington, D.C..
Now one may argue that that is already defined in the Constitution and that even if it wasn't, more local politics could be enforced by law by reducing the reach of the federal government. But I doubt either of us are that naïve.
The USA have proved that democracy does not scale well. And that is why it has moved to centralise power ever since the Constitution was signed.
It may not be a victory for privacy, but it would be a victory for democracy.
Now one may argue that that is already defined in the Constitution and that even if it wasn't, more local politics could be enforced by law by reducing the reach of the federal government. But I doubt either of us are that naïve.
The USA have proved that democracy does not scale well. And that is why it has moved to centralise power ever since the Constitution was signed.
It may not be a victory for privacy, but it would be a victory for democracy.
Ah, now that I can almost get behind.
One of the few plausible ways out of the mess we find ourselves in right now is a strong movement towards states rights. Nominally, the states have a lot more power in our system then they are currently exercising, so it doesn't require any new law, just some assertions of what already exists (albeit in the form of Constitutional Conventions rather than simply asserting laws, which would be simpler). It's not my perfect ideological solution by any means, but it's one of the few practical ones, inasmuch as it does involve walking up to a group of people and asking them to go grab more power as competing interests, rather than asking people with power to unilaterally disarm, which is pretty much a "fat chance" option.
Secession is in some sense the ultimate State's right extreme, but I wouldn't advocate it until more normal avenues were tried and failed. It has... proved hazardous, to say the least.
One of the few plausible ways out of the mess we find ourselves in right now is a strong movement towards states rights. Nominally, the states have a lot more power in our system then they are currently exercising, so it doesn't require any new law, just some assertions of what already exists (albeit in the form of Constitutional Conventions rather than simply asserting laws, which would be simpler). It's not my perfect ideological solution by any means, but it's one of the few practical ones, inasmuch as it does involve walking up to a group of people and asking them to go grab more power as competing interests, rather than asking people with power to unilaterally disarm, which is pretty much a "fat chance" option.
Secession is in some sense the ultimate State's right extreme, but I wouldn't advocate it until more normal avenues were tried and failed. It has... proved hazardous, to say the least.
I realise of course you refer to the American Civil War. But there are some striking differences between then and now.
I imagine it would be like this; a state (or more) announce that they will hold a referendum on independence, months (or even years) before the actual referendum will take place (similar to how it will take place in Scotland). This will give the President and the Federal Government time to react without having to sort to arms right away.
Furthermore, a referendum is particularly what will set it apart from the American Civil War; this will be the will of the people (of that state, obviously) and not merely the will of the state (which was the case during the American Civil War, it was merely the legislatures that decided to secede, and not by referendum).
This will make it much harder to justify for the federal government to intervene with military. Seeing as the process will open and peaceful, it would be seen as a considerable overreaction by the federal government to strike down with force on a seceding state.
In addition because war has gotten so much more terrible, and I doubt you'd even convince the army of doing so.
In short; I do not believe that you should be afraid of a military response to an independence, as long as you play fair. That's just intimidation. It would be sad to see that the only thing keeping the American states united was fear.
However, I do agree with you that independence should be the last resort. But considering the last few decades, it seems many things have already been tried.
I imagine it would be like this; a state (or more) announce that they will hold a referendum on independence, months (or even years) before the actual referendum will take place (similar to how it will take place in Scotland). This will give the President and the Federal Government time to react without having to sort to arms right away.
Furthermore, a referendum is particularly what will set it apart from the American Civil War; this will be the will of the people (of that state, obviously) and not merely the will of the state (which was the case during the American Civil War, it was merely the legislatures that decided to secede, and not by referendum).
This will make it much harder to justify for the federal government to intervene with military. Seeing as the process will open and peaceful, it would be seen as a considerable overreaction by the federal government to strike down with force on a seceding state.
In addition because war has gotten so much more terrible, and I doubt you'd even convince the army of doing so.
In short; I do not believe that you should be afraid of a military response to an independence, as long as you play fair. That's just intimidation. It would be sad to see that the only thing keeping the American states united was fear.
However, I do agree with you that independence should be the last resort. But considering the last few decades, it seems many things have already been tried.
The point of the Constitution was to create a stronger central government then we had under the articles of confederation.
...and the point of Svip is that since then, the central government has grown much stronger to the point of being detrimental.
Also, you can go to country X that may not be repressive, but if you want to call abroad or use the internet, you are still inspected by routers in all the other countries that you would consider repressive.
There are no more wild frontiers until we move into space, unfortunately.
This Snowden affair made me realize that if no government wants to claim you, you are truly screwed. That's a modern development that I do not like.
Seasteading?
Possible, but terribly expensive. There's been much discussion (see "Oceania" and other projects) but little progress.
There's always Sealand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
> People get what they deserve, and the world apparently deserves the US monitoring all of its communications.
Ironically, this is exactly the mindset behind statements like "I don't care" and the 50+% of pepole who don't even follow such things.
Ironically, this is exactly the mindset behind statements like "I don't care" and the 50+% of pepole who don't even follow such things.
In a status quo versus change debate. An "I don't care" vote, is a vote for the status quo.
People want a quiet life where they don't have to worry about the safety of their children, and this is exactly what everyone deserves. This is a generally a force for good in the world but it can be subverted by bad regimes. Human rights are designed to protect everyone even if they lack a passion for freedom, or safety, or national security. By disdaining other viewpoints you are thinking in terms of civic virtue instead of basic rights, which is characteristic of fascism, not democracy.
Terror is NOT their main risk.
If the same money was put in to health, road safety, gun control, and so on, they would be much more secure and safe. Real lives would be saved, not hypothetical ones. But since they are high on terrorist stories fed to them by the terror dealers in government, via their media runners, they will never know that, so their sense of security is utterly false.
PRISM will not save them from the real statistical dangers in any way. It will not ever give them a quiet life.
If the same money was put in to health, road safety, gun control, and so on, they would be much more secure and safe. Real lives would be saved, not hypothetical ones. But since they are high on terrorist stories fed to them by the terror dealers in government, via their media runners, they will never know that, so their sense of security is utterly false.
PRISM will not save them from the real statistical dangers in any way. It will not ever give them a quiet life.
I agree with you but an honest and insightful comment (in my opinion) didn't deserve to get downvoted to gray. I thought that was reserved for crazies and trolls, not people expressing a self-evident position.
The fact that the priorities of most people are not necessarily aligned with reality isn't the fault of someone explaining the status quo. This gets missed, I think sometimes, in these discussions.
The fact that the priorities of most people are not necessarily aligned with reality isn't the fault of someone explaining the status quo. This gets missed, I think sometimes, in these discussions.
Warm fuzzies can be dangerously misguided leading to tragic consequences. The post sounds good on the surface, but such sentiment leads to ends far from what is intended. It may be honest, but not particularly insightful.
A quiet life free of safety concerns is NOT a right, and attempting implementation thereof via government necessitates serious violation of other fundamental rights. A "proper" totalitarian police state is the only means to that end - and not something many of us are going to put up with.
(No, I didn't downvote it, but understand why one would.)
A quiet life free of safety concerns is NOT a right, and attempting implementation thereof via government necessitates serious violation of other fundamental rights. A "proper" totalitarian police state is the only means to that end - and not something many of us are going to put up with.
(No, I didn't downvote it, but understand why one would.)
If we use upvotes to signal agreement, then it is only natural that people use downvotes to signal disagreement. I don't have a link for it right now, but pg has say that as much is expected.
I agree 100%. I just disagree with the Ben Franklin position that people don't deserve security or freedom merely because they suffer from the human condition.
People want a quiet life where they don't have to worry about the safety of their children, and this is exactly what everyone deserves
Why do they deserve this, and not to be told that the life and safety you propose is not possible to provide? I would further argue that safety and quietude are not basic rights, and while I'm open to having my mind changed on the topic, I have never been able to find evidence that what you say is so.
Why do they deserve this, and not to be told that the life and safety you propose is not possible to provide? I would further argue that safety and quietude are not basic rights, and while I'm open to having my mind changed on the topic, I have never been able to find evidence that what you say is so.
> The protests were an abysmal failure.
They were scheduled to take place on the fourth of July. I understand and appreciate the symbolism, but the date makes a large turnout unlikely.
They were scheduled to take place on the fourth of July. I understand and appreciate the symbolism, but the date makes a large turnout unlikely.
yes and if they gathered at the same location and time as the 4th of July festivities, like many protests, it has a large chance of not even being reported by the media...
it also deserves a whole load of other governments monitoring communications, some of which would be quite happy to take over if the us collapses
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
— C. S. Lewis
— C. S. Lewis
That reads to me as an atheist statement, yet C.S. Lewis was a Christian apologist according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis
I would propose that is because Americans (both Christian and non-Christian) have confused Conservatism with Christianity. (I don't really blame the non-Christians for their confusion. Conservatives conflate the two often enough that even the Christians are confused.)
Lewis, to the best of my knowledge (and I've read most of his works), didn't invest much time in political activism—much as Jesus was content to pay the Roman soldiers his taxes due and return to teaching.
(I'm a bit of a politico, myself, but it's just a hobby. Or my Malcolm Reynolds side coming out. I don't mistake it for my faith. Bush and Obama are both equally bad news in my book.)
Lewis, to the best of my knowledge (and I've read most of his works), didn't invest much time in political activism—much as Jesus was content to pay the Roman soldiers his taxes due and return to teaching.
(I'm a bit of a politico, myself, but it's just a hobby. Or my Malcolm Reynolds side coming out. I don't mistake it for my faith. Bush and Obama are both equally bad news in my book.)
Careful of the No True Scotsman fallacy. It’s super common for people in certain groups (e.g. Christianity) to say, “Oh, but real Christianity doesn’t believe or condone X, Y, or Z” while, in fact, huge numbers of people who self-identify as members of that group do, in fact, believe or do X, Y, and Z.
Sure. But it's just as fallacious to assume an author is contradictory because “Christianity” was redefined in another country after he already died.
Words can have different meanings depending on context, that's normal, but just like when we're writing software, we have to establish the context before we'll get anywhere.
Words can have different meanings depending on context, that's normal, but just like when we're writing software, we have to establish the context before we'll get anywhere.
It don't see any theological standpoint, just a critique of authority structures.
Is religion not an authority structure?
Religion isn't really relevant to the quote as far as I can tell. While various religions can have many and various authority structures, not all do, and of those do, many if not most aren't theocratic. Both tyranny and political imposition by busybodies constantly seeking protect us from ourselves exist in purely secular forms. Bringing religion into the discussion just distracts from the point.
He was actually an atheist before he was a Christian apologist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis#Conversion_to_Chri...
[deleted]
Sadly this is true. The constitution that the USA was founded on not only affected the people of North America, but the virtues documented there were held as paragons of a just society for the entire industrialized western hemisphere.
Sadly, we are seeing these values eroding and dying. And the few that stand up for them, being imprisoned or silenced.
I despair.
Sadly, we are seeing these values eroding and dying. And the few that stand up for them, being imprisoned or silenced.
I despair.
I do not think your closing statement requires the leading "if", sadly, and can be put in the present or past tense.
The American people do not understand this. They have been abandoning their freedoms and liberty voluntarily at a breathtaking pace for at least the last 12 years, and show no sign of stopping.
The American people do not understand this. They have been abandoning their freedoms and liberty voluntarily at a breathtaking pace for at least the last 12 years, and show no sign of stopping.
Americans are taught from a young age about the foundations of our country, a cultural heritage on the same order of magnitude as the Bible or Greek mythology. Demigods formed this government during the Heroic Age, the most perfect the world has ever known, and while we understand that we mere Iron Age mortals may controvert its principles with certain actions, at its core the government is fundamentally the same.
Under cover of this shared belief the American government has a wide degree of latitude to collude with corporations, torture, and spy on its own citizens. They are permitted to do this because the American citizen believes, and would prefer to believe, it is done in his own best interests; because the possibility of it affecting him directly is remote; and because even if he wanted to effect change he is after all only one person.
Under cover of this shared belief the American government has a wide degree of latitude to collude with corporations, torture, and spy on its own citizens. They are permitted to do this because the American citizen believes, and would prefer to believe, it is done in his own best interests; because the possibility of it affecting him directly is remote; and because even if he wanted to effect change he is after all only one person.
"If humans were angels there would be no need for government to begin with, and if elected leaders were angels there would be less need for protection of our privacy -- but humans are not angels and we have experience with elected leaders that are partisan, opportunist, short-sighted and, sometimes, even corrupt. Government's natural inclination is to abuse its power, one critical reason why our Founders limited it. "
Sounds like direct plagarism of this:
"Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural address
Sounds like direct plagarism of this:
"Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural address
It is a huge stretch to label something plagiarism merely because it expresses a similar idea or argument. The wording is completely different, and the argument itself is quite common.
'Paraphrase' is a more accurate term.
Perhaps Information should become a separate branch of government.
That way, at least we could construct a clean interface with the other branches and prevent the executive branch from having direct, unfettered access.
Information is vitally important and I can see the benefits of concentrating information into one place for security and even efficiency reasons but I think that sector needs some kind of overarching framework for access and dissemination to other branches of government and to the People. But, basically, without cooperation of the other branches, Information would be neutered. They would be incapable of acting on the information they possess. We probably don't want it totally controlled by career politicians so it would need a different structure than Congress and we don't want it run by the same people forever so we need a different structure than the Judiciary. And we need a way to look into the black box in a controlled and reliable manner as the People.
I am not sure how to structure it. It is just the seed of an idea, but it may be worth some real thought and debate.
That way, at least we could construct a clean interface with the other branches and prevent the executive branch from having direct, unfettered access.
Information is vitally important and I can see the benefits of concentrating information into one place for security and even efficiency reasons but I think that sector needs some kind of overarching framework for access and dissemination to other branches of government and to the People. But, basically, without cooperation of the other branches, Information would be neutered. They would be incapable of acting on the information they possess. We probably don't want it totally controlled by career politicians so it would need a different structure than Congress and we don't want it run by the same people forever so we need a different structure than the Judiciary. And we need a way to look into the black box in a controlled and reliable manner as the People.
I am not sure how to structure it. It is just the seed of an idea, but it may be worth some real thought and debate.
You're assuming the executive branch actually controls the "intelligence branch". I would say that's a big assumption.
With the press having largely abandoned its role as Fourth Estate it seems like we need to find a replacement. Clearly, the intelligence establishment has more influence than the press does these days, so it gets my vote.
With the press having largely abandoned its role as Fourth Estate it seems like we need to find a replacement. Clearly, the intelligence establishment has more influence than the press does these days, so it gets my vote.
Good point, but why did you proposed speed limits or illegal downloading instead of insider trading or other financial crimes? Why not proposing some special eavesdropping on wall street operators?
The author picked crimes that would be perpetrated by the majority of population, as examples.
In another article, someone said there are so many laws and statutes (around 3000) that a person could potentially violate, that there is no sure way to maintain yourself legit.
For the government it's just a matter of finding something to pin on any person.
In another article, someone said there are so many laws and statutes (around 3000) that a person could potentially violate, that there is no sure way to maintain yourself legit.
For the government it's just a matter of finding something to pin on any person.
Are you implying that child pornography is more diffused than financial crimes? Or that there is a weird top chart of crimes where terrorism > child pornography > speed limits > financial crimes?
It occurred to me that with only traffic analysis of US mail, NSA could probably stop the drug trade in a matter of weeks.
What they don't do is almost as telling as what they do.
What they don't do is almost as telling as what they do.
The biggest problem, in that regard, is they're consuming so much raw data they can't get even remotely close to acquiring actual intelligence from the radical majority of it.
I think it'll take another two decades of software improvement for them to be able to shut down the drug trade even if they wanted to.
For now, there's little question they could easily go after the highest profile targets. I agree they're not trying to.
I think it'll take another two decades of software improvement for them to be able to shut down the drug trade even if they wanted to.
For now, there's little question they could easily go after the highest profile targets. I agree they're not trying to.
NSA findings are used more for politic matters.
Why do you think they do not do that?
1) it would draw attention to their collection activities
2) it would draw attention to their data analysis abilities
3) they don't care if people get high
4) they would prefer to have the leverage against everyone involved for use on an individual basis should they ever need it in the future should the need/mission/assignment arise
2) it would draw attention to their data analysis abilities
3) they don't care if people get high
4) they would prefer to have the leverage against everyone involved for use on an individual basis should they ever need it in the future should the need/mission/assignment arise
...because PRISM is not about protecting Americans it is about protecting politicians and rich people. Sound simplistic but Empires fall abruptly and their arc downward is not like a rainbow - it's a car crash off a cliff:
Harvard professor Neil Ferguson has an article about how economics drives rapid empire collapse.
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/07/28/sun_could_...
Rome fell in 30-years. The French Revolution took just three years after France became insolvent. Russia fell in about a decade. Egypt in a few short weeks. Is Greece next? Severe economic disparity is what they all have in common.
USA politicians must utterly fear the people they govern and with mounting USA debt, robots & software crushing jobs, it may be unlikely that the US would collapse but economic travail are the seeds that would make it happen and PRISM is the watchdog in my opinion.
If the US collapsed imagine the court trials politicians would be subjected to: War crimes, financial crimes, congressional and senatorial insider trading scams exposed, selective enforcement of laws so as to hurt specific individuals and political competitors...
Harvard professor Neil Ferguson has an article about how economics drives rapid empire collapse.
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/07/28/sun_could_...
Rome fell in 30-years. The French Revolution took just three years after France became insolvent. Russia fell in about a decade. Egypt in a few short weeks. Is Greece next? Severe economic disparity is what they all have in common.
USA politicians must utterly fear the people they govern and with mounting USA debt, robots & software crushing jobs, it may be unlikely that the US would collapse but economic travail are the seeds that would make it happen and PRISM is the watchdog in my opinion.
If the US collapsed imagine the court trials politicians would be subjected to: War crimes, financial crimes, congressional and senatorial insider trading scams exposed, selective enforcement of laws so as to hurt specific individuals and political competitors...
Good piece. But why no attribution on the blatant paraphrase of another Madison quote? "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
Written by a member of the Internet Society Project (ISP) at Yale Law School.
If you are interested in these topics, follow it and its members. They are all over this stuff.
If you are interested in these topics, follow it and its members. They are all over this stuff.
[deleted]
Roughly, this statement does wonders for people who believe in state surveillance: If the society you are supporting is a society in which committing a crime is not reasonably possible, then the society you are describing is totalitarian. Forget source. Works wonders.
But politicians are telling people they are trying to prevent crime... and people seem to support that idea. Why wouldn't they ? Preventing crimes before it happens is good.
Of course no politician tell them (or know) how ugly the surveillance is really going to be. People may not realize they are wishing for a dictatorship but complete control, or attempt to get complete control, leads to that kind of political system.
My point is: few know what totalitarinism is and how to recognize it.
Of course no politician tell them (or know) how ugly the surveillance is really going to be. People may not realize they are wishing for a dictatorship but complete control, or attempt to get complete control, leads to that kind of political system.
My point is: few know what totalitarinism is and how to recognize it.
Most people in true totalitarian states manage to normalize the situation and go about their lives. They just accept that you vote for Saddam Hussein, present your documents upon "papierein, bitte", report your neighbors to the KGB, and hand over half your income to the IRS. Those who don't tend to just disappear - quietly, with politically correct mumbling about "good riddance".
Few are willing to fight for their right to live at risk. Their neighbors see to it (if indirectly) the consequences are swift and severe, quiet and veiled.
Few are willing to fight for their right to live at risk. Their neighbors see to it (if indirectly) the consequences are swift and severe, quiet and veiled.
Vote for Obama or Romney? Both indistinguishable when it comes to the question of surveillance and basic constitutional freedoms.
We routinely hand over our "papers" when traveling, or even when just buying beer.
"If you see something, say something" hardly needs additional comment.
They're not nearly as extreme as they are or have been in some places, but the US certainly seems to qualify for all the basics you outlined. And we have indeed normalized the situation to go about our lives.
We routinely hand over our "papers" when traveling, or even when just buying beer.
"If you see something, say something" hardly needs additional comment.
They're not nearly as extreme as they are or have been in some places, but the US certainly seems to qualify for all the basics you outlined. And we have indeed normalized the situation to go about our lives.
Of course terrorism is the way to get the foot in the door. Once total surveillance is cemented and the possibilities for public outrage have diminished enough, it will be broadened to murderers, pedophiles and so forth.
For pointers of where it'll stop, I think we can look at society today. Where the people in power are very careful not to threaten their privileges. Milking the people as much as they can while not to cause the public to seriously demand change. (of course the milking equipment gets more and more sophisticated)
So in the end those surveillance tools won't be used for petty crimes (except where it concerns the least powerful) but everything that could send you to jail for half a year or more.
For pointers of where it'll stop, I think we can look at society today. Where the people in power are very careful not to threaten their privileges. Milking the people as much as they can while not to cause the public to seriously demand change. (of course the milking equipment gets more and more sophisticated)
So in the end those surveillance tools won't be used for petty crimes (except where it concerns the least powerful) but everything that could send you to jail for half a year or more.
Let's talk about public outrage. In the last decade the US has officially invaded countries, tortured prisoner (and still continue), lied and spied its citizen, blatantly ignored the responsible for the biggest crisis in a century.
All of that happened, and well, there is still no real public and media outrage.
All of that happened, and well, there is still no real public and media outrage.
That wasn't a very well-written article. First off, the anachronism of quoting James Madison to discuss internet privacy. Did you know that James Madison also owned slaves? Is the author condoning slavery?
Second off, the intrusions he discuss already happen in the private sector. Having your credit card transaction? Wake up, that already happens. Child pornography; I'm fine with the state creating a system to find child pornographers.
His point about the cold war is also inaccurate. Nuclear war with the Soviet Union didn't happen because each side was basically assured destruction. Our surveillance there was to figure out what they were capable of (satellites, U2 / SR71s) not local communication as is the case with terrorism.
So a bunch of vague talk about our privacy with bad comparisons. The fear of terrorism? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU
Society has already moved beyond what this guy is talking about. Look at the Anthony Wiener case; he could very well be the next mayor of New York.
We have more freedom and more ways to talk than ever before.
There are other points he should have made better, specifically whether the archive could be manipulated. Snowden also mentioned this but this could easily be handled by simple hashing. Maybe they should propose it but I'd bet it's already being done.
Second off, the intrusions he discuss already happen in the private sector. Having your credit card transaction? Wake up, that already happens. Child pornography; I'm fine with the state creating a system to find child pornographers.
His point about the cold war is also inaccurate. Nuclear war with the Soviet Union didn't happen because each side was basically assured destruction. Our surveillance there was to figure out what they were capable of (satellites, U2 / SR71s) not local communication as is the case with terrorism.
So a bunch of vague talk about our privacy with bad comparisons. The fear of terrorism? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU
Society has already moved beyond what this guy is talking about. Look at the Anthony Wiener case; he could very well be the next mayor of New York.
We have more freedom and more ways to talk than ever before.
There are other points he should have made better, specifically whether the archive could be manipulated. Snowden also mentioned this but this could easily be handled by simple hashing. Maybe they should propose it but I'd bet it's already being done.
Once you own slaves you are rotten to the core and nothing that comes out of your mouth is worth paying attention to?
One of the points of the article was that humans are fallible, that is our nature. Best to prepare for that fact in advance (like assuming someone will steal your data stored with the government).
One of the points of the article was that humans are fallible, that is our nature. Best to prepare for that fact in advance (like assuming someone will steal your data stored with the government).
You don't get the irony of the Madison quote?
Re 'your' data, the problem is that it all exists in the private sector already and IS GROWING in the private sector much more quickly. What do you the big data bandwagon is? I'm much more concerned about a breach of my SSN from Equifax than the US Govt.
Re 'your' data, the problem is that it all exists in the private sector already and IS GROWING in the private sector much more quickly. What do you the big data bandwagon is? I'm much more concerned about a breach of my SSN from Equifax than the US Govt.
Why? Equifax can't put you in jail indefinitely, or use everything you said in the last few years to build a case against you, just because you have a funny name. I get (and share) your concerns about corporations having so much sensitive data, but for now a company's ability to inflict harm (even when they don't mean to) is far less than a government's.
Major can of worms lol. Are you arguing that your concern is that the gov is going to change the record if it decides it doesn't like you and then imprison you?
How about a bank creating fictitious > 10k deposits that they'd have to report to government? Now, the FBI is on your tail (see Eliot Spitzer).
How about a bank creating fictitious > 10k deposits that they'd have to report to government? Now, the FBI is on your tail (see Eliot Spitzer).
Privacy is not even necessarily the issue per se. Data is going to be out there in increasing quantities, and it's naive to think that we can force it all to be private. Obviously some legal controls should be in place to prevent corporate entities from abusing the data they collect, but that's really a secondary issue.
The primary issue is that the government is our representative, and we have never given them the authority to spy on us in this way. Even if all the data were public the government should not be doing mass surveillance to ferret out terrorism. If terrorism were 1000 times worse than it is in the US it would not justify this activity, but given the tiny problem that terrorism actually is in the US, it's shameful how quickly some people are willing to sell out our principles for the false promise of absolute security. These are the stepping stones towards tyranny which are being built in the face of an apathetic public behind the smokescreen of the legend of America's exceptional liberty.
So many people believe "it can't happen here" and just nod along when Obama declares the necessity and level headedness under which this is all occurring, but even if you give them the benefit of the doubt that everyone's intentions are pure and no abuses are occurring at this moment, the apparatus will not be dismantled, and it will only be a matter of time until someone comes into power that does abuse it. It must not be allowed to exist; certainly not in our names and with our tax dollars.
The primary issue is that the government is our representative, and we have never given them the authority to spy on us in this way. Even if all the data were public the government should not be doing mass surveillance to ferret out terrorism. If terrorism were 1000 times worse than it is in the US it would not justify this activity, but given the tiny problem that terrorism actually is in the US, it's shameful how quickly some people are willing to sell out our principles for the false promise of absolute security. These are the stepping stones towards tyranny which are being built in the face of an apathetic public behind the smokescreen of the legend of America's exceptional liberty.
So many people believe "it can't happen here" and just nod along when Obama declares the necessity and level headedness under which this is all occurring, but even if you give them the benefit of the doubt that everyone's intentions are pure and no abuses are occurring at this moment, the apparatus will not be dismantled, and it will only be a matter of time until someone comes into power that does abuse it. It must not be allowed to exist; certainly not in our names and with our tax dollars.
If terrorism were 1000 times worse than it is in the US it would not justify this activity
In light of the fact that the Patriot Act allows this, you are a naive person - it's no big deal but just acknowledge the reality. The comparison to tyranny is absurd. This has been going on for 15 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software) The fact that you don't know that isn't my fault. Get with the times. The question is why are you so naive to act surprised to hear about this? You really think Auschwitz or the Gulag is the next step from where we are now?
In light of the fact that the Patriot Act allows this, you are a naive person - it's no big deal but just acknowledge the reality. The comparison to tyranny is absurd. This has been going on for 15 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software) The fact that you don't know that isn't my fault. Get with the times. The question is why are you so naive to act surprised to hear about this? You really think Auschwitz or the Gulag is the next step from where we are now?
The Patriot Act is a reactionary cowardly piece of legislation. The fact that it is law in no way makes it equally definitive of the nation as the constitution.
I'm not sure why you equate my outrage to ignorance. I can set you up as a complementary straw man by asking why long-term human rights abuses by your government cause you to automatically approve of their actions?
As to Auschwitz, well, that's why I said "stepping stones" not, "next thing you know Obama's going to grow a toothbrush mustache and send the jews off to labor camps". The point is that this kind of unbridled power of global surveillance, supposedly checked through secret courts but which are accountable to no one outside the innermost circles of power is guaranteed to corrupt in the long run. Furthermore, when the tyranny starts, you won't even know about it because it will be done in secret with explicit legal approval. Give your "it can't happen here" attitude I find it incredibly ironic that you would call me naive.
I'm not sure why you equate my outrage to ignorance. I can set you up as a complementary straw man by asking why long-term human rights abuses by your government cause you to automatically approve of their actions?
As to Auschwitz, well, that's why I said "stepping stones" not, "next thing you know Obama's going to grow a toothbrush mustache and send the jews off to labor camps". The point is that this kind of unbridled power of global surveillance, supposedly checked through secret courts but which are accountable to no one outside the innermost circles of power is guaranteed to corrupt in the long run. Furthermore, when the tyranny starts, you won't even know about it because it will be done in secret with explicit legal approval. Give your "it can't happen here" attitude I find it incredibly ironic that you would call me naive.
My point is that, if you perceive that the capabilities of PRISM are new and that the behavior that the NSA has engaged in for 10 years are new and you are outraged by it (which was the point of the original article and I assume is the point of your stepping stone argument), then I think you are naive. This behavior, the FISA courts, etc... are part of the Patriot Act and Carnivore has been known about for > 10 years and is IE3 type technology. I actually probably see the world much more sinisterly than you do (hence the contradiction of the Madison quote). Snowden probably can't get asylum not because of what he has said but the can of worms of what is in his laptop. Oh well....
The fact that you are trying to cast me as an apologist for ' long-term human rights abuses by your government cause you to automatically approve of their actions'; I think the stupidest thing America has ever done is invoke the traditional war-machine (esp drones and block sites) against the Middle East.
The fact that you are trying to cast me as an apologist for ' long-term human rights abuses by your government cause you to automatically approve of their actions'; I think the stupidest thing America has ever done is invoke the traditional war-machine (esp drones and block sites) against the Middle East.
The concern isn't that the government is going to change the record.
The concern is there are so many laws, so vaguely worded, that if they want to imprison you they just have to sift thru your data until they find a match on something. Equifax may have that data, but they can't imprison me with it; read my prior post re the gov't terrorizing (and perhaps imprisoning, the incident isn't over yet) someone just for a dark-humor post on a chat board.
There is no justifiable reason for the gov't to engage on such a constant, pervasive, national "fishing expedition". The consequences are too severe.
The concern is there are so many laws, so vaguely worded, that if they want to imprison you they just have to sift thru your data until they find a match on something. Equifax may have that data, but they can't imprison me with it; read my prior post re the gov't terrorizing (and perhaps imprisoning, the incident isn't over yet) someone just for a dark-humor post on a chat board.
There is no justifiable reason for the gov't to engage on such a constant, pervasive, national "fishing expedition". The consequences are too severe.
You realize that the excample you provide has absolutely nothing to do with what the article is about, PRISM, or my post. A chat board is PUBLIC which is the exact opposite of what PRISM is supposed to be.
Even if on a public chat board, the police shouldn't be sniffing up all your material to use against you. If they're doing sweeping "fishing expeditions" with public content, how much worse is it with private content?
You're talking about public pronouncements being the same as PRISM which shows you just don't really get what this article is about. If you say you're going to do something in a public forum, then you have to live with the consequences. If you don't understand that, good luck in life.
We have more freedom and more ways to talk than ever before.
Yesterday, an acquaintance had her home invaded by police, and all her lawfully owned & registered firearms were confiscated, without a warrant.
Why?
She posted a joke on the Internet.
We may have more ways to talk, but also more reason not to.
Bonus irony (for our international readers): this occurred on the USA's Independence Day, when we declared a national devotion to freedom, an event sparked by gun confiscation (see "Lexington & Concord").
Search "TJIC" to see this incident unfold.
Yesterday, an acquaintance had her home invaded by police, and all her lawfully owned & registered firearms were confiscated, without a warrant.
Why?
She posted a joke on the Internet.
We may have more ways to talk, but also more reason not to.
Bonus irony (for our international readers): this occurred on the USA's Independence Day, when we declared a national devotion to freedom, an event sparked by gun confiscation (see "Lexington & Concord").
Search "TJIC" to see this incident unfold.
I'm not sure what your point is; the story is about PRISM and privacy not about writing jokes on public forums. Local authorities do stupid stuff sometimes.
My point is while We have more freedom and more ways to talk than ever before thanks to PRISM we know those ways to talk are being copied, scoured, and sniffed for content to use against people whom authorities deem targets.
The couple I referred to are upstanding law abiding citizens, but are vocal opponents of the local authorities. Not having any legal reason to shut them up, an obscure dark-humor posting by one of them was discovered and used as a pretext for totalitarian oppressive tactics (break into home without permission or warrant, confiscate lawful personal possessions (worth several months' pay) without adjudicated reason). It's akin to if you made some joke about observing the NSA like it observes you, a dozen armed-and-ready cops broke into your house and confiscated all your computers/phones/etc without a warrant.
The more they know, the more they can act against you when they want to.
ETA: I, like many, hesitate to say certain things on any recordable medium because we have reason to believe everything is recorded (and that which isn't can be derived from metadata). While my example used public data, the practical difference between public & private (chat board vs. PRISM) is becoming moot, and the consequences involving oppressive government acting without warrant is exactly the severity we are concerned about.
The couple I referred to are upstanding law abiding citizens, but are vocal opponents of the local authorities. Not having any legal reason to shut them up, an obscure dark-humor posting by one of them was discovered and used as a pretext for totalitarian oppressive tactics (break into home without permission or warrant, confiscate lawful personal possessions (worth several months' pay) without adjudicated reason). It's akin to if you made some joke about observing the NSA like it observes you, a dozen armed-and-ready cops broke into your house and confiscated all your computers/phones/etc without a warrant.
The more they know, the more they can act against you when they want to.
ETA: I, like many, hesitate to say certain things on any recordable medium because we have reason to believe everything is recorded (and that which isn't can be derived from metadata). While my example used public data, the practical difference between public & private (chat board vs. PRISM) is becoming moot, and the consequences involving oppressive government acting without warrant is exactly the severity we are concerned about.
Would be interested to hear more but that's not at all what PRISM is about which is what my original posting was. There are plenty of news media sources that would like publicize those types of abuses and I suggest that they pursue that.
This sounds like a possible lawsuit against the local PD. As much as I despite our litigious society, sometimes you have to hit them in the pocketbook to teach them a lesson.
I don't think most Americans truly understand what's at risk here. All they can think about is "oh, they'll just monitor my useless chats - no big deal". The author does a pretty good job defining how far they could go, and I don't think most Americans even consider those scenarios, which is why they don't care. Or they do, but "they trust Obama", or they don't believe anything bad from it will happen to them, as if it wouldn't be bad enough if the power was abused against many other people or leaders.
All phones traveling below 20 mph would be excluded on the assumption that they're not driving. All phones traveling faster than 20 mph would be plotted to discern what road they are traveling on and what the speed limit is for that road.
...
I just turn off the phone..
I just turn off the phone..
Until turning your phone off marks you as a 'suspicious person'...
> I just turn off the phone..
Why even buy one?
Of course, your car, laptop, GPS, iPad and watch could all be reporting too...
Then there are the satellites in the sky watching you, planes flying over, fixed cameras, drones......
The list goes on.
Why even buy one?
Of course, your car, laptop, GPS, iPad and watch could all be reporting too...
Then there are the satellites in the sky watching you, planes flying over, fixed cameras, drones......
The list goes on.
With quite a few phones coming with sealed batteries, is it even a reasonable assumption that you've truly turned off the phone?
So stick it in a metal box as well. Every escalation can have a counter. If it can't communicate or pick up signal, its as good as off.
Do dead reckoning with the accelerometer, phone home with your speed later. Or just look at the endpoints of the trip when you take it out of the Faraday bag and calculate average velocity. Or don't try to enforce speed limits through phones, because that doesn't make any sense anyway. Require GPS-enabled governors in all car computers.
If the American people do not understand this, then they will abandon their freedoms and liberty voluntarily, without any outside foreign invasion or attack.
They will fall because of apathy, just like the Romans did.